Verses Freebirds ignore or misunderstand when reading their Bibles.

[Smellin Coffee]

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

So you are on the 'house church' side?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

So you are on the 'house church' side?

What does this verse have to do with proving the size of an ekklesia?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

So you are on the 'house church' side?

What does this verse have to do with proving the size of an ekklesia?

I wasn't debating. I was asking. I know some get on rsc2a's case for his house church. I don't recall if you are one of them. Just wondering your personal opinion.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I wasn't debating. I was asking. I know some get on rsc2a's case for his house church. I don't recall if you are one of them. Just wondering your personal opinion.

Mea culpa, I didn't think you were asking, but rather telling.

I'm not generally a house-church proponent, though I have no problem with that model so long as it doesn't intentionally limit itself to a certain size and it seeks to do the work of the ministry.  Where I am a bit more guarded against some of the house-church philosophy is the animosity and bias generated against traditional church models by folk like Frank Viola.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I wasn't debating. I was asking. I know some get on rsc2a's case for his house church. I don't recall if you are one of them. Just wondering your personal opinion.

Mea culpa, I didn't think you were asking, but rather telling.

I'm not generally a house-church proponent, though I have no problem with that model so long as it doesn't intentionally limit itself to a certain size and it seeks to do the work of the ministry.  Where I am a bit more guarded against some of the house-church philosophy is the animosity and bias generated against traditional church models by folk like Frank Viola.

What's wrong with limiting it to a certain size, if that's the most effective way to achieve mutual edification? 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I wasn't debating. I was asking. I know some get on rsc2a's case for his house church. I don't recall if you are one of them. Just wondering your personal opinion.

Mea culpa, I didn't think you were asking, but rather telling.

I'm not generally a house-church proponent, though I have no problem with that model so long as it doesn't intentionally limit itself to a certain size and it seeks to do the work of the ministry.  Where I am a bit more guarded against some of the house-church philosophy is the animosity and bias generated against traditional church models by folk like Frank Viola.

Thanks for the explanation.

I know these forums are designed for debate so sometimes questions can come across with that assumption.

 

[ALAYMAN]

What's wrong with limiting it to a certain size, if that's the most effective way to achieve mutual edification?

As long as the process of evangelization and discipleship is occurring, in theory, nothing.  But practically speaking, if a small house-church is doing this and being blessed to see people come to Christ I don't see how it won't outgrow the model rather quickly.

 

[rsc2a]

What's wrong with limiting it to a certain size, if that's the most effective way to achieve mutual edification?

As long as the process of evangelization and discipleship is occurring, in theory, nothing.  But practically speaking, if a small house-church is doing this and being blessed to see people come to Christ I don't see how it won't outgrow the model rather quickly.

It would break off into other smaller churches so they could more effectively reach into their communities. It's not really that complicated.

 

[ALAYMAN]

It would break off into other smaller churches so they could more effectively reach into their communities. It's not really that complicated.

Theoretically doable.  Practically, the likelihood of that many elders and pastors being culled from the process prior to the number of converts exceeding the small-venue model, well, I'm skeptical.

 

[rsc2a]

It would break off into other smaller churches so they could more effectively reach into their communities. It's not really that complicated.

Theoretically doable.  Practically, the likelihood of that many elders and pastors being culled from the process prior to the number of converts exceeding the small-venue model, well, I'm skeptical.

That's because the traditional church model doesn't allow for it. You have one or two guys take a dozen or so people under their wings and diligently mentor them, and you could teach and train a stable of leaders that are all waiting to race. (See also:Jesus.)

Instead you often have a guy who feels responsible for teaching the entire congregation, and you have teaching that stays shallow and elementary, meaning no one else is being trained. It also explains the Bible college idea where the churches have given up their responsibility to train the future leaders and assigned it to another group.

 

[ALAYMAN]

It would break off into other smaller churches so they could more effectively reach into their communities. It's not really that complicated.

Theoretically doable.  Practically, the likelihood of that many elders and pastors being culled from the process prior to the number of converts exceeding the small-venue model, well, I'm skeptical.

That's because the traditional church model doesn't allow for it. You have one or two guys take a dozen or so people under their wings and diligently mentor them, and you could teach and train a stable of leaders that are all waiting to race. (See also:Jesus.)

Instead you often have a guy who feels responsible for teaching the entire congregation, and you have teaching that stays shallow and elementary, meaning no one else is being trained. It also explains the Bible college idea where the churches have given up their responsibility to train the future leaders and assigned it to another group.

Christ took three years (and Peter still showed his novice nature, so a bit more than three years for him).  You're not Jesus, but maybe you can do magic.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

What's wrong with limiting it to a certain size, if that's the most effective way to achieve mutual edification?

As long as the process of evangelization and discipleship is occurring, in theory, nothing.  But practically speaking, if a small house-church is doing this and being blessed to see people come to Christ I don't see how it won't outgrow the model rather quickly.

Discipleship is one of the goals of an assembly of believers.  But it is not the job of the assembly of believers to evangelize.  That's a separate calling and duty.  If an assembly of believers wants to evangelize as a group, fine.  But that's not what assembling is about. 

You do realize there is such a thing as more than one house, right?  There's no law that says if a group grows, it must continue to meet in one place.  Quite the contrary, if growth starts to eat into the purpose of mutual edification, I would recommend any group split up into smaller groups. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Discipleship is one of the goals of an assembly of believers.  But it is not the job of the assembly of believers to evangelize.  That's a separate calling and duty.  If an assembly of believers wants to evangelize as a group, fine.  But that's not what assembling is about. 

In the scenario you describe, rather than quibbling with the idea of whether the church or the individual was given the responsibility to evangelize, I'd as where those new converts are directed for discipleship and to be taught the word?

You do realize there is such a thing as more than one house, right?

Yes, and though the physical space could be a limiting factor (per my theory/model) the real limiting agent is the capacity to have elders equipped to train/teach in a variety of venues.

 

[rsc2a]

What's wrong with limiting it to a certain size, if that's the most effective way to achieve mutual edification?

As long as the process of evangelization and discipleship is occurring, in theory, nothing.  But practically speaking, if a small house-church is doing this and being blessed to see people come to Christ I don't see how it won't outgrow the model rather quickly.

Discipleship is one of the goals of an assembly of believers.  But it is not the job of the assembly of believers to evangelize.  That's a separate calling and duty.  If an assembly of believers wants to evangelize as a group, fine.  But that's not what assembling is about. 

Like I said in another thread...

"a practice that would make little sense if one's understanding of the identity and purpose of the church were more in line with what Scripture teaches".

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Discipleship is one of the goals of an assembly of believers.  But it is not the job of the assembly of believers to evangelize.  That's a separate calling and duty.  If an assembly of believers wants to evangelize as a group, fine.  But that's not what assembling is about. 

In the scenario you describe, rather than quibbling with the idea of whether the church or the individual was given the responsibility to evangelize, I'd as where those new converts are directed for discipleship and to be taught the word?

It depends on how you approach discipleship.  Meeting together is a form of discipleship.  Or elders can meet with young Christians individually.  I don't see what that has to do with the price of tea in China. 

You do realize there is such a thing as more than one house, right?

Yes, and though the physical space could be a limiting factor (per my theory/model) the real limiting agent is the capacity to have elders equipped to train/teach in a variety of venues.

You're still thinking that as a group grows, it MUST continue to meet as ONE group.  Not even traditional churches have that "law".  That's one reason why large "churches" have a 9:00AM service and a 11:30AM service.  And even then the traditional church does not provide mutual edification, which is what assembling is all about.  So they fail at their purpose even after having accommodated two groups. 

You could split a growing home assembly into two smaller home assemblies, and maintain the mutual edification that way.  Call it the 9:00AM group and the 11:30AM group, if it makes you feel more traditional. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Discipleship is one of the goals of an assembly of believers.  But it is not the job of the assembly of believers to evangelize.  That's a separate calling and duty.  If an assembly of believers wants to evangelize as a group, fine.  But that's not what assembling is about. 

In the scenario you describe, rather than quibbling with the idea of whether the church or the individual was given the responsibility to evangelize, I'd as where those new converts are directed for discipleship and to be taught the word?

It depends on how you approach discipleship.  Meeting together is a form of discipleship.  Or elders can meet with young Christians individually.  I don't see what that has to do with the price of tea in China. 

You do realize there is such a thing as more than one house, right?

Yes, and though the physical space could be a limiting factor (per my theory/model) the real limiting agent is the capacity to have elders equipped to train/teach in a variety of venues.

You're still thinking that as a group grows, it MUST continue to meet as ONE group.  Not even traditional churches have that "law".  That's one reason why large "churches" have a 9:00AM service and a 11:30AM service.  And even then the traditional church does not provide mutual edification, which is what assembling is all about.  So they fail at their purpose even after having accommodated two groups. 

You could split a growing home assembly into two smaller home assemblies, and maintain the mutual edification that way.  Call it the 9:00AM group and the 11:30AM group, if it makes you feel more traditional.

Again, as the number of converts grow disproportionately to the limited space your model cannot accommodate.  Individual meetings with people also robs them of corporate fellowship.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Discipleship is one of the goals of an assembly of believers.  But it is not the job of the assembly of believers to evangelize.  That's a separate calling and duty.  If an assembly of believers wants to evangelize as a group, fine.  But that's not what assembling is about. 

In the scenario you describe, rather than quibbling with the idea of whether the church or the individual was given the responsibility to evangelize, I'd as where those new converts are directed for discipleship and to be taught the word?

It depends on how you approach discipleship.  Meeting together is a form of discipleship.  Or elders can meet with young Christians individually.  I don't see what that has to do with the price of tea in China. 

You do realize there is such a thing as more than one house, right?

Yes, and though the physical space could be a limiting factor (per my theory/model) the real limiting agent is the capacity to have elders equipped to train/teach in a variety of venues.

You're still thinking that as a group grows, it MUST continue to meet as ONE group.  Not even traditional churches have that "law".  That's one reason why large "churches" have a 9:00AM service and a 11:30AM service.  And even then the traditional church does not provide mutual edification, which is what assembling is all about.  So they fail at their purpose even after having accommodated two groups. 

You could split a growing home assembly into two smaller home assemblies, and maintain the mutual edification that way.  Call it the 9:00AM group and the 11:30AM group, if it makes you feel more traditional.

Again, as the number of converts grow disproportionately to the limited space your model cannot accommodate.  Individual meetings with people also robs them of corporate fellowship.

There's no point in discussing this with you if you're going to continue making up rules that don't exist.  Who said having individual meetings means you don't assemble in a home with others? 

So far, you've added two rules/assumptions to this discussion: 

1. As an assembly grows, it must continue to meet in the same place.
2. If you have individual meetings for discipleship, you can't also meet as a group in a home assembly. 

Want to add any more absurd rules/assumptions?  I'm sure you will, since you have no real argument for contemporary "church"models and against home assemblies.

 

[ALAYMAN]

There's no point in discussing this with you if you're going to continue making up rules that don't exist.  Who said having individual meetings means you don't assemble in a home with others? 

So far, you've added two rules/assumptions to this discussion: 

1. As an assembly grows, it must continue to meet in the same place.
2. If you have individual meetings for discipleship, you can't also meet as a group in a home assembly. 

Want to add any more absurd rules/assumptions?  I'm sure you will, since you have no real argument for contemporary "church"models and against home assemblies.

I'll be glad to add as much snark as you like, but as I've said, that's not my preference but rather your call.

I'm not making rules or laws, first of all.  I've already said this is a matter of practicality, which clearly states that this is not a matter of dogma.  Second, I believe preaching the Bible is central to worship, which is a hallmark of evangelical thought for millennia.  As such, your "meetings" are outside the ideal model given the practical limitation put on a growing congregation (and a growing congregation ought to be a goal of your mutual edification).

 

[ALAYMAN]

Matthew 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

 

[Recovering IFB]

So are you just indiscriminately picking out verses, like this one or are you going to exegete each one and point out the errors of the freebird movement?. How are you picking these? Is your kid pulling them out of the Bible and you run with it? Are just blindly opening the Scriptures and just pointing to a passage? What is it?
Enquiring minds want to know!