Quantrill said:

No, I didn't. I could tell where it was going without reading it. Because you just asked, I did glance at it, and it was just as I expected.

But whether believers meet in a traditional church building or in a home, it is still a local church.

Quantrill

Click to expand...

Chad4Him said:

Well that isn't the real point of the article. The title looks like it is a bit "click-bait".. as many articles are .

Every believer is part of the church, so yes, if we meet with a few others in a house, then there we see the church is meeting ("church" = "assembly").

I do not agree 100% with everything stated in the article btw. However, the point made in the article that relates to the title of the article is: the pattern of the New Testament shows a working local church with ordained leaders and every-member responsibility and accountability, not only a bible-study gathering (home group bible studies are great too - but not a substitute). I am not saying this to knock anyone's practice but just looking at the scriptures.

Click to expand...

Quantrill said:

Home churches can be just as credible as traditional churches. They are a church. They do not need to be a 'substitute' as they are a church. Nothing in Scripture is against home churches. (Col. 4:15) "Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house."

Quantrill

Click to expand...

Dave M said:

the question becomes what can we do for the body of Christ, for a church serving God IMO

----Versus some churches is more about what God can do for them,
---------------------- - themes like "best life now" come to mind

Are we serving or are we looking to be served, are we bearing fruit, are we learning how to bear fruit??

is there community at the church? or is everyone just staring at the back of someones head while attending service??

Click to expand...