AV Bible Believers Fellowship

I am a Baptist in matters of church polity, and I appreciate the Baptist distinctives and Baptist history. But I'm first and foremost a Bible-believer.

Because I'm a Baptist, I don't always have to be in a Baptist church! This sounds contradictory, but it's not. Rick Schworer has referred elsewhere to "soul liberty," which is one of the essential Baptist distinctives. What this means, in practice, is that if I move to a town where there are no Bible-believing Baptist churches, but there is a Bible-believing Presbyterian or Christian Missionary Alliance church, then that's where I'll go: that's where my soul can be fed, and where I can serve. That's soul liberty - - - although the typical Southern Baptist or IFB pastor might kick at the idea.

(I hasten to add that, if I had small children, I would be much more careful about this. I'd drive to the nearest town where there was a Bible-believing Baptist church, for the children's sake. But I'm only talking about myself now, and my spouse, if I had one.)

I'm also very strong on the local church; I think it's absolutely essential, and I think it must be absolutely autonomous. If I attended a Presbyterian church, with their presybyeries and synods and General Assembly, I'd avoid involvement in such matters, just as I'd bite my lip and look the other way during the infant "baptisms." But even there, some Presbyterian congregations are independent.

I think that the "house church" movement holds possibilities: or, more precisely, that house churches have possibilities. (I distrust "movements.") But they have drawbacks, too. As the Laodicean period continues, and as we near the end, house churches will proliferate.

There are excellent IFB churches, and that's where most of us wind up. But I use "IFB" to simply abbreviate the description: independent fundamental Baptists. I'd prefer to call it IBB: independent Bible-believing Baptists. But I have nothing but contempt for the IFB "movement." When I see these huge IFB churches with their faith-promise giving and their bond programs and their support of "Christian colleges" that are little more than marriage mills, the word that comes to mind is ICHABOD.

(11-11-2010 08:42 PM)William Wrote: [ -> ]I think that the "house church" movement holds possibilities: or, more precisely, that house churches have possibilities. (I distrust "movements.") But they have drawbacks, too. As the Laodicean period continues, and as we near the end, house churches will proliferate.

You're probably right, it's sad.

I have a few concerns when it comes to house churches, namely, how did they start - as a church split or as a new work? Also, is the pastor of the house church qualified to be a pastor according to the New Testament? Is the house church focused on evangelism or is it a family church that is more focused on fulfilling Adam's commission to repopulate the Earth instead of the Great Commission given by Christ?

(11-11-2010 09:02 PM)Rick Schworer Wrote: [ -> ]I have a few concerns when it comes to house churches, namely, how did they start - as a church split or as a new work? Also, is the pastor of the house church qualified to be a pastor according to the New Testament? Is the house church focused on evangelism or is it a family church that is more focused on fulfilling Adam's commission to repopulate the Earth instead of the Great Commission given by Christ?

Those are some of the concerns. There's also the possibility of a gaggle of troublemakers and malcontents leaving an organized church and coming together as a "house church," just for the sake of rebellion and ego. Then having little "Bible studies" where they sit around and preach at each other about how bad the organized church is.

Come to think of it, I've just described the Stam/Bullinger Hyper-Dispensationalists! But be that as it may....

There are numerous problems with accountability, the spiritual knowledge of the leadership, etc. But these are not insurmountable problems, and the possibility of "good" house churches is very real. In China, that's all our brothers and sisters have: house churches, or government-run "recognized" churches. Are we Americans better Christians than they? I trow not!

This is Laodicea. Many, if not most, of the churches we attend today will be apostate tomorrow. I'm not saying we should abandon them; I'm simply saying that the time will come when our children may have to, if they want to remain faithful to God's word. I've seen great churches apostasize within my own spiritual lifetime: a mere 41 years. It happens very quickly.

We mustn't tell the Holy Spirit how He may or may not work in this (or any other) age. We don't make the rules. House churches, like organized churches, will be a mixed bag: some very good, some very bad. We must follow the word of God and the Spirit's leading, and leave man's traditions to those who really have nothing else.

I guess when it comes down to it. ANY church, house, institutional, etc. is succeptible (sp?) to problems with:

1. Unqualified leadership
2. Wrong motives for starting
3. Wrong direction

The evidence for house churches is numerous in the Bible, the church that meets at So-in-so's house, etc., but a group meeting at the house does not particularly a church make. I do know some brethren that live in remote areas where there is NO GOOD CHURCH. They meet at home as a matter of necessity. I do not think this is best, but then, sometimes, circumstances are such that we cannot broadbrush all house/home churches as "dangerous."

I believe a group that "really does" make the exalting of Christ their primary focus, will, seek proper leadership, seek souls, and be careful about their own "content."

I'm happy to call myself an Independent Baptist and associate myself with Baptist history. If I was going to name a denomination who has it more right than the others it would be Independent Baptists.

If I am out of town on holiday during Sunday, I will always look for a local Baptist church to attend, Bible Believing Baptist preferred but they are few and far between down here.

When someone asks me what religion I am (probably the most common question I/we ever get asked), I will usually say Baptist and futher clarify it as Independent and separate from the Baptist Union. I have observed that when they hear the word "Baptist" they seem relieved and relate the name as being a 'safe religion'. Most people down here identify the Baptist church as being on the right track. If on the other hand I introduce myself as a Bible Believing Christian some get confused and wonder if I'm in some kind of cult.

What's in a name? Much. First impressions, clarification, meaning. I always tell people I'm a Christian, first & foremost, but when it comes to church I'm happy to be a Baptist.

I've just got to tell this story. I've used this several times. When talking to someone who is a member of the "church of Christ," or the church of Jesus Christ, Latter-day Saints, (Mormons,) they will, if prompted, tell you their church is the right church because it's got Jesus' name in it, or their name comes from scripture, i.e., "...the churches of Christ greet you."

Anyways, I do not accept their reasoning so I use similar (il)logic to throw them a curve ball. I ask:

"If I was baptized down at the Pentecostal church, what would that make me?" to which they reply, "A Pentecostal." "Very good. So, if I was baptized down at the Methodist church what would THAT make me?" to which they always answer, "A Methodist." "So, if I get baptized down at the Baptist church, what does that make me?" and they never fail to say, "A Baptist."

This is called laying the ground work. Now phase 2!

"So, you're telling me, whoever baptizes me, makes me one of them, correct?" they'll say it everytime, "Yes."

Now it is time for the DOUBLE WHAMMY.

"Who baptized Jesus, it was John the what?" to which they say, (with bugged out eyes,) "OH, no you don't!"

Finish it for them, "Jesus was baptized by John the BAPTIST. Jesus was a BAPTIST!"

You and they are finished.

That's good, brother. It reminds me of those who used to tell me, in my Presbyterian days, that his name was not "John the Sprinkler!"

That's excellent, bro. Ben! I love it!