What is the difference?

[Sleaker]

It is Gods will that all will be healed who come to him.

Haha, Good word

 

[Rick Otto]

just for balance, you might want to look at some critiques of Azusa St.
There was a lot of wierdness goin' on.
Are you familiar with "mesmerization"?
Parham's legacy is stained.

And I enjoy John Gill's comments on the one guy who had Jesus "spit in his eye", so to speak.

and saw every man clearly;
or "all things", as the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic versions read: he saw every object distinctly, and afar off, as the word used also signifies; he could distinguish men from trees, and trees from men. This man, as before observed, was a very lively emblem of one that is spiritually enlightened by the grace of God: Christ first separated this man from the rest of the multitude; and such are first distinguished from others in election, and redemption, and calling, who are illuminated by the Spirit of God: means were made use of by Christ for healing this man; though the bare actions, without a divine power, would have been insufficient, as the spittle of his mouth, and the imposition of his hands: and, generally speaking, in the illumination of a sinner the word of Christ's mouth is a means; though this, without the efficacy of his grace, is not of itself sufficient. This man, upon his first reception of sight, had a very dim, obscure, and imperfect view of things; could not well distinguish one thing from another, though he saw. As at first conversion, the enlightened soul has but a very glimmering view of things, particularly of Christ, the glory and fulness of his person, the efficacy of his blood, the excellency of his righteousness, of his ability, willingness, and suitableness as a Saviour; and especially of those doctrines of the Gospel, that are more sublime and distinguishing. But as this man afterwards had a more clear, and distinct view of objects; so it is with true believers in Christ; their shining light increases, and shines more and more unto the perfect day.

 

[LinkH]

In response to the original question, what people do in house churches is probably different from what you are used to. I'll make a list of some common beliefs and practices, but not every house church may hold to all of them.

Also, keep in mind that a lot of churches that meet in homes call themsleves 'house churches' because they meet in homes, and not because they hold to 'house church' beliefs (also known as 'Biblical church' or a 'return to New Testament primitivism.')

1. Mutually participatory meetings meetings like the early church had as evidenced by I Corinthians 14:26 and Hebrews 10:24-25.

That is, there are mutliple speakers instead of just one sermon. More than one person may speak. In churches that believe in the continuance of the gifts, more than one person may prophesy, etc.

2. The Lord's Supper as a full meal.

Some house chuches practice this. The original Lord's Supper was a meal as we see in scripture. Other scripture and many historians would agree that this is how it was conducted for the first century or two of Christianity. many historians would see the supper as the same thing as the love feast or as a part of it.

3. The importance of relationship.

We are supposed to love one another, encourage one another, etc. In some house churches there is a lot of sharing, doing ministry projects together, cutting each other's grass, raking each other's leaves, etc.

4. Plural eldership and/or consensus decisions making.

Many house churches believe in 'appointed elders.' Some just see elders as older brothers in the Lord. There is some variety of opinion on this, but a lot of house churches make some of their decisions by including the body in on the discussion. There is evidence for both group decision making (under the Spirit's leading) and for leadership of elders, etc. in scripture.

5. Meeting in homes.

The early church met in homes. They spent their money on the poor and spreading the Gospel, not on chuch buildings.



Some house churches believe in a role of apostles, Biblical church planters. I wouldn't say this is a majority view, but it is easier to find a Biblical viewpoint on modern apostleship in house church circles than in other circles.


Someone mentioned Azusa Street. I think it house church people read the book entitled _Azusa Street_ by Frank Bartleman, you may find a kindred spirit. He was very much against denominationalising the movement of God's spirit. Also, he described how their meetings were. They believed in Spirit-led meetings, and his description of them sound a lot like house church meetings, except perhaps a lot larger. People took turns sharing words with the other saints. The Pentecostal movement started out, experientially, following some of the truths house churches believe in, but the doctrine of the meeting didn't seem to stick with the movement. As Bartelman, they went out and built thrones for the preachers, or something along those lines.

 

[Sleaker]

Someone mentioned Azusa Street. I think it house church people read the book entitled _Azusa Street_ by Frank Bartleman, you may find a kindred spirit. He was very much against denominationalising the movement of God's spirit. Also, he described how their meetings were. They believed in Spirit-led meetings, and his description of them sound a lot like house church meetings, except perhaps a lot larger. People took turns sharing words with the other saints. The Pentecostal movement started out, experientially, following some of the truths house churches believe in, but the doctrine of the meeting didn't seem to stick with the movement. As Bartelman, they went out and built thrones for the preachers, or something along those lines.

This is exactly what I was referring to, Thank you for the clarification

 

[Edial]

In response to the original question, what people do in house churches is probably different from what you are used to. I'll make a list of some common beliefs and practices, but not every house church may hold to all of them.

Thanks for an itemized breakdown.
It is very helpful.

Also, keep in mind that a lot of churches that meet in homes call themsleves 'house churches' because they meet in homes, and not because they hold to 'house church' beliefs (also known as 'Biblical church' or a 'return to New Testament primitivism.')

Thanks for that note too.

1. Mutually participatory meetings meetings like the early church had as evidenced by I Corinthians 14:26 and Hebrews 10:24-25.

That is, there are mutliple speakers instead of just one sermon. More than one person may speak. In churches that believe in the continuance of the gifts, more than one person may prophesy, etc.

1CO 14:26 What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.

HEB 10:24 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. 25 Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another--and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

OK. With some sermons that I hear, that is not such a bad idea.

2. The Lord's Supper as a full meal.

Some house chuches practice this. The original Lord's Supper was a meal as we see in scripture. Other scripture and many historians would agree that this is how it was conducted for the first century or two of Christianity. many historians would see the supper as the same thing as the love feast or as a part of it.

I like that.
It was indeed a full meal.
And eating together on regular basis does unite the church.

I do not agree however, with that substituting THAT specific communion moment.

That moment of breaking the bread and drinking wine was reflected throught the history.

Do the house churches do that during the meal or is it lost somehow?

3. The importance of relationship.

We are supposed to love one another, encourage one another, etc. In some house churches there is a lot of sharing, doing ministry projects together, cutting each other's grass, raking each other's leaves, etc.

Good. Very good.

4. Plural eldership and/or consensus decisions making.

Many house churches believe in 'appointed elders.' Some just see elders as older brothers in the Lord. There is some variety of opinion on this, but a lot of house churches make some of their decisions by including the body in on the discussion. There is evidence for both group decision making (under the Spirit's leading) and for leadership of elders, etc. in scripture..

I do not fully understand that.

There are more qualifications for an elder than being older in Christ. But I would presume you do not elect just because one is older.

How does one know that the group decision making is under Spirit's leading? How do you determine that?
I am asking this because many claim to do this and that under the guidance of Holy Spirit yet the conclusions were not evident of that.

5. Meeting in homes.

The early church met in homes. They spent their money on the poor and spreading the Gospel, not on chuch buildings.

Agree.

Although I have a discussion in another thread that the Bible emphasyses helping the poor in the church. But there is a balance.

Church buildings however, have their own advantages - walk in people and a visible presence in the community.

But I agree.

Some house churches believe in a role of apostles, Biblical church planters. I wouldn't say this is a majority view, but it is easier to find a Biblical viewpoint on modern apostleship in house church circles than in other circles.

Scripturally speaking the definition of an Apostle is doing miracles in public that are verifiable.
2CO 12:12 The things that mark an apostle--signs, wonders and miracles--were done among you with great perseverance.

I would feel uncomfortable there, since there are no public and verifiable miracles that I know of.

Someone mentioned Azusa Street. I think it house church people read the book entitled _Azusa Street_ by Frank Bartleman, you may find a kindred spirit. He was very much against denominationalising the movement of God's spirit. Also, he described how their meetings were. They believed in Spirit-led meetings, and his description of them sound a lot like house church meetings, except perhaps a lot larger. People took turns sharing words with the other saints. The Pentecostal movement started out, experientially, following some of the truths house churches believe in, but the doctrine of the meeting didn't seem to stick with the movement. As Bartelman, they went out and built thrones for the preachers, or something along those lines.

I do not know anything about Azusa Street.

Thank you so much for a good and objective description of a house church and their varieties.

Ed

 

[Sleaker]

I like that.
It was indeed a full meal.
And eating together on regular basis does unite the church.

I do not agree however, with that substituting THAT specific communion moment.

That moment of breaking the bread and drinking wine was reflected throught the history.

Do the house churches do that during the meal or is it lost somehow?

If you read in one of the Gospels it shows Jesus breaking and passing out the bread before dinner, to begin the eating, then ending the meal with the wine. Then the disciples and Jesus sang a hymn. So I'm a litle confused as to what you mean by 'moment' Jesus says to do communion 'in remembrance of him' And I believe it's Paul that later shows us that we should not be participating in communion if we have any sin that is not dealt with. But that said, I don't see communion as a 'moment' but rather a mindset that I am in, of remembering Christ, not just remembering Christ in the past, but also remembering where He is right now in my life, and also prophetically remembering what He has called me into in the future. So I see communion as more of a mindset of remembrance than a specific 'moment.' I see it as more of a time of remembering the good things God has done for us than anything else.

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

You cant beat a good curry and beers for church communion. Sometimes its good to make an explicit relation to this act and christ, sometimes its good to let the moment flow and implicitly reflect the point of fellowship.

 

[Sleaker]

mm yah, I don't think that's what we're talkin about though. The issue is whether a Christian can have fellowship with a non-Christian... mm never tried beer for communion though, never ran out of grape juice haha..

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

fellowship as in communion?

well i have, but that is when we make an expliit statement so they can opt in or out

 

[Edial]

If you read in one of the Gospels it shows Jesus breaking and passing out the bread before dinner, to begin the eating, then ending the meal with the wine. Then the disciples and Jesus sang a hymn. So I'm a litle confused as to what you mean by 'moment' Jesus says to do communion 'in remembrance of him' And I believe it's Paul that later shows us that we should not be participating in communion if we have any sin that is not dealt with. But that said, I don't see communion as a 'moment' but rather a mindset that I am in, of remembering Christ, not just remembering Christ in the past, but also remembering where He is right now in my life, and also prophetically remembering what He has called me into in the future. So I see communion as more of a mindset of remembrance than a specific 'moment.' I see it as more of a time of remembering the good things God has done for us than anything else.

I understand that.

By saying "that moment", I mean the emphasys on these 2 acts of distributing the bread and then the wine.

The gospels and Paul emphasize these 2 acts strenuously.

Do you emphasize them?

Also, you are saying that you are remembering Him during the act of having that food. I understand that.

But the Bible once again stresses "Do THIS in rememberance of me".
THIS means these 2 acts.

Do you emphasize them?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[New_Wineskin]

Do you emphasize them?

Thanks,
Ed

I don't . There are a many ways that people look at that .

 

[Edial]

I don't . There are a many ways that people look at that .

I understand that.
People do all types of things.

Yet all would agree that the Bible emphasyses, underlines these 2 acts significantly.

Should the fact alone that the Bible underlines these, be enough influence in order for people in house churches to reconsider their service structure?
And if not, why not?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[brother daniel]

I understand that.

By saying "that moment", I mean the emphasys on these 2 acts of distributing the bread and then the wine.

The gospels and Paul emphasize these 2 acts strenuously.

Do you emphasize them?

When I am with brethren I emphasize the acts of sharing the wine and bread in the name of Jesus as often as we shall
.
When with mature brethren I also emphasize foot washing as Jesus did.

Now I would like tosay this is for me a vertual communion.

And by sharing here I see us as sharing in the blood of Jesus, reminding each other the Kingdom of God is at hand.

When we share scriptual words of Jesus we are sharing the bread that came down from heaven.

Jhn 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

Jhn 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

Jhn 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

Jhn 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

Jhn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Jhn 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Its a good day to feed on the Lord

With love in Christ
brother daniel

 

[Edial]

You cant beat a good curry and beers for church communion. Sometimes its good to make an explicit relation to this act and christ, sometimes its good to let the moment flow and implicitly reflect the point of fellowship.

Why not then call a communion a communion and fellowship dinner a fellowship dinner.

I think it would be clearer when things are called what they are.

At that day of Communion, 2000 years ago the emphasys was not on fellowship, although there was fellowship, they ate together.
It changed into a serious conversation.
Upcoming death, new covenant, identification of the devil in the midst of them, betrayal, "this is my body broken for you".

Thanks,
Ed

 

[brother daniel]

When I am with brethren I emphasize the acts of sharing the wine and bread in the name of Jesus as often as we shall
.
When with mature brethren I also emphasize foot washing as Jesus did.

Now I would like tosay this is for me a vertual communion.

And by sharing here I see us as sharing in the blood of Jesus, reminding each other the Kingdom of God is at hand.

When we share scriptual words of Jesus we are sharing the bread that came down from heaven.

Jhn 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

Jhn 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

Jhn 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

Jhn 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

Jhn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Jhn 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Its a good day to feed on the Lord

With love in Christ
brother daniel

Why not then call a communion a communion and fellowship dinner a fellowship dinner.

I think it would be clearer when things are called what they are.

At that day of Communion, 2000 years ago the emphasys was not on fellowship, although there was fellowship, they ate together.
It changed into a serious conversation.
Upcoming death, new covenant, identification of the devil in the midst of them, betrayal, "this is my body broken for you".

Thanks,
Ed

At 68 I am growing in awareness of upcoming death, because of age and because of being a disciple of Jesus.

For me this forum hosted from Australia is like the outer court of the temple where Jesus would meet and teach.

Our New Covenent is sealed by the blood of Jesus and for me, the blood of my dying son who with a bullet through his heart said in front of the killer, "Thank you Jesus" with his last breath.

I identifiy the devil in our midst as our own carnel minds and habits that argue and war against the clear words of Jesus.

Can we discern each other as being part of his body today?

Some who we know as brethren will betray us even unto death.

With love in Christ
brother daniel

 

[Edial]

At 68 I am growing in awareness of upcoming death, because of age and because of being a disciple of Jesus.

For me this forum hosted from Australia is like the outer court of the temple where Jesus would meet and teach.

Our New Covenent is sealed by the blood of Jesus and for me, the blood of my dying son who with a bullet through his heart said in front of the killer, "Thank you Jesus" with his last breath.

I identifiy the devil in our midst as our own carnel minds and habits that argue and war against the clear words of Jesus.

Can we discern each other as being part of his body today?

Some who we know as brethren will betray us even unto death.

With love in Christ
brother daniel

brother daniel, this is a dificult sentence about your son.

But what an incredible assurance we have of seeing each other while in the presence of Christ.

All of our lives are spent in the "valley of the shadow of death".
Death stands on a hill, blocks the light and the shadow covers us.

Once Death removed, we'll see all.

Interesting, some look forward to light because they want to see what is out there.

Some hide from light because they do not want the light exposing their lives - so they love the shadow.

Fascinating.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Rick Otto]

Dan's definition of communion & sacramental sebsibilities.
Ritual is not necessarily sacramental, is it?

 

[Sleaker]

I understand that.

By saying "that moment", I mean the emphasys on these 2 acts of distributing the bread and then the wine.

The gospels and Paul emphasize these 2 acts strenuously.

Do you emphasize them?

Also, you are saying that you are remembering Him during the act of having that food. I understand that.

But the Bible once again stresses "Do THIS in rememberance of me".
THIS means these 2 acts.

Do you emphasize them?

Thanks,
Ed

Mm I'm not sure if I emphasize them, what I do emphasize during them is the remembrance of Christ though. I know that it is largely emphasized to be taking communion, but from experience there isn't much teaching on what to do during communion or what it means to remember.

 

[brother daniel]

Dan's definition of communion & sacramental sebsibilities.
Ritual is not necessarily sacramental, is it?

The words sacrament and sacramental are not biblical.

Every step of faith I take based on the words of Jesus is an act of reverance and Holy because he is Holy and called us to be a Holy people.


1Pe 1:15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;

1Pe 1:16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

2Pe 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

2Pe 3:11 [Seeing] then [that] all these things shall be dissolved, what manner [of persons] ought ye to be in [all] holy conversation and godliness,

Therefore at this time with you the brethren, I am fellowshiping with in the name of Jesus, this is a Holy meeting and Jesus Christ our Lord is present with us NOW, no mater what the time differance.

Jesus Christ is come in the flesh and lives right now in each one of us.

To me our meeting this way is an act of reverance and it is strengthing my relationship with the brethren I meet face to face.

A sister in the Lord arrived here this afternoon saying she wanted to have a prayer meeting on a regular basis.

My wife was also here and I said, fine lets go in the house and pray. The sister had a young four year old daughter who was distracted in the house and was acting unruly.

I suggested we go out side where I had stacked a pile of old fallen wood for burning and continue praying as I burned the trash wood.

We fellowshiped around the fire and racked sticks and leaves for a couple of hours all the time sharing encouraging words about what God was showing each one of us.

It was in every sense communion, yet we show even more reverance when we share the actual bread and wine in rememberance of Jesus.

We are not stuck in a dogmatic rut. We are able to turn our every meeting into a new ritual that may never be repeated.

I have found that we are very blessed when we adhere to the words of Jesus and wash each others feet, as well as share the bread and wine.

Love feasts are another matter and can happen any time when bretheren arrive for a pot luck gathering.
Sometimes its vegaterian and other times its barbaque.
As the Lord leads.

With love in Christ
brother daniel

 

[New_Wineskin]

I understand that.
People do all types of things.

Yet all would agree that the Bible emphasyses, underlines these 2 acts significantly.

Not all . Tradition has emphasized the bread and wine far out of proportion than what it was .

Should the fact alone that the Bible underlines these, be enough influence in order for people in house churches to reconsider their service structure?
And if not, why not?

Thanks,
Ed

Ah ... not . Even *if* the Scriptures underlined them , that is no where near the influence for people to reconsider anything . First of all , it emphasizes a work for righteousness if life is turned upside down simply because of an interpretation of a writing . Second , it ignores the passages urging the walking in the Spirit and not the written code .