Reason for Church Services

[J.A. Perez]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

We were talking about this today with some friends. It seems that homes in the early church were known as a gathering place for believers, and seemed to be open to traveling ministers, and believers alike. I wonder how this could work in today's culture as well.

Interesting thought,
Unfortunately it would be unethical. I would of loved to have had men like G.T. Haywood, A. Glass, J.E. Rhode J. Duke, D. Grey, A.L. Lyle, V. Shoemake, C.P. Kilgore, O. Vouga, O. Hughes, Verbal Bean, C. Shew, M. Golder, B. Yandris, R.C. Cavanes, C. Ballestero, L. Reynolds, H. Shearer, M. Baughman, S.L. Wise, F. Muncey, I.H. Terry, I. Baxter Sr., V.A. Guidroz, M. Burr, J. Davis, H. Davis, M.D. Treece, J. Meade, R. Evans, A.O. Holmes, L.E. Westberg, C.J. Haney, T.W. Barnes, V. Morton, J.T. Bass, F. Ewart, R.E. Johnson, J. Alvear Sr., E.L. Holly, T. Alexander, E.L. Freeman, B. Garrett, C.H. Webb, M. Hicks, O.F. Fauss, and A.D. Urshan to feel like they could have just showed up at the 'ol Perez house for some Beans, Cornbread and piano singing time around the fireplace. (Boy wouldn't that be a line-up to hear at conference!)

Ethics, for better or for worse, till death due us part.

Instead I'll just read their books listen to them preach and wait till I get to heaven to ask all the questions I've got, after the first million years of talking to Jesus I might get around to it.

Wont that be a time,
J.A. Perez

[Praxeas]

What about unbelievers?

1Co 14:22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers.
1Co 14:23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

What about unbelievers?

1Co 14:22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers.
1Co 14:23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?

No comment? If these were house churches...how did unbelievers know about these meetings and walk in?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No comment? If these were house churches...how did unbelievers know about these meetings and walk in?

I doubt these are unbelievers who just walk in off the street with no connection whatsoever. Most likely someone who had been invited to come by a member, or family member. Although, if a meeting was getting down with the Holy Ghost I can see the neighbors or even passers-by stopping in and asking "What meaneth this?"

Besides, in THAT day, the church was busy "out there" causing an uproar and turning the whole world upside down. So word gets around fast just like with Jesus and people show up demanding to know what's going on.

But with all that, the Bible never describes a church meeting as geared toward winning the lost or focusingon "seekers". Evangelism was outreach oriented, usually public. Once converted, or at the very least clearly identified as "convert material" ie highly interested and open to the gospel, they might come and see what it's all about.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I doubt these are unbelievers who just walk in off the street with no connection whatsoever. Most likely someone who had been invited to come by a member, or family member. Although, if a meeting was getting down with the Holy Ghost I can see the neighbors or even passers-by stopping in and asking "What meaneth this?"
Besides, in THAT day, the church was busy "out there" causing an uproar and turning the whole world upside down. So word gets around fast just like with Jesus and people show up demanding to know what's going on.
But with all that, the Bible never describes a church meeting as geared toward winning the lost or focusingon "seekers". Evangelism was outreach oriented, usually public. Once converted, or at the very least clearly identified as "convert material" ie highly interested and open to the gospel, they might come and see what it's all about.

My experience has been that if I have been a "true" witness, people will ask me where I fellowship (go to church). I never invite people to "church": I invite them to know the Lord Jesus.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by J.A. Perez

Mike, Word,
Some people (for lack of a better word lay-saint) are not mature enough in the Lord to know that there are differences in beliefs even among Good men and women. And they will take a little thing that someone else believes or says and divide, abstain, or not fellowship, instead of excepting our minor differences for the sake of unity. For instance I take my shoes off in my in-laws house because of their cultural tradition, in my house I wear shoes, but I better not bring muddy boots in and leave tracks all over the tiles. The reasoning is I respect my in-laws convictions, and I expect them to do the same at my house. However neither of us will allow the extreme of muddy boots in the house. The same is for the traditions of the various elders we all clan around. A newer saint might benefit by the influence of an elder like Haywood or Bean but they might not understand the whys and why not's of their own local assembly they belong, and not be able to Draw the lines in Perfect(Pleasant) Places. I've even seen this in some seasoned saints as well. Not that I'm mature but God has dealt with me on these things. The example above can be used in the place of Pre- or Post Trib rapture like my great, great uncle M. Baughman taught, and many Good men loved to have him in their pulpits. But they both would never except Preterism. These are the things why, not because it might not be good its because of the lack of stability and understanding in us.
Thus ethics is a protection we use to prevent confusion and provide safety.

Hope that was acceptable,
J.A. Perez

Originally Posted by J.A. Perez

P.S.
This is the reason this forum is so dangerous. Though many in here are honest and are just trying to help. Our varried opinions can cause confusion in an assembly. By a person who hears a teaching differently may cause that unstable or unlearned person to attend a service and start to look at their pastor wrong or start question structure in the arrangement in government, or the particular stand that man is making about " a bean Patch." To us it may be a poiness bean patch but for you it may have big problems with people in your church that you don't know about. That your pastor has had to deal with you about or about others. Landmarks aren't always boarders for us as limits they are so set to mark the line the coyotes can't cross.
With questions about ethics preachers on this furum know there limits. But that's how the devil works to see discord amongst brethren. Because we don't know who each other really are, just a picture with a word or name.
And let me tell you I can tell if my kids been hanging around the wrong kids, it shows up sometimes in their additude or speech. "Evil communication corrupts good manners."

Again, your expression of this thought about ethics belies the fact that you truly believe the pastor can set up laws and boundaries per his own ideas, and that those in his church are expected to comply.

But if you would stop and consider the fact that leadership in the church is to lead by example as servants unto the Lord, and couple this with the teaching of Jesus (Mark 10:42-45) that the disciples were not to be as Lord's over the people, then you realize this is a false teaching, and understanding.

You don't have to micromanage God's people to have them be saved. You teach them principles from the Word of God, and teach them to be led of the Spirit in application. If the spirit cannot teach people how to live a godly, holy life, how do you expect a man's laws to be able to do something the spirit cannot?

[shazeep]

amen

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Again, your expression of this thought about ethics belies the fact that you truly believe the pastor can set up laws and boundaries per his own ideas, and that those in his church are expected to comply.

But if you would stop and consider the fact that leadership in the church is to lead by example as servants unto the Lord, and couple this with the teaching of Jesus (Mark 10:42-45) that the disciples were not to be as Lord's over the people, then you realize this is a false teaching, and understanding.

You don't have to micromanage God's people to have them be saved. You teach them principles from the Word of God, and teach them to be led of the Spirit in application. If the spirit cannot teach people how to live a godly, holy life, how do you expect a man's laws to be able to do something the spirit cannot?

and amen!

[J.A. Perez]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Again, your expression of this thought about ethics belies the fact that you truly believe the pastor can set up laws and boundaries per his own ideas, and that those in his church are expected to comply.

But if you would stop and consider the fact that leadership in the church is to lead by example as servants unto the Lord, and couple this with the teaching of Jesus (Mark 10:42-45) that the disciples were not to be as Lord's over the people, then you realize this is a false teaching, and understanding.

You don't have to micromanage God's people to have them be saved. You teach them principles from the Word of God, and teach them to be led of the Spirit in application. If the spirit cannot teach people how to live a godly, holy life, how do you expect a man's laws to be able to do something the spirit cannot?

Ma'am,
Just like in every company there is a chain of command. The church of God is no different.

My children do not have the wisdom or the experience to make good life choices even though my teenagers will tell you different. So it is in the church there are different levels of wisdom and experience. I can only suppose that there are no rules in your house in regard to your children and no limits?

I believe that there are micro managers in the churches of God and I am not advocating that. But I also believe that Good sincere men are capable of making mistakes and maybe even bad judgment. That does not excuse the fact that they are just trying to convey a safety attitude and culture that most people don't naturally have, especially when it comes to a group of any size. We all come from varied cultures and ethnicities.

I’m sure that even the house churches have rules for things they won’t accept, Depending on their level of tolerance. If a guy came in with mud on his boots, who wouldn’t say something at the door?

Micro managing is not ever right, but your definition could be skewed because you are a woman. And women naturally are the weaker vessel and have had problems with authority since the garden. Try to compose yourself when typing it can be misunderstood.


Sincerely,
J.A. Perez

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

My experience has been that if I have been a "true" witness, people will ask me where I fellowship (go to church). I never invite people to "church": I invite them to know the Lord Jesus.

And it is in this kind of personal way that you can lead people to the Lord, putting their focus on him, and encouraging them in the way of the gospel, and when they have been persuaded that they want to follow Jesus, it would be then you could introduce them to the body of believers.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by J.A. Perez

Interesting thought,
Unfortunately it would be unethical. I would of loved to have had men like G.T. Haywood, A. Glass, J.E. Rhode J. Duke, D. Grey, A.L. Lyle, V. Shoemake, C.P. Kilgore, O. Vouga, O. Hughes, Verbal Bean, C. Shew, M. Golder, B. Yandris, R.C. Cavanes, C. Ballestero, L. Reynolds, H. Shearer, M. Baughman, S.L. Wise, F. Muncey, I.H. Terry, I. Baxter Sr., V.A. Guidroz, M. Burr, J. Davis, H. Davis, M.D. Treece, J. Meade, R. Evans, A.O. Holmes, L.E. Westberg, C.J. Haney, T.W. Barnes, V. Morton, J.T. Bass, F. Ewart, R.E. Johnson, J. Alvear Sr., E.L. Holly, T. Alexander, E.L. Freeman, B. Garrett, C.H. Webb, M. Hicks, O.F. Fauss, and A.D. Urshan to feel like they could have just showed up at the 'ol Perez house for some Beans, Cornbread and piano singing time around the fireplace. (Boy wouldn't that be a line-up to hear at conference!)

Ethics, for better or for worse, till death due us part.

Instead I'll just read their books listen to them preach and wait till I get to heaven to ask all the questions I've got, after the first million years of talking to Jesus I might get around to it.

Wont that be a time,
J.A. Perez

I dont get it. What do you mean by it would be unethical? What would be?