House church or excuse?

[good samaritan]

Buildings are just conveniences, but if we enjoy having those conveniences then we should do our fair share.

[Aquila]

The majority of Americans who identify as Christians don't regularly attend a traditional church. Most also do not fully identify with a traditional denomination. Most do read devotionally, tune into Christian broadcasting, listen to Christian music, worship, talk about God, and even enjoy hanging out with other Christians in their family, at the work place, or in their neighborhoods. Essentially... the majority of Americans who identify as being Christians are unorganized house churchers.

Excuse? No. Kingdom? Yes.

[good samaritan]

We must be born again into the kingdom of God. Simply professing to be Christian isn't enough. It seems the early church was called Christians by outsiders and not self proclamation. It is a mark against this nation that so many profess Jesus while holding the truth in unrighteousness. You cannot be a Christian and not be a part of the church. Those who forsake the assembling are disobeying the scritpture.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

We must be born again into the kingdom of God. Simply professing to be Christian isn't enough. It seems the early church was called Christians by outsiders and not self proclamation. It is a mark against this nation that so many profess Jesus while holding the truth in unrighteousness. You cannot be a Christian and not be a part of the church. Those who forsake the assembling are disobeying the scritpture.

Please provide a NT Scripture that defines exactly how many Christians must be present to establish a valid "assembling".

I will present one...

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

And please show me where it states that this "assembly" must meet in a special building.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Please provide a NT Scripture that defines exactly how many Christians must be present to establish a valid "assembling".

I will present one...

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

And please show me where it states that this "assembly" must meet in a special building.

I don't think there is a number necessary. The early church seems to have a city wide movement. I draw this conclusion by the epistles that were written to churches named by their cities (Romans, Corinthians, Galations, etc...) We have so many divisions and false doctrines that muddy up the waters. It makes it hard for the outsider to identify.

If there is a one God and Jesus is his name church in the community that is the church to be a part of. Although, people need to examine what comes from their pulpit by the scripture. House churches are great so they are trying to grow.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

i'm curious what this special retardation that seems to afflict OPs is? An Acts 2:38 cult, imo. "Women may be saved in childbirth," and i have about 100 other ones. OPs ruin Acts 2:38 for a believer...which i guess is the point.

consider this...

Women saved in childbirth equates to the same level as acts 2:38? Acts 2:38 is the direct answer to people who wanted to know what to do about the work of the cross to benefit from it. It's reflected in Romans 6. It's from the message on the day new birth started. It's what Jesus told them to tell the world in Luke 24. It's THE message for those who want to pay the cross to their lives.

Saved through child bearing refers to the saviour who came through a woman as foretold in Genesis 3 when the seed of the woman was foretold. It's not an alternative to Acts 2:38.

And while we're at it, you once mentioned something about judging by doctrine, which you denied was the plan. I disagree due to scripture.

2 John 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

consider this...

Women saved in childbirth equates to the same level as acts 2:38? Acts 2:38 is the direct answer to people who wanted to know what to do about the work of the cross to benefit from it. It's reflected in Romans 6. It's from the message on the day new birth started. It's what Jesus told them to tell the world in Luke 24. It's THE message for those who want to pay the cross to their lives.

Saved through child bearing refers to the saviour who came through a woman as foretold in Genesis 3 when the seed of the woman was foretold. It's not an alternative to Acts 2:38.

And while we're at it, you once mentioned something about judging by doctrine, which you denied was the plan. I disagree due to scripture.

2 John 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

ok, but this makes Acts 2:38 the doctrine, when the doctrine is "love one another."

"6And this is love: that we walk according to His commands. This is the command as you have heard it from the beginning: you must walk in love."

and don't get me wrong; Acts 2:38 is great, until it gets into the hands of some OP determined to use it as a yardstick for others.

"4But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another."

____________________

"15But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint."

I'm not sure the text agrees with your interpretation here, but regardless--that is just the first verse that came to mind at the time, in response to the Acts 2:38 cult; Scripture provides about 50 others. And you could pick any thread on AFF to demonstrate that the real yardstick, "love one another," is quickly forgotten in the rush to Acts 2:38.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ok, but this makes Acts 2:38 the doctrine, when the doctrine is "love one another."

That is not the doctrine of salvation, Shazeep. Loving each other does not save us from sin. It's how people know we are His people, but not the doctrine of how to be saved and apply the work of the cross to our lives.

"6And this is love: that we walk according to His commands. This is the command as you have heard it from the beginning: you must walk in love."

Agreed. But that is not a doctrine of salvation.

and don't get me wrong; Acts 2:38 is great, until it gets into the hands of some OP determined to use it as a yardstick for others.

"4But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another."

____________________

"15But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint."

I'm not sure the text agrees with your interpretation here, but regardless--that is just the first verse that came to mind at the time, in response to the Acts 2:38 cult; Scripture provides about 50 others. And you could pick any thread on AFF to demonstrate that the real yardstick, "love one another," is quickly forgotten in the rush to Acts 2:38.

If you are saying love is a yardstick to see how much we know God, fine. But Acts 2:38 is indeed a yardstick that determines if we are saved from sin or not. You';re talking apples and oranges when you speak of what the purpose of love is and what the purpose of Acts 2:38 is.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

That is not the doctrine of salvation, Shazeep. Loving each other does not save us from sin. It's how people know we are His people, but not the doctrine of how to be saved and apply the work of the cross to our lives.



Agreed. But that is not a doctrine of salvation.



If you are saying love is a yardstick to see how much we know God, fine. But Acts 2:38 is indeed a yardstick that determines if we are saved from sin or not. You';re talking apples and oranges when you speak of what the purpose of love is and what the purpose of Acts 2:38 is.

i would apply them in direct reverse--apply Acts 2:38 to yourself, and apply love to everyone else. But in the end, if one seeks a way to become the judge of others--"Judge not" notwithstanding--one will find a way to justify it, while ignoring that they have lost "love." Love is the doctrine of salvation, given just a couple verses ahead of 2John1:10;

"As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love."

So, His command is not that one walk in Acts 2:38, but that one walk in love.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

i would apply them in direct reverse--apply Acts 2:38 to yourself, and apply love to everyone else.

Ture in one sense.

But John spoke of not letting someone in your house with another doctrine,. and that was not a doctrine of love. It was salvation.

But in the end, if one seeks a way to become the judge of others--"Judge not" notwithstanding--one will find a way to justify it, while ignoring that they have lost "love." Love is the doctrine of salvation, given just a couple verses ahead of 2John1:10;

We are supposed to judge to an extent, S. Jesus did not say don't judge. He said int he manner we judge will we be judged. So, don't judge unless you're innocent.

Paul also said judge those within, and those without will God judge.

"As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love."

So, His command is not that one walk in Acts 2:38, but that one walk in love.

Agreed in a certain context alone, though. You're putting them both in the same context and they're not.