The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum House Church?

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Maybe their first meeting should be naming leaders. After that five minutes is up, they can move on w/ their meeting.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Five minutes? If anyone takes a mere five minutes to decide on spiritual leaders, either the choices are blazingly clear, or else the choosers have not thought it out very well!

In my opinion much of our methodology in the church over the centuries has been a result of necessity. i.e. the unbelievable growth in the house church movement in China is a result of the Government's attempt to control the church through it's "Three self" movement. One of the leaders was Watchman Nee (later died in a Communist prison). The "house-movement" up to this point in the U.S. is not so motivated. It very likely will be, in the not too distant future. Once we reach the point where it is illegal to preach the whole council of God, that will of necessity be the next step. Canada is probably closer to that point than are we, but we will follow if America's world view continues it's journey "Slouching towards Gamorrah" as Robert Bork so accurately it.<br><br>One question: Exactly what is "Replacement Theology". What is the position on it by those holding Reformation Theology.<br><br>thanks for any enlightment<br><br>Gil

Yes, I imagine the choice will be amazingly clear. I was being a little sly though. Really, it may take the whole time - maybe even two. And I'm not downplaying the benefit of outside help in this situation. I'm just saying don't wait for the perfect leader to come along. Get on w/ the fellowship and put men and women of noble character in the positions they desire to be in and deserve to be in.

Admittedly, it may take more than five minutes. My point is there's no reason to wait for a Paul or Timothy to come along before they start meeting together. And the priesthood of all believers would enable anyone to administer the sacraments. Seriously, it seemed as though this person who is desiring dynamic, biblical fellowship might put that in order to wait for the perfect leader to come along and bless their meetings and lead them into all truth. God is going to bless their righteous desires, and I would hate to see someone balk at fellowship waiting for the "ordained" to come and bless their time. As far as women in leadership go - biblically speaking, they should not have authority over any man in the church. That doesn't necessarily mean they can't hold any office in the church. They can appoint a woman as the head teacher of women. Beyond that, I can't say there's much place in church offices for women to serve as leaders. With that said, men need to step up and take their positions as God has called them to. If that doesn't happen then we're bound to see a lot of Joyce Meyers out there in every church movement.

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Seriously, it seemed as though this person who is desiring dynamic, biblical fellowship might put that in order to wait for the perfect leader to come along and bless their meetings and lead them into all truth.</font><hr></blockquote><p>newman21,<br><br>I "sense" that you make no distinction between "fellowship" and "corporate worship"; i.e., the official gathering of the saints for the purpose of worship. I also suspect that we would differ in our respective definitions of "worship". That being set aside for the moment and perhaps continued in a separate thread, I see no prohibition against a group of believers meeting in a home for the purpose of fellowship and mutual edification. However, this informal meeting cannot be equated as being synonymous with the corporate gathering of saints on the Lord's Day where an appointed (ordained) man expounds the Word of God and administers the sacraments. I believe, quite simply at this point, that Paul's instructions are clear enough that there are to be men, aka: Elders, who are to hold that office and who are to be responsible for shepherding the flock, etc.<blockquote>Ephesians 4:11-16 (ASV) "And he [Christ] gave some [to be] apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ: till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a fullgrown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we may be no longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of error; but speaking truth in love, we may grow up in all things into him, who is the head, [even] Christ; from whom all the body fitly framed and knit together through that which every joint supplieth, according to the working in [due] measure of each several part, maketh the increase of the body unto the building up of itself in love. (see also: Acts 20:28; Phil 1:1; 1Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:7-9; Heb 13:17)</blockquote>Can there be any doubt that there is a biblical prescription for the appointing of office-bearers, Elders and Deacons, who are to meet specific qualifications and who are responsible for the oversight of the "flock"? Such men are thus responsible for the preaching of the Word, the administration of the sacraments and church discipline. I would suggest that they cannot be so easily discerned in a few minutes or even hours or days, but these men must be discerned over a period of time which would allow others to see their character in practice and test their doctrine.<br><br>In His Grace,

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] I would suggest that they cannot be so easily discerned in a few minutes or even hours or days, but these men must be discerned over a period of time which would allow others to see their character in practice and test their doctrine.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Indeed, as is Paul's instruction to Pastor Timothy:<br><br>1 Timothy 5:22 Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people's sins; keep yourself pure.<br><br><br>~Jason<br><br>

Hi,<br><br>I think that if I were in a situatuion like yours with no Reformed churches in my area, I would contact the Presbytery (or Association, or District, whatever they might call their geographical areas) of a couple of reputable Reformed denominations and ask about starting a mission church in your area.<br><br>I believe the PCA and OPC both have web sites with "Presbytery Maps" and contact information for the clerk of each presbytery in their denomination.<br><br>A house church without biblically ordained elders would only be a substitute for a "real" church. Members of house churches that have no biblical government and courts, etc., mis out on the benefits of "the keys of the kingdom" and the sustaining grace of the sacraments.<br><br>Soli Deo Gloria,<br>Robin