I pray no one takes any offense at anything I’m about to say. I could definitely be mistaken. This is a very nice conversation and I’m enjoying it.
I’m slowly realizing an extreme danger with this notion. I see a serious risk in a departure from truth. Truth isn’t subjective to one’s opinion. Truth is truth. For example, the Oneness of God. Jesus was God, Trinitarianism does violence to Christ’s divinity in that it relegates him to a second God known as “God the Son”. I believe it’s important to take a definite stand for absolute truths. Those shouldn’t be hidden, left to guessing, or open for debate. For example, you may invite a man who has a doctorate in religion, speaks fluent Greek and knows Latin. He may run circles around you with untruths that a common Apostolic may have difficulty refuting. In a house church setting where truth is subjective, left up for debate, discussion, or just subjective interpretation…the group may shift into a more Trinitarian theology. Those who you may have been teaching truth to may answer, “Bro. Hall…I thought Oneness made sense…but Author had a point.” Or, “Author made sense…maybe baptism isn’t all that important. The way he interpreted the Bible just seems more ‘compassionate’.”
We mustn’t be naïve. Satan is a real and present enemy. He will attempt to send false teachers and diversions into any house of God be it a traditional church or house church. There has to be a basic foundation of Apostolic truth to build upon. Certainly some things are a matter of interpretation. For example issues like standards, timing of the rapture, and eschatological issues. But there has to be a certain sound, a basic foundation rooted in the teachings of the prophets and the Apostles. Else…how do we justify denouncing a person who has crept in dropping seeds of false teaching? If there isn’t a basic standard of faith anything is a possibility and the very house church can be lead astray. Consider the following texts:
“{1:6} I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that
called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
{1:7} Which is not another; but there be some that trouble
you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. {1:8} But
though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other
gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto
you, let him be accursed. {1:9} As we said before, so say I
now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you
than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”-
Galatians 1:6-9
“{1:5} For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou
shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain
elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: {1:6} If any be
blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children
not accused of riot or unruly. {1:7} For a bishop must be
blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon
angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy
lucre; {1:8} But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men,
sober, just, holy, temperate; {1:9} Holding fast the faithful
word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound
doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
{1:10} For there are many unruly and vain talkers and
deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: {1:11} Whose
mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses,
teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.” –
Titus 1:5-11
“{1:10} If there come any unto you, and bring not this
doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him
God speed: {1:11} For he that biddeth him God speed is
partaker of his evil deeds.” –
2 John 1:10-11
I believe that we see some very important implications in the above texts. I’ll list these implications (as I see them):
1. It is possible to be removed from the faith once delivered to the saints by internal teachers who pervert the gospel of Christ.
2. One is to be accursed if they do not teach the gospel of the Apostles.
3. Paul “ordained elders” in the churches as he had appointed Titus. Elders are ordained men who may be appointed by those with true spiritual authority.
4. Certain characteristics are to separate those qualified for eldership in the church, thus illustrating that there is indeed an eldership. However, I don’t believe that the elders of the church are to be “dictators” or “rulers” but rather they are called to be servant leaders who live, lead, and love by example.
5. Elders are charged to teach “sound doctrine”. That requires some training and the making of essential teachings clear for those under their care.
6. Deceivers can “subvert whole houses”.
7. Anyone who doesn’t believe, teach, preach true doctrine (as received by the Apostles) isn’t to be received into one’s “house” (the place of NT worship). Neither are false teachers to be blessed or encouraged.
These implications would require at least some form of oversight, authority, and foundational teaching is to be provided by qualified servant leaders. So far what I’m hearing wouldn’t facilitate these clear commands of Scripture. So I believe there is cause for serious concern with the notion of house churching as its being advocated here.
I see a biblical precedent for ordained elders and oversight. Therefore without elders and oversight any church (traditional or house church) may be departing from Scripture. How would a house church facilitate these teachings?
Thoughts? I’ll duck and find cover now. LOL
Linear Mode
