Paul told the Corinthians to be of “the same mind” regarding doctrine. How can these “home fellowships” ensure they are keeping apostolic doctrine without guiding authority? The books of the New Testament weren’t even completed until the end of the first century. No one could ask “what does the Bible say” then.
Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on August 6, 2017 at 6:14 PM
Brian,
When authority is truth, or efficacious to truth, Or needed to “lead in truth,” “truth” is irrelevant. Point in case: are Catholics stupid because they believe everything dished out by the Catholic Church? No, because the Catholic Church is their authority and therefore their own opinions, reason, or personal discernment are irrelevant. A beginning point here may be your citation of Paul’s exhortation to “have the same mind” and his other statement that we “have the mind of Christ.” If this is true, and “ALL” authority in heaven and earth (that pretty much covers it) has been given to Christ why do we need some other authority? In addition, the apostles left their authority behind with their doctrine when they all died. In regard to a scriptural succession of that authority to others beside Christ, where is it? The problem with the Bible follows: it’s too simple. It says ALL authority has been given to Christ, and there is only ONE mediator between God and man, and somehow “all” doesn’t mean ALL and “one” doesn’t mean ONE.
A “mind” is body terminology and that’s what Christ’s assembly is. It’s a body, not an institution. An institution goes hand in hand with authority while a body requires cooperation. When authority is truth, you don’t need cooperation or love. And that’s the way religion always functioned until America separated faith and force. And this is why building programs are always the measure of a successful church; because infrastructure speaks of authority and is authority on display. Moreover, people will be judged individually and no authority one chose to obey will be called in as a witness. Obviously, people will be held individually accountable for what they believed. What’s up with giving others authority over what we believe when we are the ones who will be solely accountable to Christ? And, note that all of the apostolic letters were written to the whole assembly of believers and not those who “have authority.” And, even the Bereans decided for themselves whether or not Paul was teaching truth.
Lastly, the apostle’s doctrine was based on a strong oral tradition that clarified the Old Testament. Paul, while he was alive, asked rhetorically, “what saith the scriptures?” and “all scripture is profitable for….” etc., etc. When it gets right down to it, there probably wasn’t a complete NT canon long after the last apostle died. However, the point is a moot one.
Home fellowships are cooperative bodies determined by having fellowship with the Father and each other; those who come are part of the fellowship because they are fellowshipping with the fellowship. Elders are gifted teachers who protect the assemblies by persuading the fellowships with the truth. Regarding disagreement on critical issues, there is no turf to fight over; those who are convinced contrary to the fellowship need to start their own fellowship. Paul stated important fundamentals for unity: our freedom in Christ, and giving people space for being “convinced in their own minds.” Since the fellowships take place in private homes, a plethora of legal issues that plague institutions are of no concern. Money goes for need, not infrastructure.
This is how synagogues functioned for thousands of years, and why thousands of new converts written about in Acts were breaking bread together the next day without missing a beat. The new converts merely continued the home fellowships that were already an established tradition. The details of how these fellowships functioned can be seen in John’s account of the so-called, “last supper.”
This year’s conference will be a good place to discuss these truths: 2017.ttanc.com
Paul, when you mention in the first video this conflict between home fellowships and the institutional church, I would like to know where you get that. I just finished Henry Chadwick’s “The Early Church”, a classic on the subject, and he mentions nothing of this. You say Jesus is the authority, and He certainly is, but here is the issue: Who decides what interpretation of Jesus’ teaching is apostolic? David Koresh had a home fellowship (please know I am in NO WAY comparing him with you) and he had the same Bible and yet they were full of errors. Where is the protection of sound doctrine if every Christian were to decide to start their own “house” church?
A survey of church history shows that a hierarchy of elder (priest, prebyteros), deacon and bishop was in place by the first century. There were no autonomous “house” churches.
How about the ecumenical counsels? These councils settled major arguments on the Trinity and the nature of Christ. They were made up of bishops, not “house church” pastors.
Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on August 7, 2017 at 11:29 PM
Keep in mind that there is a big difference between “church history” which is, in fact, church history, and Christian history. Church history only discusses history surrounding the authority of the church which finally fought its way into relevancy circa 350 AD. Before then, it was just another cult made up of apostolic successionists fighting to get in bed with Rome so their orthodoxy could be enforced.
Full stop. Let’s talk about historical precedent and the splendor of classic church history. As painstakingly documented in my book TTANC, the who’s who of the hallowed halls of Westminster Seminary admitted straight up that contemporary Protestantism completely misunderstood what the Protestant Reformation was really about in regard to the true gospel. That was in 1970. Yep, 500 years later, the whole lot admitted they had the gospel wrong for at least 200 years or longer. Circa 1994 John MacArthur bought into this as well (mostly in private) because it is the truth. Shortly after the Reformation, churches began gravitating towards infused grace (infused righteousness) and lost all grasp of authentic Protestantism. Their words, not mine.
Church authority? The fear that individual interpretation not under the tutelage of “men of God” would lead to chaos? (There isn’t presently chaos in the church?). Excuse me, but these “men of God” barking about the glories of Protestantism didn’t even know what it is! And again, by their own admission. Worse yet, an Adventist/atheist had to reveal this to them. Embarrassing much? And in regard to so and so church historian/scholar saying “nothing of this,” you can add those facts to the list. Protestants decide what is history and what is not. At least they think they do. Furthermore, Protestant Calvinists are even more clueless and have no idea what Calvin really believed as demonstrated by my confrontation with John Piper at a recent conference and my radio conversation with James White. Their ineptness regarding the Calvin Institutes is staggering. Yet, they call themselves Calvinists without blushing. The whole lot are a joke.
Secondly, and again, and again, home fellowships are united by striving for the one mind of Christ…NOT AUTHORITY! Thirdly, what’s the difference between different biblical takes among home fellowships and differing authorities among churches? It’s alright to have chaos among church denominations because it’s an authority? Chaos among them is ok because it is “disagreement among gaawdly men”? Gag me with a ten-inch spoon. It’s still individualism because people are choosing whatever “authority” suits their fancy. In fact, in our day, the gospel is practically defined by “humbling yourself under the authority of godly men” regardless of what the authority states; you’re saved by letting others think for you because they are religious experts. You can be an individualist that thinks for yourself, or an individualist who surrenders all thinking to an authority. Either way, individualism is unavoidable to begin with. Your mention of Koresh to make a point is interesting, but how many more institutional examples like Jack Hyles could be pointed out as a counterpoint? Or worse yet, the ABWE scandal featuring the organized cover-up of serial rape on their mission fields and kidnapping to boot. David Koresh? Really?
Lastly, the ecumenical counsels overseen by avowed Platonists and outright psychopaths. Susan well be addressing many of these church fathers and what they believed according to historical documentation at this year’s conference. They might have been bishops, but they were also men who insisted that the Bible be interpreted through the 6th century sophists. Susan will be citing their own words on this.
Just wondering; you mentioned a NT canon by the end of the first century and no house churches by the end of the first century as well though many are mentioned in the NT. Which is it? By the way, some of them didn’t even have elders. Furthermore, an organized institutional church would have been against Roman law well into the second century.
Andy Young, PPT contributing editor said, on August 8, 2017 at 8:37 AM
David Koresh and the Branch Davidians is a great example of what happens when you have “authority”. Branch Davidianism is actually a reform movement of an offshoot of Seventh Day Adventism that goes back as far as 1930. They would hardly be considered a “home fellowship”. In fact you cannot have a sect like the Branch Davidians without the authority figure of a David Koresh. Such an authority is necessary not for the purpose of maintianing some pretense of “unity” but in order to maintain CONTROL! And think of the kind of control Koresh weilded over his followers and the results. While it is an extreme example of the logical conclusions that results from this metaphysical premise, is it really any different from the control that protestant pastors/elders et al seek to maintain over the pew-sitters? Consider what would happen to a Branch Davidian who questioned Koresh or tried to leave the compound vs what happens to a lay-person who questions a pastor over matters of doctrine or tries to vacate his membership! Is this really what the Body of Christ was meant to be? Is that fellowship among brethren for the purpose of edifying the Body? I think not!
Thank you Paul. Give me some time to review your link. In the meantime I want to state the fact that I am no longer a Protestant so I will not be defending their p ositions. I am also not Roman Catholic. My views go earlier and more to the East. 🙂
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
This is the only way to go . . . oh, and it’s kinda Biblical. Poke me with lemon.
LikeLike
Paul told the Corinthians to be of “the same mind” regarding doctrine. How can these “home fellowships” ensure they are keeping apostolic doctrine without guiding authority? The books of the New Testament weren’t even completed until the end of the first century. No one could ask “what does the Bible say” then.
LikeLike
Brian,
When authority is truth, or efficacious to truth, Or needed to “lead in truth,” “truth” is irrelevant. Point in case: are Catholics stupid because they believe everything dished out by the Catholic Church? No, because the Catholic Church is their authority and therefore their own opinions, reason, or personal discernment are irrelevant. A beginning point here may be your citation of Paul’s exhortation to “have the same mind” and his other statement that we “have the mind of Christ.” If this is true, and “ALL” authority in heaven and earth (that pretty much covers it) has been given to Christ why do we need some other authority? In addition, the apostles left their authority behind with their doctrine when they all died. In regard to a scriptural succession of that authority to others beside Christ, where is it? The problem with the Bible follows: it’s too simple. It says ALL authority has been given to Christ, and there is only ONE mediator between God and man, and somehow “all” doesn’t mean ALL and “one” doesn’t mean ONE.
A “mind” is body terminology and that’s what Christ’s assembly is. It’s a body, not an institution. An institution goes hand in hand with authority while a body requires cooperation. When authority is truth, you don’t need cooperation or love. And that’s the way religion always functioned until America separated faith and force. And this is why building programs are always the measure of a successful church; because infrastructure speaks of authority and is authority on display. Moreover, people will be judged individually and no authority one chose to obey will be called in as a witness. Obviously, people will be held individually accountable for what they believed. What’s up with giving others authority over what we believe when we are the ones who will be solely accountable to Christ? And, note that all of the apostolic letters were written to the whole assembly of believers and not those who “have authority.” And, even the Bereans decided for themselves whether or not Paul was teaching truth.
Lastly, the apostle’s doctrine was based on a strong oral tradition that clarified the Old Testament. Paul, while he was alive, asked rhetorically, “what saith the scriptures?” and “all scripture is profitable for….” etc., etc. When it gets right down to it, there probably wasn’t a complete NT canon long after the last apostle died. However, the point is a moot one.
Home fellowships are cooperative bodies determined by having fellowship with the Father and each other; those who come are part of the fellowship because they are fellowshipping with the fellowship. Elders are gifted teachers who protect the assemblies by persuading the fellowships with the truth. Regarding disagreement on critical issues, there is no turf to fight over; those who are convinced contrary to the fellowship need to start their own fellowship. Paul stated important fundamentals for unity: our freedom in Christ, and giving people space for being “convinced in their own minds.” Since the fellowships take place in private homes, a plethora of legal issues that plague institutions are of no concern. Money goes for need, not infrastructure.
This is how synagogues functioned for thousands of years, and why thousands of new converts written about in Acts were breaking bread together the next day without missing a beat. The new converts merely continued the home fellowships that were already an established tradition. The details of how these fellowships functioned can be seen in John’s account of the so-called, “last supper.”
This year’s conference will be a good place to discuss these truths: 2017.ttanc.com
LikeLike
Paul, when you mention in the first video this conflict between home fellowships and the institutional church, I would like to know where you get that. I just finished Henry Chadwick’s “The Early Church”, a classic on the subject, and he mentions nothing of this. You say Jesus is the authority, and He certainly is, but here is the issue: Who decides what interpretation of Jesus’ teaching is apostolic? David Koresh had a home fellowship (please know I am in NO WAY comparing him with you) and he had the same Bible and yet they were full of errors. Where is the protection of sound doctrine if every Christian were to decide to start their own “house” church?
A survey of church history shows that a hierarchy of elder (priest, prebyteros), deacon and bishop was in place by the first century. There were no autonomous “house” churches.
How about the ecumenical counsels? These councils settled major arguments on the Trinity and the nature of Christ. They were made up of bishops, not “house church” pastors.
LikeLike
Keep in mind that there is a big difference between “church history” which is, in fact, church history, and Christian history. Church history only discusses history surrounding the authority of the church which finally fought its way into relevancy circa 350 AD. Before then, it was just another cult made up of apostolic successionists fighting to get in bed with Rome so their orthodoxy could be enforced.
Full stop. Let’s talk about historical precedent and the splendor of classic church history. As painstakingly documented in my book TTANC, the who’s who of the hallowed halls of Westminster Seminary admitted straight up that contemporary Protestantism completely misunderstood what the Protestant Reformation was really about in regard to the true gospel. That was in 1970. Yep, 500 years later, the whole lot admitted they had the gospel wrong for at least 200 years or longer. Circa 1994 John MacArthur bought into this as well (mostly in private) because it is the truth. Shortly after the Reformation, churches began gravitating towards infused grace (infused righteousness) and lost all grasp of authentic Protestantism. Their words, not mine.
Church authority? The fear that individual interpretation not under the tutelage of “men of God” would lead to chaos? (There isn’t presently chaos in the church?). Excuse me, but these “men of God” barking about the glories of Protestantism didn’t even know what it is! And again, by their own admission. Worse yet, an Adventist/atheist had to reveal this to them. Embarrassing much? And in regard to so and so church historian/scholar saying “nothing of this,” you can add those facts to the list. Protestants decide what is history and what is not. At least they think they do. Furthermore, Protestant Calvinists are even more clueless and have no idea what Calvin really believed as demonstrated by my confrontation with John Piper at a recent conference and my radio conversation with James White. Their ineptness regarding the Calvin Institutes is staggering. Yet, they call themselves Calvinists without blushing. The whole lot are a joke.
Secondly, and again, and again, home fellowships are united by striving for the one mind of Christ…NOT AUTHORITY! Thirdly, what’s the difference between different biblical takes among home fellowships and differing authorities among churches? It’s alright to have chaos among church denominations because it’s an authority? Chaos among them is ok because it is “disagreement among gaawdly men”? Gag me with a ten-inch spoon. It’s still individualism because people are choosing whatever “authority” suits their fancy. In fact, in our day, the gospel is practically defined by “humbling yourself under the authority of godly men” regardless of what the authority states; you’re saved by letting others think for you because they are religious experts. You can be an individualist that thinks for yourself, or an individualist who surrenders all thinking to an authority. Either way, individualism is unavoidable to begin with. Your mention of Koresh to make a point is interesting, but how many more institutional examples like Jack Hyles could be pointed out as a counterpoint? Or worse yet, the ABWE scandal featuring the organized cover-up of serial rape on their mission fields and kidnapping to boot. David Koresh? Really?
Lastly, the ecumenical counsels overseen by avowed Platonists and outright psychopaths. Susan well be addressing many of these church fathers and what they believed according to historical documentation at this year’s conference. They might have been bishops, but they were also men who insisted that the Bible be interpreted through the 6th century sophists. Susan will be citing their own words on this.
Just wondering; you mentioned a NT canon by the end of the first century and no house churches by the end of the first century as well though many are mentioned in the NT. Which is it? By the way, some of them didn’t even have elders. Furthermore, an organized institutional church would have been against Roman law well into the second century.
I have written on these matters extensively, but you can start here: http://truthaboutnewcalvinism.weebly.com/vol-2015-issue-4.html
http://truthaboutnewcalvinism.weebly.com/vol-2015-issue-5.html
LikeLike
David Koresh and the Branch Davidians is a great example of what happens when you have “authority”. Branch Davidianism is actually a reform movement of an offshoot of Seventh Day Adventism that goes back as far as 1930. They would hardly be considered a “home fellowship”. In fact you cannot have a sect like the Branch Davidians without the authority figure of a David Koresh. Such an authority is necessary not for the purpose of maintianing some pretense of “unity” but in order to maintain CONTROL! And think of the kind of control Koresh weilded over his followers and the results. While it is an extreme example of the logical conclusions that results from this metaphysical premise, is it really any different from the control that protestant pastors/elders et al seek to maintain over the pew-sitters? Consider what would happen to a Branch Davidian who questioned Koresh or tried to leave the compound vs what happens to a lay-person who questions a pastor over matters of doctrine or tries to vacate his membership! Is this really what the Body of Christ was meant to be? Is that fellowship among brethren for the purpose of edifying the Body? I think not!
LikeLike
Thank you Paul. Give me some time to review your link. In the meantime I want to state the fact that I am no longer a Protestant so I will not be defending their p ositions. I am also not Roman Catholic. My views go earlier and more to the East. 🙂
LikeLike