Today we are going to be dealing with a topic known as antiism. This simply denotes someone who is actively against something. Let me give you a biblical example of what kind of antiism I am referring to.


Acts 15:1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."


Here we had some Jews that were saying that unless these gentiles were circumcised they would not be saved. Now we discover latter that circumcision was not binding on the Christian but these Jews were trying to make it binding based on their opinion and that is the kind of antiism I will be speaking about today. You have to understand that  there a small split within the church of Christ especial in the 1960 era when some started drawing lines of fellowship over the following things.


1. They say that the Lord Supper can only be taken out of 1 cup.

2. They are against having a located preacher.

3. They are against having simultaneous bible classes and having women teaching some of those classes.

4. They are against preaching schools especially if they have a board of directors.  

5. They are against the church funding an orphan or giving to anyone other than a needy saint.

6. They are opposed to church cooperation as they feel it will violate our autonomy.

7. They are against eating in the building and having a kitchen attached to the building.



These are the issues that  I will be dealing with this morning and this evening. I think we can all agree that we need to allow Gods word to be our guide on these matters. But in order to find our authority from the Bible we need to understand some simple principles that we must use to help up see if the Bible supports the anti view. Bible authority can come in 3 different ways divine command, approved example or by necessary inference.  Not only must we use these to find our authority we must also use the whole council of God. Without these principles a person cannot teach the plan of salvation because you cannot find one verse that just lays out the entire plan of salvation. You must use all of Gods word to find out exactly what it takes to be saved. It kind of like a puzzle you have to put all the pieces together so you can see the complete picture.


I think most us understand what a divine command is and what approved example is but I want to explain what necessary inference means.


Hebrews 10:25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some,


In passage we see that we are commanded not to forsake the assembling of ourselves. Well the Bible doesn’t give us a exclusive pattern on where to meet it just says to meet. So this means that it is up to us to determine where we  will meet. Perhaps it will be in rented building or one that we purchase or maybe in a persons home. So you see necessary inference simply means there are some things that are not specified and God has left it up to us to determine where to meet. This is sometimes called a matter of expediency. Just about everyone of the views that the anti brethren hold all boils down to matters of expediency but unfortunately they have made these matters of opinion binding when the God’s Word does not. Now before we move on I just want you to know that I have no ill-will toward these brethren and not all of them hold everyone single one of these views. Lets begin with the first one.


1.Does the Bible teach that we can only partake of the Lord’s Supper from one cup only?


Matthew 26:27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.


You see they would say the Jesus just used one cup so we should use just one cup. However they fail to understand is that  Jesus is using a figure of speech known a Metonymy (met tawn  eme). A metonymy is defined as a figure of speech in which the name of one thing is used in place of that of another associated with or suggested by it. For example, someone might ask did she like her lemonade? Then they might respond yes she drank  the whole cup. You see the cup represent the lemonade and not the cup itself.  We Use the form of speech all the time. We might say the pot is boiling but we understand that the liquid is what actual boiling and not the pot. Let me give you 2 Biblical examples.


Genesis 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God.

Moses wasn’t talking about the dirt or the water he was talking about the people that are on the earth. The same thing is true with our next verse.


John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son:


Again he is talking about the people and not the earth. So you see when Jesus was talking about the cup he wasn’t giving any special meaning to the cup itself he was talking about fruit of vine. Now think about this if we are to take the one cup literally and take this passage to the extreme then this would mean that we could only partake out of the fruit of the vine from that very cup and the cup would have be passed around from congregation to congregation on every Sunday which of course is impossible to do. Sometimes it helps to take a thought to the extreme to show error in it.


When it comes the Lords Supper we see that the bread and the fruit of vine are to be used However how these items are to be dispersed are matter of expedience. You can use one cup perhaps a tall glass or short glass. You could use multiple cups. When it comes to unleavened bread you could just pass the bread around by itself or you have it on a tray. None of these are wrong because they are matters of expediency. So if a congregation wants to drink out of one cup good for them they have that right but no one has the right to make their way of partaking the Lords Supper binding but this is what the anti brethren have done.


Another view that some anti brethren hold is that this no authorization for a located preacher. Now before I show the authority for this again I want to stress that having a located preacher is a matter expediency. A church does not have to have one but at the same time the church is authorized to have one.


Watch I show this from the Bible.

1. There is need that gospel be preached.


Mark 16:15  And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.


2. There is a need for preachers.



Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?


3. Paul who was preacher and he was located at the Ephesians congregation for 3 years Acts 20:31 and he was located at Corinth for 18 months Acts 18:11. More examples could be sited but this shows that a preacher can be located at a congregation.  To go one step further we can also see that a congregation can support a preacher financially.


1 Corinthians 9:13 Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar?  14 Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel.  


Galatians 6:6   Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches.


Now I believe I have clearly shown that Bible does authorize a located preacher and that he can be supported by the congregation.


3. They are against having simultaneous bible classes and having women teaching some of those classes.


Before I show the authority for this I want point again that this is a matter of expedience and if a congregation wants to have Bible class all in the same room for the very young to the very old  or if they don’t want to have bible class at all it is their right to do so. But in the same manner it is ok to put the younger ones  in one class and the older in another.  Now let me prove this from the scripture.


Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,  20 "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you ….


Please notice that this is generic command to teach. The how is not supplied. This means it has been left up to us on how to teach which means it can be done individual or in bible classes or through a radio program or even through a TV program and the list can go on and on. Now lets apply this to a church. First of all we need to recognize that an eldership has the responsibility of watching over and shepherding the flock.


Acts 20:28 "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. See also (Heb. 13:7,17; 1Thess. 5:12-13)


As these men Shepard the flock there a many decision they have to make that are in the realm of expediency. For instance they can determine what the best time is for the church to meet and worship. They also determine the best use for the churches money. Well in similar vain they have they right to determine the best way to keep the flock spiritual strong. This means they can decide to have Bible classes. Now we are told to submit to the elders in such matters in Heb. 13:17 so this means we should attend these Bible classes.  Now to take this a step further the Elders can break the people up into  different age groups so that they can be taught at their level which will greatly enhance their spiritual growth. Common sense would tells us that it would be very challenging to teach the Bible where a 3 year old and a 40 year old could learn the Bible in the same room. So we can see that it would make since to divide the people up by age. Now I think this is enough to show that it ok to have simultaneous classes but now take a look at several examples which imply simultaneous teaching.  


Acts 5:25 So one came and told them, saying, "Look, the men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people!"


Now an angel had released the apostles from prison and told them to go teach about Jesus and here we see that they plural were teaching. Now logically, it would be more effective for these men to spread out and teach in small groups or individuals at the same time. I believe this is what is implied in this passage because I certainly cannot see all 12 of these qualified men standing together in the same place each taking a turn speaking with the same group of people. Another example comes from


Acts 5:42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.


Now can you imagine these 12 men running around in one group going from house to house taking turns teaching to the people just in that house? That doesn’t make any  sense to me. In order to be effective they would have spread out teaching in different homes which shows us that simultaneous bible teaching was going on and this no different than what goes in simultaneous taught bible classes in the church building. To help put this  into prospective I want to take the no class view to its literal end. If it is the case that that the Bible can only be taught when all the saints are assembled in one room then this would mean that the saints could not teach the Bible to one another outside the assembly and this is where this view will take you when its taken to it literal end.

We must understand that coming together to study Gods word in the church building is no different than us coming together in someone’s house or some other location. This is where the anti-brethren get confused. You see Bible class is not the same as assembling for worship. Bible class is simply a time that saints come together for the specific purpose of learning more about God’s Word. Worship however is time we all assembly together for the specific purpose of worshiping God which includes singing, praying, exhortation, giving and partaking of the Lord’s Supper. So you see there is difference between Bible classes and worship service.


Now lets take a look out how women are authorized to teach some of these classes.


1. We can see that women in the NT prophesied such as the 4 daughter of Phillip in Acts 21:9. Prophesying is teaching.

2. We can also see that the older women are told to teach the younger women in:


Titus 2:3 the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things --  4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children,  5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.


3. We can see that Timothy’s mother and grandmother must have played a part in teaching him the scriptures as a child because Paul says:


2 Timothy 3:14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,  15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures…


4. Finally we have the example of when Aquilla and Priscilla husband and wife took Apollos to the side to teach him privately the word of God more accurately in Acts 21:26.


However there are limits on when women can teach notice:


1 Timothy 2:12  And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.


So this means that a women cannot teach over a man. However, a women can teach women or children without violating this passage. So you see when you use the whole council of God you can find authority for simultaneous Bible classes and authority for the women to teach those classes which contain children or other women.


Some anti-brethren are opposed to preaching schools especial if the have board of directories.


Once again we have a matter of expediency. Their a number of ways to train Christians so that they in turn will be able to teach others or take leadership roles within a given congregation. It may be through a preaching school, by an eldership, by another evangelist or by another Christian. There is not an exclusive pattern. Please note:


2 Timothy 2:2  And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.


Please note that Paul is telling Timothy the he is  to teach other faithful men so they can in turn teach others. The command is to teach the how is provided which once again means that we are decided what way to teach them. Timothy could teach them  one on one or a school could be used like Paul used in Ephesus.


Acts 19:9 But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.  10 And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.


It should be easy for us to see that its ok to train men in a preaching school. We should also be able to understand that these men can be supported by individuals or churches in order to help train these men. Since this falls under the realm of personal judgment their nothing inherently wrong with having a board of directors who play a key role in making sure these men are getting thoroughly trained in God’s word.


Now in this next point I want to show that church has authority to give to an orphans home and to someone other  than a saint. Now the only passage that we the have in the NT which talks about us taking care of orphans in found in:  


James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself (1438) unspotted from the world.


First of all let me define what an orphan is: offspring whose parents either are no longer alive or no longer function as parents (as the result of having abandoned their offspring) 


Now the anti-brethren will say this passage is talking about individuals only and so it cannot apply to the church. Now I am in no way saying that the church only should take care of orphans but that it is a responsibility of both individual and church and let me show you how.


Who is James written to?

James 1:1 … to the twelve tribes.. (referring to the church).


Now notice the verse before and after James 1:27.


James 1:26 If anyone (singular) among you (second person plural, referring to the church) thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one's religion is useless.

James 2:1 My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality.  2 For if there should come into your assembly


You see James is talking to the church and this work can be done collectively or individually. To say this only applies to the individual is to say that the church cannot practice pure and undefiled religion. Now I want to show a pattern of this as we continue on.


Galatians 6:10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith.


Who is it written to?

Galatians 1:2  To the churches of Galatia:


Notice the verse before and after Gal. 6:10


Galatians 6:9  And let us not grow weary while doing good…

Galatians 6:11  See with what large letters I have written to you(second person plural, referring to the church)


Again this is referring to those in the church and what they can do collectively or individually. I also want point out in this verse 10 that good is to be done to all which includes both the sinner and the saint. Now lets examine our next verse:


1 Corinthians 11:28 But let a man examine himself (1438), and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.


Please notice the word “himself” is the same Greek word found in James 1:27.


Who is the letter written to? 1 Corinthians 1:2 to the church of God which is at Corinth...

In these verses Paul is talking about what a person does when they partake of the Lord’s Supper which is done as church but it is also done individually. This should be proof enough that the word “himself” does not exclude the church which means that James 1:27 can be a work of the church as well.


1 Corinthians 16:2 On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.


Galatians 6:6  Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches.


Notice Paul is informing of us our individual duty of giving which is put into the church treasury to carry out the work of the church such as paying the preacher in Gal. 6:6. All of these passages go together to show that James 1:27 and Gal. 6:10 is a work of an individual and of the church. Besides this we have other scriptures that teach that the church is to help both the sinner and the saint which would include the orphans.


2 Corinthians 9:13 while, through the proof of this ministry, they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal sharing with them and all men,


Here Paul is writing to the church at Corinth and he is commending them on their liberal sharing with both saints and with all, which would include those who were not saints.


Acts 20:35 "I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.' "


This goes right along with the fact that we are to be like God who allows it rain on the just and the unjust.


Matthew 5:43 " You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'  44 "But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,  45 "that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.  46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?  47 "And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?  48 "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.


To say that the church can only help the saint is like saying the church cannot be like God. I want us to notice the argument Paul makes to try and convert the people a Lystra.


Acts 14:15 "Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,  16 "who in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways.  17 "Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness."


This speech was designed to motivate these people to turn away from their idols because God  does good to both the sinner  and the saint. Now who are we to say that the church cannot be like God and give to both the sinner and the saint.


We can also see that  the church in Jerusalem was helping the widows and others in Acts 6.


Acts 6:1 Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution.


Notice in this text we can see that the church was exercising benevolence as they were helping some on daily bases. Now it does not tells us who was receiving this aid other than the widows but based on the passages we have already looked it certainly  could have included needed saints and non-saints. Now most of those  who hold the anti view will say that yes widows who are really widows can be taken care of by the church based upon.


1 Timothy 5:16 If any believing man or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and do not let the church be burdened, that it may relieve those who are really widows.


Within this text not only do we see a responsibility of the church to take care of the widows, we also see that a family member also has a responsibility of  taking care of their widows. In fact Paul stressed this earlier in:


1 Timothy 5:8  But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.


We see implied in verse 16 that the church had been burdened by such widows but Paul is wanting those who call themselves Christians to step up and take care of their own family so that the church could focus in on those who were really widows in need. However, I think it is implied that  if that Christian refused to help their widow that the church would still help them under this circumstance. I cannot see them the church telling a widow I sorry your nephew Leroy is responsible for you and I know he want help you but that just tough luck. Now even if this widow doesn’t qualify as a window in  need she certainly as a saint in need and every under the anti-view should be taken care of.


Another thing  I want to point is that the Bible simply says that the widows are to be relieved but it does not say how they are to be relived. This falls under human judgment and is a matter of expedience. This means the elders would determine in what manner these widows would be taken care of. The same thing is true in.


James 1:27  Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble,


Now the word “visit” means to “look upon or to care for” and this is not one time action but a continuous one.  Again the how is not given, so therefore it becomes a matter of expedience on how this done. Now does it seem logical to you that the church can help widows but yet it cannot help orphans yet we see both of them mentioned together in this same verse?


Now another thing that these anti brethren oppose is having a home for an orphan such as The Tipton Home or  The Westview Boys Home because they would say this is a human institution and the church cannot give to a human institution. Please remember that fact that  the scriptures do not tell us how to take  care of these orphans which gives us the right to figure out how this will be done. Now the Tipton home and West View boys home are exactly what they say they are. They are a home, nothing more or nothing less and it would certainly be ok for a church to give funds to build these homes and maintain them so that the orphans are taking care of. Providing a home for an orphan is God ordained.


Ephesians 6:4 And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.


God has always wanted children to have parents and home in which they can be provided for and trained in way of the Lord Now these parents can either be their biological parents or their legal parents and this is exactly what we have in these boys homes. Now some of these anti brethren would argue that these homes are not real homes because they are incorporated and have a board of directors. But they are wrong on this issue because many if not all the states now requires a home caring for an orphans to be incorporated. This is certainly allowed by Gods word because Paul teaches us that we are to obey the laws of the land in Rom. 13. That is exactly what these homes are doing.


Now I am not suggesting this is the only way that orphans can be taken care of because a person could open their home to an orphan but one must go through a legal process in order to do so. You would have to become licensed and is some states and you have to be incorporated. But guess what the same thing hold true for churches they to must be incorporated. Now if incorporation means that a boys home is not a home well then that would men that church that is incorporated is not church. That is where this way of thinking will take you. Now from the research  I did the anti-brethren would say that the church could give money to a needy saint who needed help with their needy orphan, but when they make incorporation  or a board of directors a  dirty word then what will they do when there brother in need has to become incorporated to meet to state law? Well if they will hold the line to their teaching then they would no longer be able help these needy saints simply because they complied with the law of the land. Do you see how silly this becomes? A child in my home will be taken care in very similar manner as a child in the boys home and whatever the church can do for me and my orphans it can also do for the orphans in a boys home. I called the West View boys home to find out some of the legal matter that go along with the having a boys home. I also told him the reason why I was asking was because I was going to study with some anti-brethren who say that you should take the orphan into your own home. His response to me was this. I have yet to meet anti-brethren who has ever taken an orphan into their home. Now it shouldn’t be the case that majority of the anti-brethren should either have orphan in their home or at some time had an orphan in their home since they believe that is the only way an orphan should be taken care of?


I believe I have clearly shown that homes for orphans can be taken care of by the church or by individuals and the church or individuals can help both the saint and the sinner.


Now let’s deal with Church Corporation.


 What I mean by this is when one church helps another church in various ways. Now the anti position speaks against church cooperation in many different ways and these ways vary one anti group to the other. So, instead of listing all there views I thought it be easier just show what the Bible has to show about Church cooperation. I believe I can show you from scripture where one congregation can help another in both the physical realm and the spiritual realm without taking away from their autonomy.


Acts 11:27 And in these days prophets came from Jerusalem to Antioch.  28 Then one of them, named Agabus, stood up and showed by the Spirit that there was going to be a great famine throughout all the world, which also happened in the days of Claudius Caesar.  29 Then the disciples, each according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brethren dwelling in Judea.  30 This they also did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul. See also 2 Cor. 8:1-5; Rom. 15:26-28


We can easily see that the church at Antioch sent relief which could include anything from food, supplies or even money to the elders of the church at Jerusalem. Notice the church at Antioch did not send a letter saying that the funds had to be used in certain way because they don’t have the right to do so. Instead it would be left up to the elders of the Jerusalem church to decide the best way to use and to hand out the relief. Now lets take a look at:


Acts 15:23 They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings.  24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law" -- to whom we gave no such commandment --  25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,  26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.  27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth.  28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:  29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.  30 So when they were sent off, they came to Antioch; and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the letter.  31 When they had read it, they rejoiced over its encouragement.  32 Now Judas and Silas, themselves being prophets also, exhorted and strengthened the brethren with many words.


We learn several things about church corporation from these verses.

First we can see that a church can send men out to another church and that they can send them a letter that has to do with spiritual matters. These men also went out and exhorted and strengthened the churches. We can also see where multiply churches helped support Paul as he preached to the church at Corinth.  2Cor. 11:8; Phil. 4:15. By them supporting Paul it made possible for him to focus in on Corinth’s spiritual needs.


 So what have we established? There isn’t an exclusive pattern on how one church can help another because it can include both physical needs or spiritual needs and in no way does either congregation lose it autonomy because of this. Since there isn’t an exclusive pattern for one church helping another this opens it up to human judgment, therefore it is completely acceptable for one church to send written material such a tracts or song books to another church. Or if one church is evangelizing by means of a radio program or TV program several churches can send money to that one church to help them with that particular program. Now the anti-brethren would say its ok to have a radio program or TV program but if the one church doesn’t have enough money to keep it going it would be wrong for other churches to send them money so the could continue their radio or TV program. They would further say that you cant find a example of one church giving to another so that evangelism can take place. But this is untrue. I have already shown that one church can help another church with both  physician and spiritual needs. We can show from the example of Paul that multiple churches helped him in evangelizing 2 Cor. 11:8 so the church would not burdened and then we can see that aid was sent Paul by men from the churches in 2Cor. 11:9, Phil. 4:16.


Now tell me what is the difference between a church sending funds to another church through the mail so that a preacher can be supported in his evangelistic work in the radio or the TV program. There is no difference. The money sent to Paul was for the purpose of evangelizing the money sent through mail to another church is send for the purpose for the preacher to evangelizing.


This is certainly a work that we can be a part of but it in no way takes away from the responsibility of a church to evangelize in their own area.  Sometimes a church might need a speaker and so it would be completely acceptable for another church to send them one.  These examples could go on and on but this should be enough to show scripturally that individual congregation can cooperate with one another without violating their autonomy.


Now lets take a look at the topic of eating in the church building and having a kitchen attached to building. Those who hold the anti view will argue that you cannot eat in the church building and they get this from the following passage.


1 Corinthians 11:22  What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.


What they have done is taken the scripture completely out of context and they make it teach something that it does not teach. In context Paul was condemning these people because they were not observing the Lords Supper instead they were having this feast and getting drunk. From this alone we can see that Paul is not condemning a common meal he was only condemning them for making a mockery of the Lords Supper.


However, just for a minute lets play along and say that this verse teaches what the anti brethren want it to say. If we are to take this to its literal  end then the verse would mean that Christians can only eat and drink in their homes. That’s  where this view will literally  take you. However it is very interesting that these same brethren will many times have a water fountain in the building the meet in. You find many times they are not consistent in their own  rules. You see they would have admit that they were committing sin ever time they take a drink out of the water faucet. Now many times these same brethren will start up their church in a person home which has a kitchen attached to it yet that doesn’t seem to apply. If they are to be consistent then no one should be allowed to eat in that house again. Does this seem extreme? Of course it does but this is where this type of thinking will lead.


Here is what problem is. Many of these brethren do not seem to fully understand what the church is? The church is not some building made of brick and mortar because the people make the church. There is no such thing as a holy building today. Christians are the temple of God 1Cor. 3:16 Many of the church buildings have signs that says the church meets here so that people will understand that  the people are the church and not the building.


 In the first century the church meet in various places. Sometimes they met in peoples homes Rom. 15:6; 1Cor. 16:19; Col. 4;15 and at least once they met in an upper chamber of one house in Acts 20:8. Sometimes they meet in the temple Acts 2:46 and other places Acts 19:9. The point is this no one should assign some special significance to the place the church meets nor can one find an exclusive pattern where a church should meet in specific place. Besides of all this I can show an example from scripture where Paul himself ate in the church building if you will.


Acts 20:7 Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.  8 There were many lamps in the upper room where they were gathered together.  9 And in a window sat a certain young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep. He was overcome by sleep; and as Paul continued speaking, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead.  10 But Paul went down, fell on him, and embracing him said, "Do not trouble yourselves, for his life is in him."  11 Now when he had come up, had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long while, even till daybreak, he departed.


Please note that in verse 7 they plural came together to break bread. This is talking about partaking of the Lords Supper. However, in verse 11 after Paul raised Eutychus from the dead he ate a common meal. The reason why we know this was a common meal was because he was the only one doing the eating and the Greek word used for eating denotes one tasting and enjoying a meal. This is word is never used in reference to partaking of the Lords Supper. So here we have a scriptural example of someone eating in the church building. Besides this we can see that it was a common thing for the 1 century Christian to eat with each other in their homes which no doubt was also used as their place of worship.


Acts 2:46  So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart,


Now one other response they have to this is to say well it ok to have kitchen and to eat together in if an individual paid for the kitchen and it wasn’t built out of the church treasury.  


This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever because if it is a sin to have a kitchen and eat in the building built from church funds it should also be a sin even if an individual pays for it. This shows us more inconsistency. Now every church should be good stewards of their money but how they use that money on their meeting places and other areas is up to that congregation and it elders to decide.

For instance a church building doesn’t have to have a kitchen no more than it has to have running water, bathrooms or electricity. However if the elders decide that it will be beneficial for the church to have these things then they have the right to make to make that decision because it is a matter of expediency. To say that it is a sin to have a kitchen or a fellowship area to be built from church funds and then turn around and say it not a sin if a individual does it cannot be supported by the Bible because this it just a matter of opinion and Christians should never try to make their opinion into law or that Christian  will be going beyond that which is written.


The same authority that anti- brethren have to build or rent a building to meet in is the exact same authority that another congregation has to build a kitchen or a place of fellowship. When you think about it there absolutely no difference between this building and your own home. So therefore if its ok to have church in your own home which has a kitchen and that you can eat in then should the same should hold true for this building that we meet in that is owned by the church.  


The same anti brethren are very inconsistent because most of them would find it acceptable to build a preachers home out of church funds which has kitchen. If it is acceptable to build a preachers home and it have kitchen then using this same line of expediency it should be ok for a church building to have a kitchen or area for fellowship.


Well there you have it. I have done my best to show that all views that the anti-brethren hold are matters of opinion and should not be allowed to cause division. We have to be careful as Christians that we don’t strain out and gnat or swallow a camel. I hope these two lessons have been helpful and have shown you that what we do here at Lone Grove is authorized by God’s Word.