Comments From Others - Is it ok to eat in the Church building, fellowship hall, multi-purpose room or any room purchased with offering money?

COMMENT#1:

Let’s say the congregation has a large meeting room in the basement, and the people meet afterwords after the service. Would it be ok to eat food then? If they chipped in their own money for this, and not the Church funds? Would this be ok? If not, then my reading of the texts you site would indicate that only eating food at home would make sense, and members of the church going out for food after the service would be forbidden.

On a side note here, I think the only think the church funds should go for, collectively, is supporting the base ministry. No one should be compelled to have their funds go to anything they may question. I had seen one church of Christ, for example, use a large amount of their funds to run a family camp once a year. It is one I went to once, and totally regretted it.

CLARIFICATION#1:

The building was bought as an expedient for coming together to break bread, giving as we have prospered, praying, singing songs of praises to God, to hear and study the word.

These are the apostle’s doctrines. When Paul wrote (1 Corinthians 6:12) “all things are lawful but all things are not expedient” he was saying an expedient must only be used to help fulfill a command. The building is a tool to help fulfill a commandment. To use the building for any other reason would be a violation of the grounds used to purchase it with offering money.

As far as eating at home, verses eating out, the point was to not come together for taking of the Lords supper and turning it into a eating a common. If there had been fast food restaurants during those time they may have been included in where to eat. Your last comment is true, we must use the lords money the same way we worship Him. WITH HIS AUTHORITY!!!

Thank you for your comments.

END OF COMMENTS FOR COMMENT #1:

REPLY #1 FOR COMMENT: #1 :

If the building is rented for the full time period, and whether or not it is used, the costs are fixed, then is there an issue there? Also, the scriptures referred to the “breaking of break” occurring daily in Acts 2. Does this mean they did communion every day?

CLARIFICATION TO REPLY #1:

You need to understand the coming together is for obeying God’s will. It is not his will to come together to worship Him and entertain ourselves. When Moses went against God’s will and struck the rock when he was told to speak to the rock, it was not only that Moses disobeyed God’s command, it was also the fact that Moses said “must we fetch you water out of this rock?” Moses did not sanctify (set above) God over himself, instead he made God equal to him. Paul said in Corinthian “when you come together it’s not to take the Lords supper.” Meaning the meal they had was one which did not set the Lords supper above the other. The other side of this is no matter whether you rent, buy, borrow, or donate a place to come together, that place is made available (blessing) to us by God to do His comments. In Acts 2:46 they met in the temple with one accord (worship) but they ate from house to house.

Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

Acts 20:7 tells use to come together upon the first day of the week to break bread.

Acts 20:7 “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.”

Paul rebukes the Corinthians for not coming together to eat the Lords supper properly.

1 Cor. 11:20 “When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper”

This is an example of necessary inference. The conclusion is: Acts 20:7 was not a common meal.

This also enlightens us on when the bible is talking about eating a meal verse eating the Lords supper. The Lord’s Supper was observed when the disciples came together. Acts 20:7 and 1 Co 11:20. Going from house to house is not coming together.

Our example for coming together is on the first day of the week.

Thank you for your comments. I hope this helps you to understand this subject better.

In Christian Love.

END OF REPLY #1 FOR COMMENT #1

REPLY #2 WITH CLARIFICATION IN YELLOW FOR COMMENT: #1 :

I am going to have to say here, that I am finding your no margin for error hermaneutical approach a bit problemsome.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that hear the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 

I have seen churches split over this.

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Rev. 1:20 - 3:22

It appears there is absolutely no margin for error in this,

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

because the text is reduced to such a granular definition, that the end result is likely to end up being congregations splitting, which I have seen happen where I am. I will often seen gnats strained and camel swallowed here. Those straining the gnats will claim such is camels, and those who thing it is absurd claim the issue is a gnat.

2 Corinthians 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) 5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that lead to destruction, and many there be which go in there at :14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which lead unto life, and few there be that find it.

And, along the way, the congregation shatters.

2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. :15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

I have read over the texts over and over and over. I don’t see where a lot of the issues come into play and end up being such an issue.

Ephesians 4:17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,

1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

What I do see is people’s opinions and views get elevated to law and cause a split if honored. All this comes from trying to deduce everything from the use of scriptures alone (each person reaches their own conclusion or the preacher or elders do for the group).

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Let’s look at this example of the Lord’s supper. I see in the text a few examples in Acts (breaking of bread), and what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians. There is also a few of the texts in the Gospels regarding this, in a very general sense, saying “This is my body”. This is it. And yet, I have seen a lot of different renderings of this text. And, a kicker here? Paul in writing about it tells the Corinthians he would show them what to do when he got there. We don’t even have this. Wouldn’t it be helpful to have known this? We also don’t have instructions to the other churches. Was the love feast a common event mismanaged or just exclusive to the Church of Corinth?

John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book 31) But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Let’s go beyond just this to other issues that have caused divisions. Christ said “This is my body” and “This is my blood”. For centuries, from the earliest Christian writings, that was understood to be literal. Not literal in the sense that it it was O- or skin, but that the body and blood were literally that for Christ. The church of Christ is also considered his body. And this is equated to marriage also, which is referring to two becoming one flesh. This is understood in a literal sense. It wasn’t until the Reformation period, and Zwingli mainly, where a symbolic meaning was placed on this, and even then Zwingli said it was true, in a spiritual sense. But, you get people who read the text and say it is merely a symbol. Considering invidividuals were said to have died from taking it lightly, this makes the symbol alone aspect suspect. The interpretation in the churches of Christ are just like the baptists take baptism. But, I speak of this as an example of how just going through the texts alone cause problems? How about whether the bread should be leavened or unleavened? This too has been a divisive issue. In Christianity in the West it is generally understood to be unleavened, because it is supposed to be referring to passover and the whole meal. But, I had seen someone in the Presbyterian faith, who argued against kitchens in the building state that it couldn’t of been the passover meal they had. Thus, the argument for it needing to be unleavened is suspect. And, if I follow certain groups, who trace their practices back to the earliest times, they use leavened bread. The would emphatically argue that it should be leavened also. Doing a brief study, Anyhow, I don’t want to knock the zeal for doing what is right, as perfectly as possible. I just get concerned that people get overly hung up on straining gnats.

Proverbs 8:17 I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.

Jeremiah 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart  

P.S.

 I have not added any of my comment to you question, the scriptures are perfect and will answer all your question.

You need to have faith in the word of God and know if you do his will and obey the gospel, the spirit will guide you.

One thing I will comment on about the type of bread used. Christ instituted the Lords Supper during the Passover. No leaven bread was available. Plus the fact Christ body was without sin and leaven represented sin.

Thank You

END OF REPLY #2 FOR COMMENT #1

REPLY #3 FOR COMMENT: #1 :

Very good reading. I was raised to think it is o.k. to eat in any part of the church but the sanctuary. I understand how ridiculous that was. I understand that many churches continue this same practice today.

CLARIFICATION TO REPLY #3:

Thank You!

END OF REPLY #3 FOR COMMENT #1

FEEDBACK ON THIS COMMENT or NEW COMMENT FOR:
Is it ok to eat in the Church building, fellowship hall, multi-purpose room or any room purchased with offering money? #1
* Optional - Include for personal response.
Name: *
Email: *
Comments:	.

See Comment & Clarification#2 For - "Is it ok to eat in the Church building, fellowship hall, multi-purpose room or any room purchased with offering money?"