New Testament Church Proliferation Digest


Spreading the Gospel via House Churches


August 22, 2001 Vol 01 : 056

NT Church Proliferation Digest Thursday, November 8 2001 Vol 01 : 089


[ntcp] New member
Re: [ntcp] 'Religion' is not a dirty word
Re: [ntcp] New member
Re: [ntcp] Church Planting discussion
Re: [ntcp] Welcome to new member
Re: [ntcp] 'Religion' is not a dirty word
[ntcp] Church Planting discussion


Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 21:21:11
From: "David Jaggernauth"
Subject: [ntcp] New member

Hello everyone,

I am new to this list and would like to introduce myself. My name is

David Jaggernauth,
I am 36 yrs old and live on the
Island Republic of Trinidad & Tobago.

I am recently married ( 4mths) my wife's name is Seeta. I have been serving
the Lord about 9 years now, i was a Presbyterian before I got saved, my wife
was a Hindu. I am a businessman by profession and run a small computer
business.

My wife and I recently left our Church which we were members of since the
time of our salvation, we did not get saved in the Church though
( thank God for small mercies ). Our leaving was very messy and quite
unfortunate, we were duped, deceived and deliberately discredited in front
of the entire leadership of the church. Praise God, we rejoiced afterwards.
God bless them all.

God has given us a vision for building a housefellowship kind of church and
after meeting Link on another discussion board he felt I would be interested
in joining this one. I look forward to sharing ideas concerning this kind of
ministry since it is new to me, the idea of a home meeting instead of a
"Church" meeting came to me 4 years ago but it is only in the last few
months that the idea has begun to take on shape. Incidentally this idea did
not come to me because I left the Church and want to do my own thing. God
spoke to me about housefellowships a long time ago before leaving was even a
consideration in my mind.

I am in the process of starting up several meetings and would like to share
ideas.

If anyone wants to know our reasons for leaving our old church, I can email
you a letter I wrote to the leadership that details all my reasons, it is a
long letter so i dont think Link will let me post it although I think it
raises quite a few issues that you all have been discussing.
Your bretheren in Christ,

David & Seeta Jaggernauth


------- <><><> -------


Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 17:52:38 -0800
From: jferris
Subject: Re: [ntcp] 'Religion' is not a dirty word

castillofuerte@airtel.net wrote:

>Jay wrote:
>
>>I think it was Monty Python who said, "Nobody expects the Spanish
>>Inquisition."
>>
>
>I object! I haven't said anything!
>
>Blessings
>Keith

Sorry Keith, I forgot you were in Spain.

Yours in Christ,

Jay


------- <><><> -------


Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:11:53 +0800 (CST)
From:TC
Subject: Re: [ntcp] New member

Dear David,

The good thing to do is forget the past although it has caused us deep pain. The fact that you have grown and still zealous for the Lord inspite the devil had tried hard to discourage you. Praise The Lord!

The "churches"are not united and are different in understanding. We who grow in a "church" reach a level where I call it 'marriageable spiritual age' and we feel the need to get married and get out from our shelter of our spiritual parents and start a family of our own. Because most "churches" way of discipling and leadership structure are not in line with the new testament way of growth and expansion, we get into suppression and oppression in the spiritual life and thus end into messy situations with leaderships. But praise be to God, that through all these difficulties we grow and mature even more and step out in faith to fulfill God's call in our lives. He is after all our shepherd and He is leading us.

Now is another new begining to grow to another height in the Lord. God is using you and your wife to reach out to many lost sheeps and gather them to the Lord. You will teach and disciple them in the Lord. God's anointing will manifest strongly in your fellowship.

These brethren in the New Testament Church Proliferation and Link are spiritual elders who can be in fellowship through internet and give you the advises and counsel you need. You are not alone in the ministry.
I will pray for you both to grow richly in all things and be a good minister of the Lord.

Crispus
David Jaggernauth wrote: Hello everyone,

I am new to this list and would like to introduce myself. My name is

David Jaggernauth,
I am 36 yrs old and live on the
Island Republic of Trinidad & Tobago.

I am recently married ( 4mths) my wife's name is Seeta. I have been serving
the Lord about 9 years now, i was a Presbyterian before I got saved, my wife
was a Hindu. I am a businessman by profession and run a small computer
business.

My wife and I recently left our Church which we were members of since the
time of our salvation, we did not get saved in the Church though
( thank God for small mercies ). Our leaving was very messy and quite
unfortunate, we were duped, deceived and deliberately discredited in front
of the entire leadership of the church. Praise God, we rejoiced afterwards.
God bless them all.

God has given us a vision for building a housefellowship kind of church and
after meeting Link on another discussion board he felt I would be interested
in joining this one. I look forward to sharing ideas concerning this kind of
ministry since it is new to me, the idea of a home meeting instead of a
"Church" meeting came to me 4 years ago but it is only in the last few
months that the idea has begun to take on shape. Incidentally this idea did
not come to me because I left the Church and want to do my own thing. God
spoke to me about housefellowships a long time ago before leaving was even a
consideration in my mind.

I am in the process of starting up several meetings and would like to share
ideas.

If anyone wants to know our reasons for leaving our old church, I can email
you a letter I wrote to the leadership that details all my reasons, it is a
long letter so i dont think Link will let me post it although I think it
raises quite a few issues that you all have been discussing.
Your bretheren in Christ,

David & Seeta Jaggernauth


- ------- <><><> -------


Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 06:15:23 EST
From: Steffasong
Subject: Re: [ntcp] Church Planting discussion

In a message dated 11/07/2001 1:40:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,
castillofuerte@airtel.net writes:
> I feel no difficulty in this as
> the folk in the town are quite aware of the doctrinal anomaly in the
> first church and have chosen themselves to come accross.
>
> I don't know what this contributes, but its part of my story,
> Blessings
> keith

Hi Keith, it contributes much, thank you.

WIthout sound doctrine there is no 'unity.' We need to meet on the Truth of
Jesus Christ, not a reinterpretation of his identify. I likely would have
done the same as you. The church can only be strong as she is built on a
solid foundation.

Thanks for your input.
Stephanie
Stephanie Bennett


"When I worship, I would rather my
heart be without words than my words
be without heart." -Lamar Boschman


------- <><><> -------


Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 06:21:58 EST
From: Steffasong
Subject: Re: [ntcp] Welcome to new member

Welcome David & Seeta, and blessings in Christ to you!

You have described an experience that many believers all over the world go
through, and now you are on the most exciting (and challenging) adventure of
your lives. It is a journey on which the Holy Spirit will lead you and the
Lamb of God will become more and more real to you in your everyday
experience. As you open your home and depend upon Him for answers and
leading, He will be faithful to meet you there and direct you in all things.
It can be a wonderful time of growth and learning, but not one in which you
do not need support. I am thrilled to hear that you would like to share
your ideas and tell us how the church takes shape in your midst.

In the Lamb,
Stephanie

In a message dated 11/07/2001 4:22:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
abccom@hotmail.com writes:
> the idea of a home meeting instead of a
> "Church" meeting came to me 4 years ago but it is only in the last few
> months that the idea has begun to take on shape. Incidentally this idea did
>
> not come to me because I left the Church and want to do my own thing. God
> spoke to me about housefellowships a long time ago before leaving was even
> a
> consideration in my mind.
>
> I am in the process of starting up several meetings and would like to share
>
> ideas.
>
> If anyone wants to know our reasons for leaving our old church, I can email
>
> you a letter I wrote to the leadership that details all my reasons, it is a
>
> long letter so i dont think Link will let me post it although I think it
> raises quite a few issues that you all have been discussing.
>
>
> Your bretheren in Christ,
>
> David & Seeta Jaggernauth
>
Stephanie Bennett


"When I worship, I would rather my
heart be without words than my words
be without heart." -Lamar Boschman


------- <><><> -------


Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 06:45:10 -0800
From: jferris
Subject: Re: [ntcp] 'Religion' is not a dirty word

David Anderson wrote, quoting me:

>>No - Morality pertains to philosophy and ethics. Jesus Christ has
>>delivered us from both. Fasten your seat belt. I wouldn't say this just
>>anyplace, but in present company, and in light of the nature of this
>>discussion, I have to be very frank with you. In the sense you are
>>speaking of, pure Christianity is immoral. It is not compliance to a
>>system of ethics, it is the expression of a divine life.

Dear David,

Thank you so much for your delightful response. I have to say that it
smacks of "speaking the truth in love". Actually, I meant to say
ammoral, not immoral. As I recall, Immoral is against the law, and
ammoral is without the law. Perhaps that might even do for your
requested definition. Please forgive me for that careless word, and,
please, may I add my understanding of "speaking the truth in love".

For me, "speaking the truth in love means that, first of all, we are in
love. If we are in love we can then share the honest content of our
hearts, right or wrong. If the honest contents of our hearts was always
right, than there would be no need to "grow up". but as it is we do need
to grow up, and as I understand it, "speaking the truth or the honest
contents of our hearts, is one very important way to do that. Honesty in
love is a means of growth in Christ, and I am so grateful for this list
that it provides an environment where this can happen.

>Hey Jay, my brother,
>
>You raise many questions. Wish we could have talked this over in person.
>I see that you are still intent upon infusing a negative connotation into
>the word "religion"
>
I think our behaviour as "Christians" has beat me to it.

>which skews the inferences you then draw ("about caving in") and puts this thread very close to the point of diminishing returns.
>
>But I must inquire of you: Who suggested that Christianity, properly
>understood, is NOT an expression of a divine life, namely that of our
>Lord in us, the hope of glory?
>
No one in recent memory. I said what I said only to contrast the
expression of life with compliance to external rules.

>So, the words of Jesus and the apostles contain no moral nor ethical
>instructions... Very interesting. :D According to you and who else?
>Please refer us to something definitive that's in print, somewhere.

Galatians 3:1-5 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before
your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would
like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by
observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish?
After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal
by human effort? Have you suffered so much for nothing--if it really was
for nothing? Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you
because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

I could site others, but I think your objections would be the same, so
for the sake of brevity I leave it at this one.

>You have brought strange things to our ears today, brother...
>
This could mean that I am in very good company.

>Please demonstrate how "participation in a divine nature" excludes moral
>instruction.
>
Participation in the divine nature is the end of moral instruction, and
is designed to drive us to Christ, not to a righteousness which is our own.

>Take the popular "sermon on the mount" and demonstrate how that it contains no ethical or behavioral mandates (or imperatives or morality or whatever your preferred term for right and wrong - might happen to be).
>
That would be very difficult, because the beattitudes are law, they are
conditional on human attitude. A law requiring that we not kill was not
enough to do away with the self righteousness of those who had never
killed anyone, so Jesus raised the ante, and made killing a matter of
heart's attitude. That makes it a good deal more difficult to be
self-righteous, at least, for some of us. I think it was "Thou shalt not
covet" that got to Paul.

>Why did Paul require that "him that was stealing should steal no more" or
>that Timothy was to "flee youthful lusts, for example." There are
>HUNDREDS of other apostolic commands.
>
Few if none of which is likely to be kept by human righteousness. Law
always drives us to Christ, even after we have been introduced to Him by
the Holy Spirit.

>AND I WANT YOU TO EXPLAIN HOW THESE ARE INCOMPATIBLE TO "PARTAKING OF THE DIVINE NATURE or to LIFE."
>
Romans 9:31-33: But Israel, which followed after the law of
righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore?
Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the
law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written,
Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and
whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Christ is my righteousness. I have none of my own, and every time I try
to get some of my own, "evil is right there with me".

>Why would the apostles and our Saviour have muddied up the waters with all
>this stuff, Jay?
>
In order to prove to us what they and Jesus already knew, that "there is
none righteous, no not one".

There is nothing in our old man that is compatible with the law. The
tree of the knowledge of good and evil is not fit for human consumption.
DON'T EAT IT!!! If the fruit of that tree "could have given
life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. " Galatians 3:21
Notice, that by the time the garden has become a city in the Revelation
of John, there is no tree of the knowledge of good and evil there.

>Please do not attempt to bait and switch us with more non sequiturs such
>as Paul accounting his former role in Judaism "as rubbish." He was
>referring to himself as an unregenerate person at that time.
>
Be that as it may, he was also referring to himself as representing as
good as it gets under the law.

>The context of today's discussion, brother, is the life of regenerated persons, forever joined to Christ seeking to be obedient to his wishes.
>
Not altogether unlike the context of Paul's letter to the Galatians.

>We are talking about the process of sanctification - not the act of
>justification.
>
Sanctification is something accomplished by the Sword of the Spirit, not
the commandments of men, or the letter of the law written on tablets of
stone.

>Unless you are willing to admit that your prayers, Lord's Suppers, songs
>are intended to merit your salvation,
>
I'm not willing to admit that! "On Christ the solid rock I stand, all
other ground is sinking sand. I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but
wholy lean on Jesus Name." "The sweetest frame" is very, very inclusive.

>then do not remotely suggest that my obedience to other requirements is intended to do so either. Thank you.
>
I hadn't realized that I made any such suggestion. You're welcome.

> Btw, do you teach your children that there is no such thing as morality,
>right and wrong (or whatever word is your equivalent)? How do you handle
>this?
>
Ah, now we are speaking about children, I plead Galatians 4:1-4

>What do you mean by the extra-biblical phrase "pure Christianity?"
>
I meant to make a connection to the Bibllical phrase, "pure religion".

>Are you/we not having enough problems with the biblical terminology, itself?
>
Yes we are.

> Since pure Christianity is immoral,
>
Again, Please forgive me, I meant to say ammoral.

>is therefore pure religion also immoral?
>
"ammoral", and strictly speaking in the narrowest Biblical sense, Yes.

>If "pure Christianity is immoral" does that mean that impure
>Christianity is moral?
>
This is a very helpful question, perhaps as much to the point as any we
have discussed on this thread. Please allow me to make the desired
correction, and then to answer:

>If "pure Christianity is ammoral" does that mean that impure
>Christianity is moral?
>
Yes! "Impure Christianity" is commiting adultery with her former
husband, Romans 7:4

>You makka me wunda. What is your definition of moral, anyway?
>
Compliance to external rules. Mostly outward.

>If we live in an amoral universe, it would thus be impossible to sin,
>because sin is the transgression of the law. Are you without sin? Do tell.
>
Actually, as I understand it, according to Romans 5, death reigned,
before there was a law, then law entered, and things got even worse, and
finally Jesus Christ brought to our hearts the reign of grace.

>Wish we could have settled this one on the ping pong table. :D Because I
>am thy brother!
>
Ping pong or not, it really needs to get settled, and I appreciate your
willingness to play the game. Actually, Jesus is the only game in town.

Jay


------- <><><> -------


Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 14:41:56 +0200
From: "Deborah"
Subject: [ntcp] Church Planting discussion

Stephanie wrote:
>There is no formula. There are no easy answers. Plus,

>we are not Church Planting experts, that is not our role in life, --- we

>are just people who have been walking with Him for a

>long time, and we trust Him. We trust Him to show us.

>We trust Him to supply. We trust that the Church is

>HIS idea, and that He will make a way. We just trust Him.

So what you are saying is that we all should cultivate that listening/trusting
relationship in order to recognise those "special orders" (as opposed to
'general orders'-- I speak as a man with military experience) and that that
often takes time ("... people who have been walking with Him for a long time").
That sounds like a formula to me! And a good one.

>One, His words in our hearts would not contradict the things

>we know in scripture about oneness/division, sound doctrine, etc.

There is this thing in Jewish thought which is called HALAKHA (from the Hebrew
root word HALAKH, which means to walk) and it comes primarily from these
verses:

"If a matter arises which is too hard for you to judge, between degrees of
guilt for bloodshed, BETWEEN ONE JUDGMENT OR ANOTHER, or between one punishment
or another, matters of controversy within your gates, then you shall arise and
go up to the place which the LORD your God chooses. And you shall come to the
priests, the Levites, and to the judge there in those days, and inquire of
them; they shall pronounce upon you the sentence of judgment. You shall do
according to the sentence which they pronounce upon you in that place which the
LORD chooses. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they order
you. According to the sentence of the law in which they instruct you, according
to the judgment which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside to
the right hand or to the left from the sentence which they pronounce upon you.
Now the man who acts presumptuously and will not heed the priest who stands to
minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So
you shall put away the evil from Israel" (Deu 17:8-12, emphasis mine).

Jesus himself was intimately familiar with HALAKHA and operated within its
borders. HALAKHA is usually forged when one section of Scripture appears to
run contrary to another section of Scripture ("BETWEEN ONE JUDGMENT OR
ANOTHER"). Religious Jews then (and now), like right-minded Christians,
posited that there are no inherant contradictions in the Bible. But there were
times when some commandments seemed to careen headlong into others. So Jesus
was tested with these kinds of issues, and it is obvious that he applied
HALAKHIC decisions to these tests as well as to other confrontations. HALAKHA
maintains that there are priorities in the Bible, that some commandments
outweigh other commandments. Therefore, in a "contest" between one section of
the Bible and another, the lighter matter must in some sense give way. For
instance, Jesus said:

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and
anise and cummin, and have neglected THE WEIGHTIER MATTERS OF THE LAW: justice
and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others
undone" (Mat. 23:23, emphasis mine).

Christ thereby demonstrated that some matters of "the Law" outweigh others.
Although all are important ("without leaving the others undone"). In another
instance Jesus was confronted by some Pharisees who questioned why Jesus would
allow his disciples to pluck standing grain left for those who did not have
enough food (Lev. 19:9, 10; Deu. 23:25), and rub it between their hands. On
the Sabbath! A violation of some (but not all) then current interpretations of
the Law. Jesus' defense was to remind this group challenging him that some
issues in the Scriptures carried more weight than others:

"Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were
with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not
lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the
priests? [Saving/sustaining life is weightier than some cultic regulations--
MICHAEL] Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the
temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?" [Ongoing work in the temple was
weightier than the Sabbath regulations-- MICHAEL] (Mat. 12:3-5).

Christ drove home his HALAKHIC conclusion that true mercy takes precedence over
certain Sabbath prohibitions ("But if you had known what this means, 'I desire
mercy and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless"-- Mat.
12:7) and indeed, due to the uniqueness of the whole context in which Israel
now found itself (he being the prophesied Messiah and all), Jesus and his
disciples were able to legally do some things to which some might object ("For
the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath"-- Mat. 12:8).

Paul also demonstrated HALAKHIC reasoning throughout his many epistles, but for
the sake of space I will refer you to a book by Peter J. Tomson, entitled `Paul
and the Jewish Law` (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.) which comprehensively
details these instances. Suffice it to say that HALAKHA is a very NT thing to
do.

Okay, my purpose, dear sister, in this rabbit trail of sorts is to offer to you
the possibility that in some instances God would indeed *seem* to "contradict
the things we know in scripture about oneness/division, sound doctrine, etc.".
That there might possibly be times when a church was being planted in the same
general area that you or I were called, but that we would have to discern
whether or not we were supposed to come under the work already in progress or
to begin a new work altogether. But-- and this is a *big* but-- if we chose
the route of planting a different congregation in the same area, I think it
would have to be because some other factor forced us into applying another
"weightier" portion of Scripture over those stressing unity. I think. Which
leads me into the second question of my last post.

>>In other words, would you work together on a

>>project with a group which warmly welcomed you,

>>but which you sort of feared would ultimately

>>be a wasted effort, or worse yet, a possible

>>(but not a for sure) affront to our Savior?



To which Stephanie anwered:

>Would I allow myself to be a part of creating a

>monster? Never. Accept the time that I did. :-)

Perhaps I did a poor job of communicating the uncertainty one can sometimes
feel about certain groups who may just be a bit weird. But then again, they
may be moving in obedience to the Spirit-- and just seem weird because God
isn't always a conformist. But on the other hand, they appear to be
kinda-sorta off when it comes to perfectly sound doctrine. But then again, who
is batting a hundred in that arena anyway. On the other hand, there still are
certain standards, ... and these guys are balancing precariously just on the
inside of a fence, running the risk of a breeze blowing which could cause them
to fall out of the fence into heresy altogether. But one never knows and they
may grow up. But then again, ...

You see what I mean, Stephanie (or anybody)? Is the above scenario a time to
stress the unity scriptures, and build together? Or the heresy ones, and start
a new nearby work? Or neither? Or both? Or ...?

Not looking for a pat formula, but wanting some discussion that will be
grounded in biblical thinking with a goal to exalt Christ in our Church
Planting efforts.

Michael

Jerusalem


End of New Testament Church Proliferation Digest V1 #89
 

house church eldership servanthood lord's day lord's supper world missions