We Don't Do Sermons

[walla299]

6 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

Thanks for your interest in this thread, Patriot2018. I respectfully submit that the false teaching in focus is that Home fellowships are unbiblical. I recall coming across a Youtube video of "a sermon" from "a pulpit" before "an audience" who where being treated to a list of reasons why Home fellowships  were unbiblical. There was nothing that could be validated in Scripture and the rant was evidence of the error known as "heavy shepherding" plus the fear of losing tithes.

Home fellowships, even home churches, are not unbiblical. The lack of authority structure you advocate is unbiblical. No one here has a problem with home fellowships or churches, only the lack of a biblical authority structure under your system you call a "church." Dodge the issue all you like, but it keeps coming back up.

[Michael37]

4 hours ago, Cobalt1959 said:

So . . . because the word "house" is in the text, we are supposed to believe that the only place church can be held is a house?

Woa there Cobalt1959. Respectfully, I am not persuaded of that myself let alone trying to persuade others of it. 

Gauis was host to Paul and to the whole ekklesia, meaning the meetings were held in the house of Gaius where Paul was also staying. (Romans 16:23) The gatherings in this place would have been regular, intimate and interactive.

In China it is difficult for genuine Christians to meet in public places because such meetings have to be sanctioned and censored by the government. House "churches" are illegal unless registered and compliant with the Chinese government. That didn't stop Watchman Nee did it.   

[Michael37]

9 minutes ago, walla299 said:

The lack of authority structure you advocate is unbiblical.

Hi again, walla299. Respectfully, I am not advocating anything unbiblical. NZ is not a police state, so as long as we don't infringe parking laws or building warrants we are being good Christians. We prefer our meetings to be small, 8 people is optimum for intimate fellowship and edification around the Scriptures prior to breaking bread together in a shared meal, just like Jesus and His disciples. We always remember His body broken and His blood shed for us, and so proclaim His death until His coming again.

If groups get too big they simply split, but their is no rigid rule about who must go where, and the Lord always provides as much structure, tissue, and lifeblood as His body needs , such is our level of faith. Too much structure in a body is detrimental.

The Lord Himself has shown many, many of His saints that some false teaching "heavy shepherds" have turned "accountability" into their idol similar to the Pharisees and their legalism.

[walla299]

2 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

Hi again, walla299. Respectfully, I am not advocating anything unbiblical. NZ is not a police state, so as long as we don't infringe parking laws or building warrants we are being good Christians. We prefer our meetings to be small, 8 people is optimum for intimate fellowship and edification around the Scriptures prior to breaking bread together in a shared meal, just like Jesus and His disciples. We always remember His body broken and His blood shed for us, and so proclaim His death until His coming again.

If groups get too big they simply split, but their is no rigid rule about who must go where, and the Lord always provides as much structure, tissue, and lifeblood as His body needs , such is our level of faith. Too much structure in a body is detrimental.

The Lord Himself has shown many, many of His saints that some false teaching "heavy shepherds" have turned "accountability" into their idol similar to the Pharisees and their legalism.

That's all nice and "feel good" and everything, but you're still not addressing the unbiblical lack of authority in your "church." Paul is really clear on this in 1 Timothy and elsewhere in the NT.

[Michael37]

43 minutes ago, Sojourner414 said:

Since you continue to resist the clear teaching of Scripture, then what category does that put you into then?

You seem sure I am resisting the clear teaching of Scripture, but many try to get a speck out of another's eye while they have a lumber yard in their own. 

[walla299]

11 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

You seem sure I am resisting the clear teaching of Scripture, but many try to get a speck out of another's eye while they have a lumber yard in their own. 

I'm resisting all right. I'm resisting the so-called teaching that goes against what the NT teaches.

Resorting to insults won't fix the problem.

[Michael37]

3 minutes ago, walla299 said:

That's all nice and "feel good" and everything, but you're still not addressing the unbiblical lack of authority in your "church." Paul is really clear on this in 1 Timothy and elsewhere in the NT.

There is no lack of anything, such is the Lord's blessing. The anti-home fellowship brigade is in error.

Have you researched the origins of your demonination and local ekklesia? I would be interested to know of them.

Most denominations are break-aways and many start in someone's home. The Asuza Street Revival began in a home and led to many being blessed.

From Azusa Street Revival

Quote

 

Seymour arrived in Los Angeles on February 22, 1906,^[9][10][11] and within two days was preaching at Julia Hutchins' church at the corner of Ninth Street and Santa Fe Avenue.^[7] During his first sermon, he preached that speaking in tongues was the first biblical evidence of the inevitable infilling in the Holy Spirit.^[12] On the following Sunday, March 4, he returned to the church and found that Hutchins had padlocked the door.^[13] Elders of the church rejected Seymour's teaching, primarily because he had not yet experienced the blessing about which he was preaching.^[6] Condemnation of his message also came from the Holiness Church Association of Southern California with which the church had affiliation.^[8] However, not all members of Hutchins' church rejected Seymour's preaching. He was invited to stay in the home of congregation member Edward S. Lee, and he began to hold Bible studies and prayer meetings there.^[14]

 

Seymour and his wife, Jennie

 

House on Bonnie Brae Street

Seymour and his small group of new followers soon relocated to the home of Richard and Ruth Asberry at 216 North Bonnie Brae Street.^[10] White families from local holiness churches began to attend as well. The group would get together regularly and pray to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

 

 

[walla299]

4 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

There is no lack of anything, such is the Lord's blessing. The anti-home fellowship brigade is in error.

Have you researched the origins of your demonination and local ekklesia? I would be interested to know of them.

Most denominations are break-aways and many start in someone's home. The Asuza Street Revival began in a home and led to many being blessed.

Again: Its not about where the believers meet. A lack of authority and accountability goes against what is taught in the NT. How about we talk about that?  Once more: Its not about where the believers meet.

[Michael37]

1 minute ago, walla299 said:

Again: Its not about where the believers meet. A lack of authority and accountability goes against what is taught in the NT. How about we talk about that?  Once more: Its not about where the believers meet.

The fallacy of composition you present is that home-fellowships have a lack of authority and accountability because they are home-fellowships. This is also known as the fallacy of circular reasoning. 

[walla299]

Just now, Michael37 said:

The fallacy of composition you present is that home-fellowships have a lack of authority and accountability because they are home-fellowships. This is also known as the fallacy of circular reasoning. 

Home churches/fellowships can have authority and accountability. They had that in the first century churches, which were house churches. Not a fallacy at all. Paul and the other apostles appointed elders, etc. in the churches they planted. Sorry. Wrong again. Have a nice day.