Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Is a home church a biblical church?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Well,  a church is group of believers covenanted together to worship and serve Jesus Christ.  Such a church is led by a pastor with one wife and more than one child among other qualifications and this church was not created by any one individual, but was planted by another scriptural New Testament Church.


In 1976 a church in Auburndale, Florida planted a church in Fort Pierce, Florida.  For a time the church met at my pastor's home, then they moved into a christian college's spaces and finally bought land and built a traditional church building that has been expanded several times since.


So if some lady has a vision to start a church and plays christian rock out by the pool before services which are conducted in her spare bedroom, no, that's not a New Testament Church of the kind that Jesus Christ began during his earthly ministry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Our latest work, Victory Baptist Church, as our previous works, was started in our home with just me and my wife and children.

Today we have a congregation meeting in a rented building with a Building Fund (most of the funds, over 50 percent cent,  come from our converts and church members, on the field). Hopefully, the church will purchase their own building in a year or so.

At the beginning, a house church is necessary. As time goes on, and souls get saved, it becomes necessary to have a building. We not only have church services in the building, but we have a Bible Institute (very small), also. Therefore, in order for the church to continue to grow in members, and opportunities, to serve the Lord Jesus, a building is necessary, desirable, and of the Lord.

The example of the Temple in the Old Testament is our guide.

At first, the Lord instructed the Jews to build a tent, the Tabernacle, in order to hold worship services. As time progressed David desired a better structure for the Lord and, probably,  clearly saw that a tent structure was inadequate for the crowds of people. God, I repeat, God, felt the same. God, not man, instructed David in the preparation of the Temple building and surrounding court yards, and instructed King Solomon, through the direct teaching of the Holy Spirit, on the design of the Temple.

Furthermore, God, not man, will also instruct the Lord Jesus on the building of the Millennial Temple during His reign: Ezekiel Chapter 40-48 I would not be surprised, due to the world wide reign of the Lord Jesus, that the Millennial Temple will be huge; much more in land size than Solomon's Temple.

Therefore, by the example of God Almighty, a church will of necessity be small in the beginning, and as time goes on, and souls get saved, a larger facility is needed.

In conclusion, initially, meeting in a house, or a small storefront, is often necessary. As time goes on, for the ministry to continue to grow, a building to must be procured.


Edited by Alan
grammer added a phrase concerning David
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I think about the descriptions in the first part of Acts and notice that the size of the church at Jerusalem made meeting in anyone's house unlikely.

You can of course, but a church that size? No, they met somewhere else.

And of course the "Home church" movement around today is unbiblical for many reasons.

Where you meet is a side issue. Doctrine is what matters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I also wonder about this verse:

1Co 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

Now we all often will say that the church is not the building, but this verse doesn't say "come together AS a church", but IN the church.....

The coming together is the assembling, the word "in" is specifically talking about location.

Is this the way we sometimes use the word church to designate the building that church meets in, and which we sometimes get on people for using the word that way?

But it is only the once, so let's not make too much out of it.

And it does not designate where and what form the "in the church" takes.

Edited by DaveW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Matt.18:20 "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

1 Cor.6:17 "But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit."

1 Cor.6:19 "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?"

1 Cor.12:12-14
 "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
 For the body is not one member, but many."

I suppose it all depends on what one believes... what they've been indoctrinated to believe? Or what God's word says?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

1 Corinthians 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

In the Church...

The Church is not a brick-and-mortar edifice.  It is a living, breathing organism.  God no longer dwells in Temples made with hands, but now dwells in a people.

"When ye come together in the Church" simply means "when ye come together as a Body... because... the Church is a Body. 

Colossians 1:18 And He is the head of the Body, the Church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Christ's Body is not brick and mortar.  It is those who have trusted Him as the propitiation for their sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 A church is not its building; a church is a congregation of believers.

I do not believe the Home church movement is scriptural, although it is, as someone already said, a necessity in the beginning of a new church because of size.

And as someone also pointed out already, the church will outgrow the house, as long as the church is led by a godly Pastor & he is ordained according to Biblical requirements & he is teaching from the KJB & preaching hard against sin & going soul winning regularly. 

I have not encountered a church who did all those things & STILL remained small enough to meet in an average size (2,500 sq. ft. +/-) home after several years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

There are some really good points in this thread. I would hold to the view that a church must be properly organized, with a pastor and membership, and as long as it is such, it really doesn't matter where they meet. A 'home church' of the kind where a father is having devotions with his family in their house is not a proper Church.

I could see the first NT churches meeting in houses because they didn't have anywhere else to meet, at first, much like some churches nowadays.

In the Canadian/American culture, a church that meets only in a home is not necessarily taken seriously by the community at large, and may be looked on with suspicion by possible visitors. Even a storefront/meeting room location isn't great (although a lot of our IFB churches meet here by necessity). Rightly or wrongly, a church is not seen to be legitimate unless it meets in a designated 'church building'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

While I agree that the "home church movement" is either misinformed (ie. during many later years of the Roman Empire Christians met in homes -- they did so due to persecution, arrest and death. Not due to "early church pattern) or hippy, "anti-establishment" attitude, home churches are necessary some places. In North Korea you can't use a building for a church, you can't let the community know you have a Bible, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Yep, as I and I think Pastor J said, the place is irrelevant.

A church can meet in a home or another building. What makes the difference is the doctrine.

The "Home church movement" is a doctrinally incorrect group, but that has nothing to do with meeting in homes and everything to do with their doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 4 months later...
  • Members

The form of coming together in a public meeting run by a religious organisation is only one way for believers to gather, I believe. In the early gatherings of the believers there were many ways they shared, prayed and were taught. Also there was participation by all.  It seems to me that the lecture type services that have developed over the years have come to mean - legitimate and all else not legitimate. 

Something to bear in mind is that an organisation is actually a `business/charity` and as such they are coming more and more under the control of the governments, requiring them to bow to their worldly values. Eventually the government will shut down those that do not adhere to their demands.

regards, Marilyn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I suppose another question would be that should a church meet in a dedicated building?

When in France some years ago, we met a man who said he followed J N Darby, who when we invited him to come to a church service with us, he gave us a list of scriptures which spoke about the church that met in a home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • Members

Being an outsider, i am reluctant to write anything, but for some reason cannot resist.  This is my first post.  My family tree is full of Anabaptists.  After trying everything else, and being baptized in an independent Christian church, i joined a small Mennonite church but it turned out that Mennonite Church USA is just as far gone as the UCC.  The last church i visited was a New Testament IBC and it seemed right, but we have been trying to relocate as my wife grapples with the idea of retirement.   It is a protracted process. Our future retirement home is located in a town that has an IBC.  So, I have been browsing this website for several weeks.

For over a decade I have been hosting a small group in my home.  This has been a highlight of my life because i love scripture, but i will be the first to admit that it is not really a substitute for church.  I am not a pastor, despite having some relevant online graduate education.  Heck, i would not qualify as an elder since my notion of being hospitable is to open a package of fig newtons or oreos.  On the hand, the folks who developed Victory Bible Study got it right when they said that pastors can ruin the group process.  

Anyway, a couple of posts on an older thread here were made by people who were not able to attend churches regularly due to distance.  At least one asked if it was ok to be satellites linked to a distant church.  That idea was shut down, but it seems like a practical solution to me.  Would it be unwise to suggest it to a pastor?  




Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 11/10/2019 at 9:13 PM, JimR said:

One asked if it was ok to be satellites linked to a distant church.  That idea was shut down, but it seems like a practical solution to me.  Would it be unwise to suggest it to a pastor? 

The Bible talks about a local church, with pastor(s) deacons, answerable to God. It seems to me that a distant pastor and deacons would be unable to live with, serve and lead a congregation as they are supposed to.  Any satellite churches would then, practically, need their own pastor, etc., and when they have a pastor, they are now a church in their own right and don't need to be a satellite!  That's my thought on the issue, anyways. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By PastorMatt
      I posted this on my website many years ago, and do you feel that it still applies to the local church today?
      –  On the cover of Bob Jones University‘s Spring 1992 issue of the BJU Review is a picture of black belt karate master and senior at BJU, Jim Pitts, in full karate garb, Bible open, giving the “invitation,” while the rest of the members of BJU’s “Champions for Christ karate team” are kneeling in prayer by their cinder-block bricks. On the inside cover is a picture of Mr. Pitts breaking four bricks with his right arm, while the other team members are watching, with Bibles open. The editor of the Review declares that:
      “Champions for Christ is one of many different extension groups that go out from the University each week, bringing the Gospel to needy people throughout the Southeast. These extension ministries give all students the chance to sharpen their soul winning skills, be an encouragement to others, and use their skills to glorify God.” (Emphasis added.)
      –  Many other so-called youth and evangelism ministries promote the martial arts as a means of motivating youth in evangelism, spiritual warfare, etc. For example, the March 1992 Baptist Bulletin (GARBC) contains an article about a husband-wife ABWE missionary team helping “teenagers understand God’s power in their lives” by exhibiting his (the husband’s) karate skills (“such as breaking boards with his hands and demonstrating samurai swords and nunchakus”) at GARBC youth rallies. The missionary team claims to want “to help the teenagers understand God’s power in their lives … [and] to motivate them to join God in the spiritual battle of the present age.”
      –  Should a Christian’s “soulwinning skills” include karate, and can that “skill” be used “to glorify God?” And what has karate to do with the reality of “God’s power” in a teenager’s life? Even though one might find it difficult to see how the so-called “skill” of karate could or would be used by the Holy Spirit to draw the lost to Christ, the overriding question must be: Is there a philosophy antithetical to Christianity that is at the root of karate exhibitions?
      –  Karate has a unique and unusual history. It was handed down centuries ago from Zen Master to Buddhist monk by word of mouth, and always in strict secrecy. Even today, everything done in karate can be tracked back to some principle of Zen Buddhism. An Indian Buddhist priest named Bodhidharma in the 6th century A.D. in China, synthesized karate techniques and Yoga meditation in order to unite mind, spirit, and body. (Among the Chinese styles are kung fu or gung fu, wu shu, and pa kua. Tai kwan do and hapkido are among the Korean styles.) Karate is clearly a mental and moral exercise, indeed, a spiritual experience. In each practice session there is a concerted effort to unite mind, spirit, and body just as Bodhidharma sought to do with Zen priests.
      Karate is founded on scientific principles of body movements that develop the karate devotee into a healthy, well coordinated person, both physically and mentally. The Chinese karate masters considered karate to be an extension of their religion. The Okinawan karate masters considered it to be a way of life:
      “It is, rather, an expression of life lived 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Indeed, the way of karate is a philosophy of life — a rich, rewarding philosophy if carried through, past the boundaries of obvious self-defense techniques, into the realm of mind-searching discipline. Within karate-do is the potential of a new person: a person huge in all the capabilities that will make him respected and confident” (The Way of Karate).
      –  Karate is Zen –– so says Master Oyama and many other karate masters. Zen is a school of Buddhism that has been called the “Religion of Immediate Reality.” The aim of Zen is to awaken the student to his true self and thus bring about a degree of self-knowledge through inward meditation. Zen students seek peace of mind through an enlightened awakening of an intuitive wisdom, which they feel is dormant now in all people. Zen meditation tries to achieve “no mindedness” which may be acquired by concentration and special breathing exercises. Karate, when combined with Zen meditation, is used to assist the student’s quest for peace of mind and equanimity in the face of conflict and tension.
      –  Although many, especially here in the United States, tend to disregard much of the Zen Buddhist philosophy in their training, some impact of that philosophy is made upon every student of karate. This is because Zen meditation and yoga-like breathing exercises — whether for thirty seconds or for two hours before and after every practice session — are an integral part of any Oriental martial arts program. If one truly aspires to master the art of karate, he cannot ignore the spiritual implications.
      Zen meditation provides a false “inner peace” that is at best a counterfeit of the peace only God can give. There is only one source of inner peace — the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22). We can choose between the self-control developed by the Holy Spirit, or the self-control of Zen. And with the self-control of Zen, as with any Eastern meditation technique, one could also be opening himself up to demonic activity.
      While God calls us to humility, the martial arts cater to human pride. For even in gaining mastery over one’s self through Zen, it is still recognized as an accomplishment of self. That self-pride then manifests itself through a desire to prove oneself superior.
      –  Although some proponents for a “Christian” martial arts do concede that karate has roots in occult, pagan, and/or Eastern religious philosophy, they also claim that the primary philosophy behind the martial arts actually originated in Old Testament Biblical times (citing such passages as Gen. 14:13-16; 2 Sam 6:14; Psa. 144:1; Eccl. 9:10 as proof-texts), even going back all the way to the Garden of Eden! (Christian Martial Arts, Tottingham & Tottingham, pp. v & 2). Therefore, according to these advocates, Satan made “inroads” into the true Bible-based martial arts, capturing them for himself, and that all we need to do now is to reclaim them and change them “from an Asiatic philosophy to a truly Bible-centered Christian philosophy” (Christian Martial Arts, pp. ii & 2). Once these “dramatic changes” in “approach” are made, we are told, the “Christian can indeed study the martial arts in total harmony with his walk with the Lord” (Christian Martial Arts, p. v).
      This, of course, is the same logic men use to “Christianize” any worldly, pagan, and/or occult philosophy or practice, whether it be astrology (the “Gospel in the Stars“), psychology, Eastern “medicine,” magic, pyramidology, graphology, numerology, etc., etc., etc. The logic goes something like this:
      “It was originated by God (which requires a few verses out of context to ‘prove’ it), Satan stole it and/or counterfeited it (under the false assumption that ‘Satan can’t create, he just steals from God’), we need to reclaim it and re-Christianize it, and then we can use it ‘to glorify God'” (Christian Martial Arts, pp. 75 & 83).
      –  The violence associated with karate smacks of anything but “Christian.” Legendary karate “masters” were reputed to have superhuman powers, including the ability to kill small birds with a yell (“the shout of doom”), a secret knowledge of how to touch lightly at a spot on the body to cause death (“the touch of death”), and the ability to penetrate an adversary’s body with a bare hand to withdraw his still-beating heart. The very nature of these violent forms of expression runs counter to God’s Word.
      –  How then can any Christian justify his involvement in karate or any of the other martial arts? He can’t. Not even by claiming that such involvement is for self-defense, exercise, to learn discipline, etc. (let alone justifying it for evangelism purposes!). There are other methods by which these results may be obtained — methods not associated with harmful violence and false doctrine.

      * The chief source of our information for this report was a special report written by Albert Dager of Media Spotlight. Other sources used were various encyclopedias and three books on karate/martial arts: The Way of Karate, Karate Within Your Grasp, and Christian Martial Arts.
      I believe that many activities in the local church, should not be.
      E Morales with The Glory Land
    • By Alan
      The Beginning of the Church
      "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." Ephesians 2:19 & 20 The foundation, the chief corner stone of the church, is the Lord Jesus. The Lord Jesus founded His church during His earthly ministry. The Lord Jesus started, while He was on the earth, the church. “And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18
      The Lord is the foundation, the corner stone of the church and the prophets and the apostles are stones set above the foundation. The foundation of the church was set at the ministry of the Lord Jesus and the apostles and prophets continued the building of the church.
      Concerning the 'head' of the church, Paul the Apostle was given this doctrine, “And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all thins to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all things.” Ephesians 1:22 & 23 The Lord Jesus is the 'head' of the church.
      The Prophet and Messenger of the Messiah
      John the Baptist is a messenger from God. Those who reject his message, and his baptism, are not following the messenger of God. “And what went ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet. This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” Luke 7:26 & 27
      The individuals in the 'Christian' realm who reject the message, and the mode of baptism, is rejecting the words of the messenger and prophet of God to the church.
      The Apostle Paul stated, "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gift of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?" 1 Corinthians 12:28 & 29
      The baptism of John the Baptist, as a messenger and prophet from God, is the baptism for all those who trust in the Lord Jesus and is the only mode of baptism acceptable in the New Testament. The term, 'Baptist,' is a title; it is not the last name of John.
      Concerning those who reject the baptism of John
      If a person rejects the baptism of John the Baptist, or his followers, than that person is not not scripturally baptized, and, according to the scriptures, he is like the Pharisees and hypocrites. “And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.” Luke 7:29 and 30
      The different denominations in the 'Christian' realm, sprinkling, pouring, infant baptism, baptism for the dead (Mormons), who reject the immersion method of John the Baptist are in serious error.
      The Apostles were baptized by John the Baptist
      All of the apostles of the Lord Jesus were baptized by John the Baptist. Whether or not the term, or title, 'Baptist' is after their name, is immaterial an adding of the requirements of a belief in the scriptures, a 'straw man,' and a non-issue. “Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.” Acts 1:22 God only has to give the man of God the term, or office, or calling, or title, 'once,' to make that term, title, office, doctrine, mode of service, scriptural and binding to the saints.
      The Giving of the Holy Spirit
      The Lord Jesus is the giver of the Holy Spirit to those who are saved. The apostles, as part of the foundation of the church, are the examples of the church. “Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” John 20:21-23
      The apostles, as part of the foundation of the church, are an example on how the Lord Jesus is guiding the saints in the New Testament church. For example. As the Lord Jesus sent the apostles around the world as a witness; so is every saint, every church, to be a witness. Matthew 29:1-20 As the Lord Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to the Apostles; so He gives every one who trusts in Him the Holy Spirit at the moment of conversion. Ephesians 4:30 There is is no 'tarrying,' or 'waiting,' for the Holy Spirit,' for any saint in the New Testament Church.
      The Baptism at Pentecost
      The filling of the Holy Spirit was given at Pentecost for empowerment to witness; not to start the church. The Lord Jesus said, “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” Acts 1:8
      The Lord Jesus had previously, in John 20:21-23, given the apostles the Holy Ghost. Now, the Lord Jesus is stating for them to remain in Jerusalem to tarry for the 'power' of the Holy Ghost for witnesses, soul-winning, the gift of tongues, to preach the gospel to the ends of the earth. The Lord Jesus clearly states they were to receive 'power;' they were not to receive the Holy Spirit, but 'power.'

    • By JordanHaskins
      I Timothy 3 states that one of the qualifications of a, "bishop," is to be," the husband of one wife." In 2016, does that relate sole to the pastor of a local church or does that apply to those on the pastoral staff such as, "youth pastors/ directors?"
      Second question I would have, as Baptists , what does the Bible have to say on the process of finding a wife. What would you say to a marriage minded young man who believes he's called to ministry on this topic of finding a wife. I also would ask because, as someone who is a first generation Christian, this is not something I have really been able to gain solid Biblical counsel on, so few are willing to touch it as its controversial, dating/ courtship, etc.If you were a youth pastor, college/ singles ministry director working with someone who didn't exactly come up in the Christian school/ Bible college/ Baptist church to pursue what I have heard preached many times as, "the second greatest blessing after salvation?"
      I ask this because, in the evangelical world, such as boundless.org (Focus on the Family) and other sites, men are being shamed for not dating, etc extended adulthood, I believe Cary Schmidt wrote a book on this topic of extended adolescence. And with the trends of co-habitating, homosexual "marriage," fornication, divorce, single parenthood on the rise, etc. Census showed a while back that singles are now a majority of this country, how can we as the church, not only defend the institution of marriage, the family, and the home for those who already have it, but help young people who desire those things to get ready for those thing and provide them opportunities to meet, mingle, and serve and serve others with one another?
      Not trying to cause controversy, but these are things that, as a young man having a burden to work with young people, how could I be a help to them in this area, and also some practical principles in godly communication, etc. that would benefit my own life as well. I appreciate all the wisdom I've found on this site, that's why I've been asking these complex questions like I have. Thank you brothers and sisters.
    • By John Young
      Many modern bible versions were made by individuals, foundations, bible societies, para church organizations etc. but how many of these or which ones were directly commissioned and overseen by the authority of an actual "church"?
    • By John Young
      My wife and I are moving to the Northwest in August and I am praying about starting or pastoring a church. Does anyone have any advice or leads that they can give about an area or church? 
      Ideally I'm looking for something within a few hundred miles of Spokane, WA.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   6 Members, 0 Anonymous, 25 Guests (See full list)

  • Create New...