Comments on: Doctrine: What is the Church? (Part 1b)

By: Greg Gibson

Greg Gibson — Sat, 01 May 2010 13:38:25 +0000

Tyler let me think through this and I might do another ‘revised’ post.

By: Tyler

Tyler — Sat, 01 May 2010 04:28:32 +0000

Greg, have you altered your definition of the local church after having taken Dr. Allison’s class, or are you sticking to your above definition?

By: Doctrine: What is the Church? (Part 2c) « The Veritas Network

Doctrine: What is the Church? (Part 2c) « The Veritas Network — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:47:09 +0000

[...] is the Church?” series we will discuss the last part of the definition that I gave in Part 1b. We have had some fairly good discussion thus far on the website concerning the church as we [...]

By: Doctrine: What is the Church? (Part 2b) « The Veritas Network

Doctrine: What is the Church? (Part 2b) « The Veritas Network — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:11:55 +0000

[...] of what the church is, we will now continue to break down the definition that I gave in part 1b. Here we will discuss the 2nd part of the definition which [...]

By: Doctrine: What is the Church (Part 2a) « The Veritas Network

Doctrine: What is the Church (Part 2a) « The Veritas Network — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:29:19 +0000

[...] doctrine series on the church, I will now begin to break down the definition that I gave in ‘part 1b.’ I will break the definition down into 3 separate posts. This post will focus on the [...]

By: Greg Gibson

Greg Gibson — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:02:13 +0000

Those are great questions! First of all, I want to state that the definition I gave was completely out of the Scriptures and in complete harmony with church history. I am not trying to hold to a ‘modernized’ version of church leadership or church government, but simply what Paul and other authors (i.e., Luke in Acts) lays out in Scripture. I don’t think stating that 2 or 3 meeting in a dorm room ‘absolutely not being a church’ is a that much of a bold statement. I believe it’s biblical – as biblical as stating that a man having sexual relations with another man is wrong. It’s not a church. In fact, staying within the walls of Scripture we find that there have to be certain things (see above) in place for a church to exist. I would say they are apart of the universal church – the church of all believers past, present, and future, but not a local church as defined by Scripture.

Also, when Paul gives qualifications for a leader in 1 Tim 3… if someone is not qualified under these prescriptive qualifications then they are not fit by Scripture (not a modern understanding) to be a pastor/deacon. And, you might be right about the discipline thing – we could all use examples of close community in our lives like house churches give us.

Here are a few links to confessional statements and creeds over the last centuries of the church.

The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 – http://www.sbc.net/BFM/bfm2000.asp

New Hampshire Baptist Confession 1833 – http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/nh_conf.htm#13

The Abstract of Principals 1858 – http://www.founders.org/abstract.html

Keep asking questions!!! But remember also to look at the past 2000 years of church history. Thanks for sharpening my mind as well sister!

Greg

By: amanda

amanda — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:21:33 +0000

I may be wrong, but it looks like you may be using a modern-day view of church offices. I don’t believe what we have today is completely biblical. We have created this hierarchy in the church that has separated the congregation from those “in office”. Paul appointed those leaders in the church that exhibited certain qualities, not because they were better educated. They were those more mature in the faith. Do you not consider those that meet in homes “the local church”? In my experience, I see more church discipline being practice on the house church level than in the bigger “institutions”. To say that a group meeting in a dorm room is “absolutely not” what the church should look like seems like a pretty bold statement. What about a group that meets in someone’s living room twice a week to share life and what the Lord is doing and also share a meal together?

My questions stem from the fact that I’m trying to broaden my worldview and not see the church through the Western mindset. And that involves asking lots of questions about how and why we do things and think the way we do.

By: Greg Gibson

Greg Gibson — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:58:19 +0000

Amanda I will address this question later when I get to leadership. I do think that a group of people meeting in a home can call themselves a church only if they are seeking to abide by or reach towards the above definition. I believe that the Bible is prescriptive in 1 Timothy 3 about the qualifications of elders/deacons. What would happen if families (or new believers without proper discipleship or training) in the United States, or anywhere, broke away from local churches to start house churches without the proper qualifications that Paul states in 1 Timothy 3? I believe it would be a lot like Corinth.

As far as the dorm room question, I do not believe there would be proper leadership as laid out by Paul in 1 Tim 3. Also, according to Scripture we must be practicing the ordinances and having proper church discipline. I think it would be poor wisdom on young believers to start a church without proper Titus 2 training and not being sent out by another local church to do so. We must love the local church first in order to start other local churches.

By: amanda

amanda — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:17:37 +0000

I am interested to read how you break down this definition. You may address this later, but what would your take be on house church? There are technically no church offices is this setting. And why couldn’t a group, meeting in a dorm room be called “a church”?

By: Ben Ward

Ben Ward — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:09:56 +0000

in your future posts, i am interested to hear a small discussion on the part of “baptized believers in Christ” and how this definition affects the status of churches that practice infant baptism. Looking forward to all of it!