Home church vs special building

[LP]

Originally posted by Optional:
How about:
"Church" as used in Revelation:
ekklesia {ek-klay-see'-ah}
from a compound of 1537 and a derivative of 2564; TDNT - 3:501,394; n f
AV - church 115, assembly 3; 118
1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly 1a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating.

The supposed "THE definition" of ekklesia is actually from an interpretive Greek dictionary composed by someone.

I have quit listing all the places where, for example, Vine misses the boat and interprets the language through the eyes of his tradition. His treatment of aleipho ("oil" in James 5:14-16) is a prime example. Check That You May Be Healed: Biblical Foundations for the Church's Role in Medicine - An Examination of James 5:14-16 to see what I mean. If we were to follow Vine's interpretation of aleipho, we'd be left with mere ritual, i.e., of swiping foreheads with oil. That is hardly what James had in mind.

I would suggest that "called out from their homes" certainly misses it, and we cannot say that ekklesia in Revelation meant something different from other similar uses of the word. For just one point, Kyros ("the elect lady") in 2 John met in her own home, with "the church" that met in her house. The interpretation of "called out from...homes" obviously does not fit her and other Biblical cases.

Even so, assuming the definition you gave for argument, individual people called out from their own homes strains neither house churches nor a public meeting place. For example, In Hebrews, they were to go "outside the gate"--that is truly public--and were to not "forsake the assembling" of themselves together. I see nothing in even your definition that would indicate that the "public meeting" place was not an already exisitng structure or place. In no way would one need to read "public place" as "a specially constructed church building contructed by and paid for by the church." Would that not more be a privateplace, privately owned, and not a truly public place?

I'd encocurage others to read Old Testament vs. New Testament Mission, Building, and Giving themselves and not take Optional's rendering of it.

[ March 14, 2002, 01:04 AM: Message edited by: LP ]

 

[Lorelei]

Peter's vision changed many people's views, but if you read the epistles you can tell that the average Jew had a hard time understanding it. Some of the epistles had to explain a lot of this idea to the Jews.

Either way, you can not refute the fact that people knew that the Temple was the house of God. Even the Gentiles realized that God was the God of Israel and the World. They even knew what the Temple stood for.

The idea that homes are the way we MUST meet is indeed refutatble. The Word specifically states that some met in the temple and it NEVER gives any guidelines on where we are to meet. Because you assume to know "why" they met in houses and "what" they thought about the Temple is not a basis for stating a belief as fact

The Temple was a lot more then you give it credit for. Did not God dwell in that very temple? Did not God give specific instructions on how he wanted His Temple built, on who was allowed to enter His temple and how His Temple was to be cared for? How can you just brush that off?

I already admitted that a lot of what you say makes sense and I too think spending too much on a building seems absurd when everyone else is in need. If you want to base your argument on scripture you might try ones like this:

Acts 2:44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need

This shows us how committed they were financially and might even make a better argument for "how" they spent thier money on people rather then churches.

But you didn't use this part of the scripture, you stuck to the "they met in a house", and then tried to say that houses alone are where we should meet. You can't ignore the words "and the temple" and make a valid argument. You then have to assume why and my beliefs aren't going to be based on what you consider as irrefutable, yet they are nothing more then someone's assumption.

I want to ask you this, do you own any possessions? I would hope you are as committed as these people were and have sold all that you own to give to others in need. After all, I don't have to assume this is how they spent thier money, because the Bible tells me so as a fact. That is an example of something that is irrefutable.

~Lorelei

 

[Optional]

As par for the course you distort my position yet again.

The supposed "THE definition" of ekklesia is actually from an interpretive Greek dictionary composed by someone.

I didn't say that was "THE" definition. Two posts above I listed all the definitions.
Also, you consider "Strong's" a fractured Greek dictionary. Well, that would explain a lot.
You have a habit of conveniently ignoring evidence presented to you or discounting it with a wave.
But then you consider something descriptive as irrefuteable.

 

[LP]

Lorelei,

The temple was abandoned by God. It was not His house. It was empty, its external trappings but remnants of a by-gone era. This happened when Jesus said, "It is finished." The veil into the holy of holies was rent, and God left when He said that. It was not the house of God after that point, nor would it ever be. No physical building of any sort whatsoever on planet earth can ever again be "God's House." The temple was but a mere a shadow of the true temple in heaven wherein went Christ after His suffering to offer His own blood, once and for all. Now, believers in Christ are God's building. Each one of their bodies is the temple of the HS. Will you refute this?

I am not saying houses only. I am saying already existing buildings/structures, whenever at all possible. The temple was already existing. No Christian believers built the temple to meet in after they were saved. Will you refute this?

To argue that people, after becoming part of the NT church, built special buildings to meet in is to argue from silence. Otherwise, please post Scriptures. On the other hand, I am not arguing from silence when I draw the principle of NT believers should utilize already existing buildings/structures, whenever at all possible.

Regardless of income, I retain only what I need to do things God has set before me. When I was a single and a missionary, I was able to live much communally with other missionaries in the work. All inclusive, I lived on about $5,000 total per year. Really.

Presently, I live on about $15,000 total per year. Really. We once lived on about $24,000 per year total where things were more expensive.

Overall, Christians in the U.S. are more Social Darwinists then members of one another. Since that is so--since it takes more than one to live a communal lifestyle--I live as the post COMMITMENT TO A WARTIME LIFESTYLE exhorts one to.

I finely target all giving. I have never given money to a "church building," nor will I ever. Nor do I support general funds of churches, since, generally, well over 50% of that goes to building upkeep. There are certain buildings that can be another matter. For example, Christian hosptials and schools and orpahanages, but only if suitable, already existing structures cannot be utilized (Churchs, BTW, meet very well in, for example, a school cafateria). But overall, my giving, with little exception, goes directly to people, whether to the poor, to missionaries, or certain Biblical teachers and others who are in lack.

See the 1st and 13th post at Why, Why, Why Do We Baptists Do What We Do? if you want to know more about my lifestyle, and why I live it.

If there is one thing the passage in Acts you quoted tells us is that the church was open about all these sorts of things, not because they necessarily had to be, but because it was profitable in many, many ways. But today, our income and lifestyle is a major taboo subject when we assemble. It is PRIVATE, more so than even sex (!). It ought not be.

If you care to share your own income, lifestyle, and how and on what you spend your money, perhaps that would be very good. I think knowing this kind of info about one another is something that REALLY, REALLY lets one know what makes the other "tick," and "where they are at" in things, so to speak.

[ March 14, 2002, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: LP ]

 

[just-want-peace]

When I was a kid, I loved to play "cow-pasture" baseball & football.

All through elementary & high school I dodged the cow patties, AND the cow on this athletic turf. Fear of being injured was non existent for me.

HOWEVER, I never played on an organized team; I wanted absolutely NOTHING to do with the organized side of sports. Why? I really do not know, but to turn me totally off, just try to "organize" the group I played with into a team.

What does all this have to do with this thread? Simply this; Just like I have been "anti-organization" for sports, as far as my participation goes, it seems that LP has the same attitude toward any building that is built with a congregation's money. Maybe he has no more idea why he feels this way than I do about my quirk, but the posts seem to be extremely adament that it a no-no to build.

His logic and, to me, streching the limits of interpretation indicate that this is an emotional topic as opposed to a rational objection.

It's possible that somewhere in one of his posts, he's revealed the reasons for his stance, but most are so long that I just don't read them anymore. I did the first few, ( and those on another thread) but the same old fuzzy logic seemed to repeat, so I just gave up any detailed reading.

Anyway, my point being that perhaps emotion is dictating his logic rather than reasoned discernment.

 

[Lorelei]

Acts 3:1ne day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer--at three in the afternoon

Acts 21:26The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.

Acts 22:17"When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the temple, I fell into a trance

These scriptures show some of the Apostles observing the ordinances of the law at the temple, not just renting out a section of it for their "new" gathering.

You had stated that those persecuting the church knew to find the Christians in homes, but here it shows they knew where to find Paul...in the temple.

Acts 21:27When the seven days were nearly over, some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple. They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him,

When the angel miraculously freed the apostles from Jail, did he send them to someone's home (in your opinion the appropriate place to represent the new church and the place where everyone would know to find them?) No, the angel said:

Acts 5:20"Go, stand in the temple courts," he said, "and tell the people the full message of this new life."

Now the only reason I ask you about your income is that you seem to think that the only way we can do things is to do it as the NT church did and they sold all thier possessions and gave to everyone as he had need. It is apparant that you and I both have "possessions" we don't need, or else we wouldn't be on this very computer we are talking on. Couldn't the money you spent on the computer be better spent to help the poor? Or do you seriously think your ministry online is more important then a poor man's stomach. It appears that the NT church would have sold theirs.

But just for the record, I live on about the same income as you do and have a family of 4 that lives in my home. We rent our home and own 2 vehicles that were given to us by my father-in-law. One cost him $400 and the other $700. The 2 computers in our home are the most expensive things we own, our tv and vcrs were a garage sale specials, we do not have cable tv and our furniture is not brand new, nor do we make payments on any of it. We give to the church, to friends and others who we feel that have a need.

I will say agian, a lot of what you say makes sense, but I don't see it grounded fully in scripture. Please comment on the verses above, not just brushing them off by saying "it was already there and convenient".

~Lorelei

PS. Can your home fit 3000 people?

41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Guess a warehouse would, but then who is going to go to the warehouse to hear the Word of God?

 

[LP]

I am leaving this evening to go to rural Haiti for 40 days; so, unfortunately, this will have to wait till after then.