Home Churches, and the True Assembling of the Brethren

[cgaviria]

Many of the "churches" of today are elaborate structures allowing for hundreds, or even thousands of people to be brought together in one place. Take a look, for example, at all the elaborate cathedrals built by the catholic church, and then all the megachurches built by the protestants, yet all these structures and actions reflect a grave error in doctrine. Why is this an error? Because all true believers in Jesus Christ are called to humility. I encourage anyone reading this study, to first read this other study titled Sufficiency, Not Wealth nor Poverty, and Selling of Possessions, which explains what true humility actually is. True humility is having very little, few possessions of things you actually need, and having no ownership of property. This true humility was done by the early believers, as you can see in this verse,

They sold their property and possessions and shared the money with those in need. (Acts 2:45 [NLT])

This true humility was necessary to fulfill this proverb,

The LORD resists the proud, but gives favor to the humble. (Proverbs 3:34 [ABP])

As God does indeed resist those who do not bring themselves down to humility, which is why the early believers sold their possessions and all their properties, so that God may then have favor on them, and thus grant them repentance and give them the gift of holy spirit. So if indeed these men were selling their possessions and all their properties, why would they then in turn reacquire lands and construct buildings for churches, when the whole purpose behind selling all properties was to become humble? And there were even rich men among them that could've just as easily commissioned the construction of such buildings as we see today, which is why in 1 Timothy we read thus,

Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. (1 Timothy 6:17-18 [NIV])

Yet look at what owners of properties did in this verse,

For neither anyone lacking existed among them; for as many as were owners of places or houses existing to them, by selling they brought the value of the things being sold, (Acts 4:34 [ABP])

So all properties were indeed sold, for the purpose of humility. So where did these early believers actually meet then since they owned no properties? They met in their homes, that they rented, and we see an indicating of renting in this verse,

And Paul stayed a whole space of two years in his own hired house, and gladly received all the ones entering to him, (Acts 28:30 [ABP])

And the verses demonstrating the the churches were done in homes are these,

And Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house: (Philemon 1:2 [ESV])

Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. (Colossians 4:14 [ESV])

Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in Asia. (Romans 16:5 [ESV])

The churches of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Prisca, together with the church in their house, send you hearty greetings in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 6:19 [ESV])

How I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, (Acts 20:20 [ESV])

The Greek word for "church" is "ekklesian", which means an "assembly". The word "church" has a conveyance of a religious building, like a synagogue or cathedral, whereas an "assembly" is something more simpler and more humble, it is merely a gathering, which was done in the simplicity of homes. Anything more than this simplistic gathering and assembling of the brethren, and it starts to become a business, which is the problem faced by most "churches" when they begin owning land or also constructing buildings specific for the purpose of assembling. So what happens when an assembly in a home becomes too big to fit in a home? It should be divided up into more homes, and new leaders appointed for each home, and this is where the different "roles" of the assemblies of God come about, which are mentioned here,

And he gave some indeed for apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists; but some shepherds and teachers, (Ephesians 4:11 [ABP])

Yet of all these, the role of the apostle is to go forth city to city, and plant home churches, which then leads to the coming forth of prophets, and evangelists, and shepherds, and teachers that then come about in every city, from the planting of these home assemblies at the hand of apostles. Going further, not only did these early believers meet in their homes to assemble, but they met daily, not once a week as most churches do these days,

Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, (Acts 2:46 [NIV])

In meeting daily in their homes, they ate together, broke bread together, and in doing this they truly fellowshipped together daily. They also partook of the holy communion every year at the passover in their homes. This is how the true assembling of the brethren should be done, and it hasn't changed to this day, except there are institutions, such as the catholic church, that have brought forth new doctrines, that have lead the world astray from this true, simple, and humble way of assembling.

May God open your understanding. You may also view this study on my blog at http://www.wisdomofgod.co/2016/01/14/home-churches-and-the-true-assembling-of-the-brethren/ .

 

[timewerx]

I've been to home church gatherings a lot, different houses.

And it's better, you actually get to socialize! Sometimes, the kids drag me to their rooms and watch movies or play games, good 'ol times!

 

[Wgw]

Of course, we also have in Kerala a church built by St. Thomas the Apostle,mdating from the mid first century. So, I think house churches are overrated. The main advantage a large church confers is legitimacy.

 

[cgaviria]

Of course, we also have in Kerala a church built by St. Thomas the Apostle,mdating from the mid first century. So, I think house churches are overrated. The main advantage a large church confers is legitimacy.

Overrated? House churches are the mandate, they are a requirement for true believers as the place of assembly. Anything more than a house church and it is rooted in disobedience.

 

[Wgw]

Overrated? House churches are the mandate, they are a requirement for true believers as the place of assembly. Anything more than a house church and it is rooted in disobedience.

They actually aren't; there is no scriptural mandate for house churches. If there were, St. Thomas would not have allowed rhe building of a dedicated church in India.

 

[cgaviria]

They actually aren't; there is no scriptural mandate for house churches. If there were, St. Thomas would not have allowed rhe building of a dedicated church in India.

There is also no scriptural proof of this church you speak of. We only have scriptural proofs of how the early assemblies met, and this is the tradition that still ought to be followed, because it was done for the purposes of humility and simplicity. And members of the assemblies ought to meet daily, not weekly, and fellowship with each other with breaking of bread daily. And this is done in homes, not in "church buildings".

 

[zippy2]

There is also no scriptural proof of this church you speak of. We only have scriptural proofs of how the early assemblies met, and this is the tradition that still ought to be followed, because it was done for the purposes of humility and simplicity. And members of the assemblies ought to meet daily, not weekly, and fellowship with each other with breaking of bread daily. And this is done in homes, not in "church buildings".

I believe as we get closer to the Day of the Lord, we will see more and more house churches rise up. I think they will soon become the norm.

 

[cgaviria]

I believe as we get closer to the Day of the Lord, we will see more and more house churches rise up. I think they will soon become the norm.

I am in agreement with this.

 

[timewerx]

Matthew 15:5-6
But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.


Give help to those who needed it what you have instead used to build a huge church building.
..
..
..

 

[Wgw]

There is also no scriptural proof of this church you speak of. We only have scriptural proofs of how the early assemblies met, and this is the tradition that still ought to be followed, because it was done for the purposes of humility and simplicity. And members of the assemblies ought to meet daily, not weekly, and fellowship with each other with breaking of bread daily. And this is done in homes, not in "church buildings".

There is no scriptural proof that these meetings were entirely in homes; indeed, a great many were not, but were rather in public, outdoors, for example, the Ariopagus, according to Scripture. Furthermore, we know from historical records that the Christians of Rome met in the catacombs and cemeteries after dusk and before dawn, to avoid detection.

Now regarding the church in Kerala, we don't require scriptural evidence; the mere fact of its existence provides all required proof of its legitimacy. Frankly, by virtue of it, we have more evidence of the apostolic justification of church buildings than we do of...many other things.

I believe as we get closer to the Day of the Lord, we will see more and more house churches rise up. I think they will soon become the norm.

Possibly. The experience of persecution in the USSR and epsewhere however points to the dangers of house churches; if everyone pops up at your home, the security services are greatly aoded in their attempts to shut you down.

One other important argument should also be made against "house churches." A disproportionate amount of abuse occurs in home-based religions, including incidents of human slavery, murder and so on, that are frankly worse than the very unpleasant scandal in the Roman Catholic Church, for example.

A brick and mortar building does not gurantee safety from all forms of abuse, as any former scientologist can tell you, however, it does provide some protection, particularly if, for example, it is a major church operating in the public eye. A major risk to Christians are what our Lord calls "Wolves in sheep's clothing," and a great many operate in house churches.

 

[cgaviria]

There is no scriptural proof that these meetings were entirely in homes; indeed, a great many were not, but were rather in public, outdoors, for example, the Ariopagus, according to Scripture. Furthermore, we know from historical records that the Christians of Rome met in the catacombs and cemeteries after dusk and before dawn, to avoid detection.

Now regarding the church in Kerala, we don't require scriptural evidence; the mere fact of its existence provides all required proof of its legitimacy. Frankly, by virtue of it, we have more evidence of the apostolic justification of church buildings than we do of...many other things.



Possibly. The experience of persecution in the USSR and epsewhere however points to the dangers of house churches; if everyone pops up at your home, the security services are greatly aoded in their attempts to shut you down.

One other important argument should also be made against "house churches." A disproportionate amount of abuse occurs in home-based religions, including incidents of human slavery, murder and so on, that are frankly worse than the very unpleasant scandal in the Roman Catholic Church, for example.

A brick and mortar building does not gurantee safety from all forms of abuse, as any former scientologist can tell you, however, it does provide some protection, particularly if, for example, it is a major church operating in the public eye. A major risk to Christians are what our Lord calls "Wolves in sheep's clothing," and a great many operate in house churches.

We do have scriptural evidences that churches were in homes, hence these scriptures,

And Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house: (Philemon 1:2 [ESV])

Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. (Colossians 4:14 [ESV])

Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in Asia. (Romans 16:5 [ESV])

The churches of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Prisca, together with the church in their house, send you hearty greetings in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 6:19 [ESV])

How I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, (Acts 20:20 [ESV])

 

[Wgw]

We do have scriptural evidences that churches were in homes, hence these scriptures,

Actually, these verses are not the ones I would personally use in support of the idea of house churches. They refer rather to the idea of the "Household Church" or "Domestic Church," which consists of the faithful living together under one roof. In ancient times these were rather larger than in our nuclear family based society; more people lived together in the ancient world including the paterfamilias, his family, families of relatives, servants and their families, et cetera. However, even today the domestic church remains of vital importance.

Rather, we can see an example of meeting in houses elsewhere, for example, the Upper Room of St. Mark's House (one of two possible locations for the Cenacle is now owned by my Church). Also, in a sense, all monasteries are house churches. So I am not oppoesed to house churches, but I am opposed to the idea that non-house churches are legitimate.

In the New Testament for example, we see many incidents of preaching and mass baptism at outdoor locations, with implied repetition, in the case of the Aereopagus, for example.

There is also a lack of any verse forbidding the use of dedicated buildings, and one can furthermore regard the dedicated church as an eikonographic realization of the third temple of Ezekiel, since in the World to Come a dedicated religious structure will be superfluous, according to Revelations.

 

[cgaviria]

Actually, these verses are not the ones I would personally use in support of the idea of house churches. They refer rather to the idea of the "Household Church" or "Domestic Church," which consists of the faithful living together under one roof. In ancient times these were rather larger than in our nuclear family based society; more people lived together in the ancient world including the paterfamilias, his family, families of relatives, servants and their families, et cetera. However, even today the domestic church remains of vital importance.

Rather, we can see an example of meeting in houses elsewhere, for example, the Upper Room of St. Mark's House (one of two possible locations for the Cenacle is now owned by my Church). Also, in a sense, all monasteries are house churches. So I am not oppoesed to house churches, but I am opposed to the idea that non-house churches are legitimate.

In the New Testament for example, we see many incidents of preaching and mass baptism at outdoor locations, with implied repetition, in the case of the Aereopagus, for example.

There is also a lack of any verse forbidding the use of dedicated buildings, and one can furthermore regard the dedicated church as an eikonographic realization of the third temple of Ezekiel, since in the World to Come a dedicated religious structure will be superfluous, according to Revelations.

What you are saying simply isn't true. The word church even means "assembling". These early believers assembled in their homes daily, and fellowshipped together, and ate together, all in their homes. This is how it ought to be done, and who is any man to change this tradition in favor of church buildings? You either believe this or you do not.

 

[Wgw]

What you are saying simply isn't true.

Alas, I fear it is, although I apologize if it may seem, shall we say, inconvenient. Christianity usually is.

The word church even means "assembling".

Ekklesia, translated as Church, means "congregation" or "assembly." And thus, we can regard the outdoor assemblies of the faithful, and the assemblies at the catacombs, and the assemblies in dedicated buildings, as legitimate ekklesias.

These early believers assembled in their homes daily, and fellowshipped together, and ate together, all in their homes. This is how it ought to be done,

Indeed, this is what a domestic church is. However, most dmoestic churches lack clergy, and thus are limited to the divine office; for sacramental services, one worships with one's parish, with the leadership of a bishop or presbyter.

and who is any man to change this tradition in favor of church buildings?

Ask St. Thomas the Apostle.

 

[cgaviria]

Alas, I fear it is, although I apologize if it may seem, shall we say, inconvenient. Christianity usually is.



Ekklesia, translated as Church, means "congregation" or "assembly." And thus, we can regard the outdoor assemblies of the faithful, and the assemblies at the catacombs, and the assemblies in dedicated buildings, as legitimate ekklesias.



Indeed, this is what a domestic church is. However, most dmoestic churches lack clergy, and thus are limited to the divine office; for sacramental services, one worships with one's parish, with the leadership of a bishop or presbyter.



Ask St. Thomas the Apostle.

Well then by all means carry on going to your weekly church services. I, on other hand, will concern myself with following after the traditions of the apostles that are recorded in the book of Acts. It is the way it ought to be done, in humility, and simplicity of heart, and with daily breaking of bread and fellowshipping together among the brethren. And it in fact is a wonderful thing, to commune daily with fellow brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ, whom you love, in their homes, rather than weekly gatherings, as the churches of today do.

 

[Wgw]

Well then by all means carry on going to your weekly church services.

I go to daily church services when possible, for example, when on retreat at a holy monastery, and in Lent, when my church has them. Otherwise, I worship daily in the domestic Church referred to in the New Testament.

I, on other hand, will concern myself with following after the traditions of the apostles that are recorded in the book of Acts.

These traditions do not require meeting exclusively in private residences; indeed in Acts we see numerous outdoor congregations. In addition, the archaeological evidence provided by the church in Kerala does have the effect of telling us what the Apostles, like St. Thomas, believed.

It is the way it ought to be done, in humility, and simplicity of heart, and with daily breaking of bread and fellowshipping together among the brethren.

I agree; the domestic church is blissful.

And it in fact is a wonderful thing, to commune daily with fellow brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ, whom you love, in their homes, rather than weekly gatherings, as the churches of today do.

To have Communion per se, one requires a bishop or presbyter. Fortunately, for someone who desires a daily Eucharist, this is usually possible; most cathedrals offer this. In general, only Good Friday or Holy Week is aliturgical (with no communion), in some rites where there is no presanctified liturgy (for example, the Coptic rite).

 

[cgaviria]

To have Communion per se, one requires a bishop or presbyter. Fortunately, for someone who desires a daily Eucharist, this is usually possible; most cathedrals offer this. In general, only Good Friday or Holy Week is aliturgical (with no communion), in some rites where there is no presanctified liturgy (for example, the Coptic rite).

This is incorrect, the communion must be done in the homes, per the mandate of the Law of Moses, as the communion is related to the celebration of the passover, and festival of unleavened bread. The communion must be done at the passover, and be done in a home. Unleavened bread must be used, and all must take a piece from a whole. And wine must be used, and all must drink from one cup. There is absolutely no exception to this, and if any person breaks the communion in a true assembly of God in a home, they will likely bring judgment and death upon themselves.

 

[Wgw]

This is incorrect, the communion must be done in the homes, per the mandate of the Law of Moses, as the communion is related to the celebration of the passover, and festival of unleavened bread.

Let us say you are right, which you aren't by the way, and I shall presently explain why, but let us suppose for a moment that, on this particular point you are right. If we are to view the Passover ritual as regulative upon Christians, which would mean we were still under the Law, it would have the effect of requiring us to only celebrate the Eucharist on the 14th of Nissan. That said, we are not under the Law; the pecularities of the Judaic custom have been lifted from us. We know this, for example, from the Christians who had Communion over the graves of martyrs in Rome and elsewhere.

The communion must be done at the passover, and be done in a home.

Then one obviously cannot "commune daily."

Unleavened bread must be used, and all must take a piece from a whole.

The use of leavened or unleavened bread is rite-specific; the Romans and Armenians opted for unleavened bread, whereas rhe Greeks, Syriacs, Copts and Ethiopians, for leavened. After having read the results of centuries of at times bitter exchanges over this issue, it is impossible to concoude that either position is more scriptural than the other; rather this is an example of what Lutherans call adiaphora.

And wine must be used, and all must drink from one cup.

I agree at least in part; there is nothing to say how one should drink from the common chalice however, no prohibition of the use of fistulae, spoons, or intinction, or derivative cups.

There is absolutely no exception to this, and if any person breaks the communion in a true assembly of God in a home, they will likely bring judgment and death upon themselves.

Your attempt to link this doctrine to 1 Corinthians 11:27-34 is noted, however, in so doing, you ignore the specific circumstances which St. Paul outlines of why one can partake unworthily and incur condemnation, that is to say, failure to discern the body and blood of our Lord, a lack of metanoia, et cetera, as made very clear by the context of 1 Corinthians.

 

[cgaviria]

Let us say you are right, which you aren't by the way, and I shall presently explain why, but let us suppose for a moment that, on this particular point you are right. If we are to view the Passover ritual as regulative upon Christians, which would mean we were still under the Law, it would have the effect of requiring us to only celebrate the Eucharist on the 14th of Nissan. That said, we are not under the Law; the pecularities of the Judaic custom have been lifted from us. We know this, for example, from the Christians who had Communion over the graves of martyrs in Rome and elsewhere.



Then one obviously cannot "commune daily."



The use of leavened or unleavened bread is rite-specific; the Romans and Armenians opted for unleavened bread, whereas rhe Greeks, Syriacs, Copts and Ethiopians, for leavened. After having read the results of centuries of at times bitter exchanges over this issue, it is impossible to concoude that either position is more scriptural than the other; rather this is an example of what Lutherans call adiaphora.



I agree at least in part; there is nothing to say how one should drink from the common chalice however, no prohibition of the use of fistulae, spoons, or intinction, or derivative cups.



Your attempt to link this doctrine to 1 Corinthians 11:27-34 is noted, however, in so doing, you ignore the specific circumstances which St. Paul outlines of why one can partake unworthily and incur condemnation, that is to say, failure to discern the body and blood of our Lord, a lack of metanoia, et cetera, as made very clear by the context of 1 Corinthians.

By "commune daily", I wasnt referring to the communion, I was referring to the daily fellowship of breaking of bread. The actual communion ought to be done annually at the passover. Jesus Christ began it at the passover, and it should continue on at exactly this day, this tradition hasn't changed, except men have instituted their own days of doing the communion, and it is done in error.

 

[Wgw]

By "commune daily", I wasnt referring to the communion, I was referring to the daily fellowship of breaking of bread. The actual communion ought to be done annually at the passover. Jesus Christ began it at the passover, and it should continue on at exactly this day, this tradition hasn't changed, except men have instituted their own days of doing the communion, and it is done in error.

Alas, this is in error, in that there is no Scriptural basis for it; everything in the NT indicates this was a routine occurrence, and indeed all surviving sources of information about the early Church (the Didache, Apostolic Traditions, etc., confirms this).