Is the Church Irrelevant?

[Ben1445]

LOL, well that's just rich. Considering how legalistic you are about everything, I'm assuming that you're involved in some IFB circus somewhere, of which I want no part of.

1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

 

[Ben1445]

Who was the author of Hebrews' target audience? Was Jews who were under Roman persecution and were tempted to go back to animal sacrifices, or was it Christians who were skipping church because they wanted to sleep in on Sunday?

I'm hoping at least one person can be honest about this.

So was he encouraging them to maintain the temple and not forsake their previous system or not?

 

[Ascetic X]

Who was the author of Hebrews' target audience? Was it Jewish believers who were under persecution and were tempted to go back to animal sacrifices, or was it Christians who were skipping church because they wanted to sleep in on Sunday?

I'm hoping at least one person can be honest about this.

Acts 2:46

And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

 

[Ben1445]

Considering how legalistic you are about everything,

I exhorted you to show up to a physical meeting of believers and that makes me a legalist??

What can I say?

 

[Stopgap]

1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

So what? I don't see how gathering in businesses is a genuine form of assembly to begin with. Maybe it works for you; maybe you can overlook the numerous problems that go along with it. Maybe you can chew the meat and spit out the bones, as they say. But it doesn't work for me.

So was he encouraging them to maintain the temple and not forsake their previous system or not?

Yes! It had nothing to do with church attendance as western culture has defined it.

I exhorted you to show up to a physical meeting of believers and that makes me a legalist??

It could potentially make you much worse than that.

I'm not going to say this about you specifically because that would be against the rules, but I have to be brutally honest. Anyone who teaches that gathering in a building is the absolute standard has turned the building into an idol and is therefore lost.

Do with that information what you will.

 

[Stopgap]

Acts 2:46

And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

It was in the temple courts, not in the temple itself. Other translations make that very clear.

 

[Ascetic X]

It was in the temple courts, not in the temple itself. Other translations make that very clear.

Acts 2:46

And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.



The assembling was in the temple and in homes. Where does your assembly meet for worship?

 

[Stopgap]

The assembling was in the temple and in homes. Where does your assembly meet for worship?

Are you first going to acknowledge that your translation of choice might be cause for confusion in this discussion?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Not forsaking the assembly of ourselves together is not necessarily referencing temple worship. Early believers assembled primarily in homes.

Hebrews 10:25

I'm sure they often did meet in homes, not necessarily by choice. But the church in Corinth did meet together on a regular basis. 'When you come together as a church.' ( 1 Cor. 11:18). I assume that they met in a hall somewhere as the Ephesian believers did (Acts 19:9). When they became too large for the hall, they seem to have planted a church in Cenchrea, one of the ports of Corinth (Rom. 16:1).
The idea that all 1st Century churches were exclusively house churches does not commend itself to me. I doubt that many houses were big enough.

 

[Ascetic X]

I'm sure they often did meet in homes, not necessarily by choice. But the church in Corinth did meet together on a regular basis. 'When you come together as a church.' ( 1 Cor. 11:18). I assume that they met in a hall somewhere as the Ephesian believers did (Acts 19:9). When they became too large for the hall, they seem to have planted a church in Cenchrea, one of the ports of Corinth (Rom. 16:1).
The idea that all 1st Century churches were exclusively house churches does not commend itself to me. I doubt that many houses were big enough.

The church was an assembly of called out believers, gathered as a family of God. So it makes sense that they would meet in homes. Homes would be safer than in a hall or a designated church building, as persecution raged.

The church in a city like Ephesus could assemble in several different homes, not necessarily one large facility.

Romans 16

3Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, 4who have risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. 5Greet also the church that meets at their house.




I am not convinced that the lecture hall or school of Tyrannus served as a location for the worship and fellowship of the church assembly. It seems to be a place where Paul gave speeches, possibly training pastors and evangelists.


Acts 19:9

But when some of them stubbornly refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way, Paul took his disciples and left the synagogue to conduct daily discussions in the lecture hall of Tyrannus.

 

[Ben1445]

So what? I don't see how gathering in businesses is a genuine form of assembly to begin with. Maybe it works for you; maybe you can overlook the numerous problems that go along with it. Maybe you can chew the meat and spit out the bones, as they say. But it doesn't work for me.

Galatians 5:15
But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

Yes! It had nothing to do with church attendance as western culture has defined it.

So you insist that western culture defines church by the building? I’ve never seen it and only heard the opposite. But they were still assembling together. They were added to their church in Acts. That means their assembly not their building.

It could potentially make you much worse than that.

Okay?? That was vague and not productive.

I'm not going to say this about you specifically because that would be against the rules, but I have to be brutally honest. Anyone who teaches that gathering in a building is the absolute standard has turned the building into an idol and is therefore lost.

It isn’t the building that I have been advocating for the entire time. It’s where your assembly meets.
And if you all want to stand in the rain, it’s been done before. You won’t be excommunicated.
But church (assembly) is not “a buddy of mine wants to go out for coffee this morning.”

Do with that information what you will.

There is a weird group of people who believe that if you have a building that you are not a church or could be apostate and worshipping your building. Apparently that is where you are. You have become exactly what you say you are bothered by. You are legalistic, or maybe even worse, if you know what that means.
There are still some of us who don’t care about your meeting place just so long as when the rest of your church is meeting you are with them unless it’s not possible.
Paul met believers by the river. You want to meet by a river, go ahead. But don’t kid yourself. Spirit meetings are an invention of your own mind to justify your desire to stay away from people who you don’t like. It sounds like you need to get back into Matthew 5 and consider the “western church” your enemy so that you can love them again.

By your own posts, it is clear that you have really missed the point of an assembly.

 

[Ascetic X]

Galatians 5:15
But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.


So you insist that western culture defines church by the building? I’ve never seen it and only heard the opposite. But they were still assembling together. They were added to their church in Acts. That means their assembly not their building.


Okay?? That was vague and not productive.


It isn’t the building that I have been advocating for the entire time. It’s where your assembly meets.
And if you all want to stand in the rain, it’s been done before. You won’t be excommunicated.
But church (assembly) is not “a buddy of mine wants to go out for coffee this morning.”


There is a weird group of people who believe that if you have a building that you are not a church or could be apostate and worshipping your building. Apparently that is where you are. You have become exactly what you say you are bothered by. You are legalistic, or maybe even worse, if you know what that means.
There are still some of us who don’t care about your meeting place just so long as when the rest of your church is meeting you are with them unless it’s not possible.
Paul met believers by the river. You want to meet by a river, go ahead. But don’t kid yourself. Spirit meetings are an invention of your own mind to justify your desire to stay away from people who you don’t like. It sounds like you need to get back into Matthew 5 and consider the “western church” your enemy so that you can love them again.

By your own posts, it is clear that you have really missed the point of an assembly.

I do not get any indication at all that Stopgap assembles anywhere with Christian believers.

All he does is condemn the church as a building, when nobody says a church is a building. People may point to a building and say that is my church, but they mean that is where my church assembles for worship.

 

[Stopgap]

There is a weird group of people who believe that if you have a building that you are not a church or could be apostate and worshipping your building. Apparently that is where you are.

All he does is condemn the church as a building, when nobody says a church is a building.

Perhaps we're all talking past one another.

I'm not condemning church buildings specifically. What I'm condemning is how tradition in Western culture has defined "the church" as a dedicated building that you go to once a week. I'm condemning the unethical and unscriptural financial practices that go along with being confined to a building. I'm condemning those who would say that regularly attending a building has to be the absolute gold standard.

If you don't care about any of those things, and you are perfectly fine with attending a church building somewhere, that's your prerogative, and I'm not one to tell you to change the way you have fellowship with others. However, there are other forms of fellowship that more closely resemble the examples found in the New Testament that are more suitable for folks like me whose spiritual growth had become hindered by the many issues mentioned above.

Quite frankly, I don't answer to either of you, and it's none of your business which method I choose to follow.

 

[Ascetic X]

Quite frankly, I don't answer to either of you, and it's none of your business which method I choose to follow.

You, like all of us, answer to God.

If it’s none of our business which method you choose, why are you posting so much about your hostility to church buildings, yet not actually explaining your better method for the assembling of believers?

 

[Ascetic X]

I assemble with my brothers and sisters in Christ as the occasion presents itself. This might include coffee shops, public libraries, or online platforms such as this one.

I stopped going to business buildings that call themselves churches. The biblical stance is that if you're a believer, then you're "in church" all the time.

So you assemble with believers in a random manner?

The first century believers met in homes for church services, not random places.

Where does scripture say we are in church all the time?

When I walk to the store by myself, I am in church?


Acts 2:46

And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The church was an assembly of called out believers, gathered as a family of God. So it makes sense that they would meet in homes. Homes would be safer than in a hall or a designated church building, as persecution raged.

The church in a city like Ephesus could assemble in several different homes, not necessarily one large facility.

I expect that they did, but probably, like the church in Corinth, they met together regularly as a body. Paul writes to one church in Ephesus and one church in Corinth, not to lots of tiny ones.

Romans 16

3Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, 4who have risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. 5Greet also the church that meets at their house.

That's fine. Philemon's church met in his house (Philem. 2). Perhaps they both had large houses. I really don't think that one can draw any firm conclusions. The main thing is that they met together. But if the churches were growing at break-neck speed, I doubt that they carried on in houses very long and nor should they have.
The church I attend started meeting in someone's home, but then they moved to a hall of some sort and then managed to build their own building, all of which is great so far as I'm concerned.

I am not convinced that the lecture hall or school of Tyrannus served as a location for the worship and fellowship of the church assembly. It seems to be a place where Paul gave speeches, possibly training pastors and evangelists.

Possibly, but possibly not. Who knows for sure?

 

[Ascetic X]

I expect that they did, but probably, like the church in Corinth, they met together regularly as a body. Paul writes to one church in Ephesus and one church in Corinth, not to lots of tiny ones.

That's fine. Philemon's church met in his house (Philem. 2). Perhaps they both had large houses. I really don't think that one can draw any firm conclusions. The main thing is that they met together. But if the churches were growing at break-neck speed, I doubt that they carried on in houses very long and nor should they have.

The church I attend started meeting in someone's home, but then they moved to a hall of some sort and then managed to build their own building, all of which is great so far as I'm concerned.

I think you are regarding “the church at (city)” as being confined to just one assembly in one facility.

Whereas, I think “the church at (city)” means the total body of believers in a city, which could include many different assemblies meeting in many different homes.

The basic problem is assuming that as church attendance grows, bigger and bigger facilities must be found to contain them all. This gave rise to mega churches with mega ego pastors. In large congregations, people form little cliques, because no one can know everybody else, and the pastor cannot develop personal relationships with individuals, aside from an inner circle.

A pastor can probably only handle about 50 people and really meet their spiritual needs. Adding pastoral staff does not really solve the problem.

Church assemblies seem more family-like and intimate in smaller groups. Jesus did speak to thousands of people at times, but His church was the 12 disciples He had chosen.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think you are regarding “the church at (city)” as being confined to just one assembly in one facility.

You are somewhat right. I set out my views some years ago in a blog post: What is a Church?

Whereas, I think “the church at (city)” means the total body of believers in a city, which could include many different assemblies meeting in many different homes.

You have a problem with a church in a big city like Corinth, Rome or Ephesus. Paul wrote to a single church. He did not expect the recipients to email his letters to dozens of ministers of home groups! I do not deny that the churches in those cities may have been divided up into home groups, but it seems to me that once a month or so they assembled as a church, hiring a hall or something ( 1 Cor. 11:18).

The basic problem is assuming that as church attendance grows, bigger and bigger facilities must be found to contain them all. This gave rise to mega churches with mega ego pastors. In large congregations, people form little cliques, because no one can know everybody else, and the pastor cannot develop personal relationships with individuals, aside from an inner circle.

A pastor can probably only handle about 50 people and really meet their spiritual needs. Adding pastoral staff does not really solve the problem.

Church assemblies seem more family-like and intimate in smaller groups. Jesus did speak to thousands of people at times, but His church was the 12 disciples He had chosen.

I tend to agree about large churches - I much prefer small ones - but we do not for that reason turn people away. That is a species of Hyper-Calvinism:
"Us four;
No more;
Shut the door!"
My own church's building is quite small and we have reached capacity at around 65-70. So we are planting a new church in the next town. I am part of the plant and it's very exciting.

 

[Stopgap]

If it’s none of our business which method you choose, why are you posting so much about your hostility to church buildings, yet not actually explaining your better method for the assembling of believers?

As far as I can tell, most church buildings operate in such a way that has deviated from the New Testament model, so yes, going back to basics was good start.

So you assemble with believers in a random manner?

I might randomly meet professing believers as I go about my day, but obviously arrangements are made to devote time to Bible study, fellowship, singing hymns, etc.

Where does scripture say we are in church all the time?

1 Corinthians 12:27 (NASB)
Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it.

When I walk to the store by myself, I am in church?

If you properly understand that "the church" is synonymous with the body of Christ, then yes. Now, fellowshipping with other members within the body is a separate thing, and as I said, that can happen in various ways that are outlined in the NT.