Liberals refuse to appeal to God's book for the answers (Mark 7:3).- Liberals refuse to appeal to apostolic tradition for the answers (2 The. 2:15).
- Liberals refuse to appeal to apostolic doctrine for the answers (Acts 2:42).
- Liberals refuse to give answer to those who ask of the hope that is in them with meekness and fear (1 Pet. 3:15).
- Liberals refuse to dispute with people about the word of God (Acts 17:17).
- Liberals refuse to speak boldly in the Lord (Acts 14:1-4).
FOR EXAMPLE... We have consistently asked of our detractors to produce one item that the churches of Christ bind that is a tradition of men. We would also ask for one man among them to meet in a four night public discussion upon that subject. Now is the time to put up...!
~ rick
56 comments:
I'll throw out two things that churches of Christ tend to bind that are not bound by the scriptures:
1. No instrumental music inside the building, period. Although COCs say that "the church meets here" and that there is nothing sacred about the building, they usually won't allow a string quartet to play at a wedding or permit a talent show (with instruments) in the fellowship hall. Since they early church met in homes, did they not allow instruments in their living room on Saturday night since they met there Sunday for worship? I would think not. (Interestingly, most churches of Christ will allow a quartet (choir/special music) to sing at a wedding/funeral. So 1)inside the building on Sunday - acappella, congregational singing only. 2)inside the building on Saturday for a wedding - quartets allowed (that aren't allowed in worship services) 3)inside the building on Saturday night, for a talent show - no instruments allowed.
2)Sunday/Wednesday evening services. We berate people for not attending and say it's a sin to miss a Sunday evening assembly. Our reason: the elders have the authority to set additional worship times. But where do the elders get the authority to bind things on a congregation that are not bound in scripture? Scripture commands AN assembly on Sunday. Certainly, additional assemblies are welcome and beneficial, but they are not commanded.
What if your elders decided to command a 20% contribution from all members? Or what if they decided that in addition to Sunday and Wednesday, everyone must meet at 6:00am Friday mornings for a congregational prayer? You would say they have no authority to do this to people, since scripture does not give them that authority. It seems to me that the same is true of Sunday night and Wednesday meetings.
I would like to point out that in this reply, I have not mocked, assaulted, or lied, and I have made my best effort to judge properly and to discuss/debate.
anonymous... concerning pt. 1
It is true that the building is not "sacred" to God. But its purpose is sacred. The term sacred is related to sanctified and/or holy. These terms refer to the idea of being set apart or separate. The "church" building is a place specifically paid for by and set aside for the church's use. As such it is deemed by many to limited in its usage. It is not a bingo parlor or dance hall or recreation center.
It is an expedient facility for accomplishing what is commanded. The fact that Christian worship is without instruments and that the building is primarily for Christian worship then it follows that folks don't want instruments used in the building.
Having such in the building at all raises questions about consistency. Many weddings use religious songs and would appear to many as a compromise to use an instrument during such.
Ones personal home is NOT primarily a place set aside for worship. What goes on in a private home is completely separate from what church building has been set aside for.
I may have a steak and a baked potato for supper on Saturday night but it will not be served at the Lord's Table on Sunday morning as a part of our worship.
About part 2:
I am not sure that "berate" is the proper word. What the scripture says is that we should not "forsake the assembling of ourselves together". Notice it does not say "assembly" (ie, singular noun) but refers to the practice or habit of being together.
Preachers are commanded to reprove, rebuke, and exhort. The greater question however, is what is so important that disciples cannot be more committed the local body and be in attendance. These times are for edification of one another as well as worship.
Those who are willfully and persistently absent are speaking volumes about their love for the Lord and the brethren.
Thanks for your response. I appreciate your reasoning on both, and agree with much of it, but I find no place in Scripture to "bind" both of those principles. Your wording of "folks don't want instruments used in the building" is exactly right - since it seems odd, we then bind it.
Let me reword your second paragraph and then get your response. My changes are in brackets:
"The fact that Christian worship is [to be a cappella, CONGREGATIONAL singing] and that the building is primarily for Christian worship then it follows that folks don't want [quartets] used in the building."
Except we don't follow this logic in this case.
See the problem? If we're talking about "appearances," then there ought not to be a quartet singing at a wedding or funeral.
We have made a three-tiered music allowance:
1) Music acceptable in the assembly at the building (a cappella, congregational)
2) Music acceptable at other functions at the building (quartets, funeral singers)
3) Music never acceptable at the building (instrumental)
About the assemblies - I agree that there is nothing more important than the work of the church and the Christian's participation therein. But where is the limit? Could elders call Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday weekly meetings, and then say, "What's more important than being here? Where's your love for the Lord?"
The Bible doesn't say, "Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night, but no more."
I guess what I'm getting at is that a second Sunday assembly and Wednesday assembly are HUMAN-MADE traditions. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's nothing wrong with the elders calling off a Wednesday or second Sunday assembly either, if it's not serving its purpose well.
To anonymous, thanks for the cordial way in which this was done.
Allow me to address something of an underlying nature before we begin with your examples. What the local elders bind on a single congregation is not under consideration as long as they do not bind it upon others outside their own jurisdiction. That they have binding jurisdiction in matters of expediency is clear from such passages as Hebrews 13:17 and 1 Thessalonians 5:12. They do not have the jurisdiction to bind or loose where God has bound or loosed, therefore the only authority they could possess would be found within this area of expediency (i.e., how to carry out the commands of God in an appropriate, befitting and convenient fashion, wherein the specific is not given).
An eldership is within its biblical jurisdiction to sanction a specific time for worship (i.e., 10:30 AM) and to bind that time upon all its members yet at the same time they have no authority to bind that time upon other congregation.
~ rick
Point taken, Rick, and I definitely agree.
Question: If an eldership decided that their congregation should meet every night of every week for prayer/worship/evangelism, etc., and to inform members that they are expected to attend (as we do now with Sunday PM and Wednesday services), then
1) Would they be within their authority to bind this on THEIR OWN congregation?
2) If so, why don't most elderships do this? Surely the church would benefit from nightly assemblies.
3) If not, why not?
Keep in mind that expediency requires not only a command but also the most beneficial manner in which to carry out that command.
First, in some cases it might be beneficial for the members to participate together in the manner described and just because it is the easier on people does not mean that it is better for them.
Second, keeping in mind the society in which we live is an important part of the process of expediency.
Third, a decision from the elders cannot take away from other roles and responsibilities that a man has such as family (Eph. 6:4) and work (1 Tim. 5:8).
Fourth, I have the right to place or displace myself under those elders.
Fifth, an eldership must be willing and able to participate in their plan.
Sixth, placing heavy burdens upon the people without a willingness to participate was the sign of the scribes and Pharisees that Jesus condemned (Mat. 23).
I hope that this has adequately dealt with the matter at hand, if not please continue.
~ rick
The scripture tell us to give as we have been blessed. Would the elders have authority to impose a 20% contribution?
Rick you said
"Preachers are commanded to reprove, rebuke, and exhort. The greater question however, is what is so important that disciples cannot be more committed the local body and be in attendance. These times are for edification of one another as well as worship."
Can you please provide scripture that supports these timeas as worship.
In response to the question about 20% -
Absolutely not. Elders only have authority over matters of expiedency - they cannot change the word of God. The specific amount to give is already set forth in scripture (II Cor 9:7) and cannot be changed.
A word about expediency:
It is clear from scripture that elders have authority, the question is authority over what? It cannot be over that which is already established in scripture, or the power to add or take away from God's word, so it follows that their power falls under specific guidelines - those areas which we refer to as "expediencies." For instance, the Lord's supper is regulated in scripture - the fact that we partake, the manner in which we partake, the day on which we partake, the ingredients which constitute it, etc. are already laid out for us to follow. However, there are certain details that must be resolved for the Lord's supper to be carried out - such as what point in the worship service it will be observed. It must occur at some point during the service, but the specific point is not specified in scripture, so it is just as scriptural to take it after the first song as it is after the tenth. That is what an expiedent is - a choice between scriptural options. A choice to partake during the Wednesday service would not be expiedent, as it would not be a scriptural choice left to the discretion of men.
Along with Rick, I would like to express my appreciation of the new tone this discussion has taken.
Jeff
actually j. dean quoted the passage but I agree with the scripture and the point made about the scripture from my good brother. But I failed in understanding your point. did you mean to ask about Sunday & Wednesday PM as worship?
Matthew 15:9
Ephesians 5:19
Colossians 3:16
Acts 16:25
If preaching, singing and prayers are individual acts of worship then when they are in engaged in there is worship.
~ rick
True worship is in spirit and truth. Worship is not a time and place. Activities are not worship only in a certain time and place.
Praying is always worship. Singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs is worship. But neither of these is limited to a time and place.
Communion and giving is limited to the whole church together in one place on the first day of the week.
Greetings in the name of Siloam. Peace and Safety to all and may Her name be exalted! Pass the ship from sail to rudder and give us her wood. The government will get us all with a space ship.
To get us back on track, please provide scriptural support for the following music hierarchy (in particular, points 2 and 3):
1) Music acceptable in the assembly at the building (a cappella, congregational)
2) Music acceptable at other functions at the building (quartets, funeral singers)
3) Music never acceptable at the building (instrumental)
anonymous you are asking a question which cannot be directly answered.
The building itself is merely an expedient, not a necessity.
It is the fact that it is purchased/built with church funds for church purposes is what determines it usage.
Since it is primarily a place of worship and Christian worship is without mechanical instruments of music, then to bring them into the building gives the wrong impression.
Consistency and clarity would prevent many from using instruments at anytime in the building.
Since elders have the authority to determine things in the area of expediency, it is within their authority to decide that instruments are not to be brought in at all.
Answers...to the inquirer:
The answer to all three is the same: anytime anywhere psalms, hymns and spiritual songs are sung, it must be reciprocal singing, as per Ephesians 5:19 & Colossians 3:16. By the way, a cappella is not restrictive enough for it must be singing and words spoken are implied. The kind of singing we call a cappella allows for vocal bands. The New Testament does not.
Regarding mechanical instruments of music (not psalms, hymns or spiritual songs) is within the realm of expediency.
~ rick
So, Rick:
Part 1: When "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" are sung at a wedding or funeral at the church in Lindsay, are the people gathered there ALL singing, or just a select few (i.e., wedding/funeral singers/quartets)?
Part 2: If the elders can "bind" in all areas of expediency, then your original charge of "show me one example of the church of Christ binding a tradition of humans" is pointless, since you can answer any accusation with, "well, it's under the elders' authority to make that decision."
Jeff Martin answered this earlier with the example of a 20% contribution, but I'm not talking about the elders binding something that's in direct opposition to scripture (give as you've been prospered), but rather, binding an area that is not mandated in scripture at all (instruments inside a church building, additional assemblies during the week, etc.)
--------------------
And to J. Dean:
You are using words like "consistency," "clarity," and "wrong impression." You are not backing up the prohibition of instruments inside the building with scripture.
And since you're talking about giving the "wrong impression," wouldn't it be wrong to have a quartet singing at a funeral, since denominational people in attendance might get the "wrong impression" that we allow "special music" in our assemblies?
anonymous you wrote:
"You are not backing up the prohibition of instruments inside the building with scripture."
=====================
Notice that I wrote in the first paragraph that this cannot be answered directly because the building itself is merely an expedient. Its use then falls under the decision of those responsible.
One must remember that violating the speed limit is to break man's law. But to break man's law is a violation of scripture. Yet God never specified a speed limit.
Parents set curfews for their children. Children who disobey the curfew disobey their parents and thereby disobey God. Yet God did not set the curfew.
Congregations are autonomous and are free to make lawful decisions in the areas of expediency. Thus there is variation from congregation to congregation.
Jeff said,
Absolutely not. Elders only have authority over matters of expiedency - they cannot change the word of God. The specific amount to give is already set forth in scripture (II Cor 9:7) and cannot be changed.
I don’t see the specifics in the amount to give. I do see a guideline but no specifics. We don’t know if God wants 10%, 20% or what portion of our income. We know that he wants us to give as we have been prospered but how does that correlate to a specific amount. If you are financially able, I think it is scriptural to give a minimum of 10% and more if you are financially blessed. Jesus taught that the new covenant went beyond the old covenant in that we don’t just go thru the motions of following the law but we are compelled by God’s love for us and our love for Him to do our best and love others (Matt 5:17-48). This is to be expected since we have the power of the holy spirit living inside counseling us.
Jeff,
Can you tell me where in scripture it is commanded to partake of the Lord's Supper on a specific day?
Would it be a sin for a person to leave one congregation to attend another because they disagreed with the elders on expediency issues?
I am henceforth anonymous #1, responsible for comments 1, 3, 5, 13, and 15 (basically, about a cappella music and Sunday PM/Wednesday assemblies).
----------------------------
To J. Dean,
You use the example of speeding - breaking human law is equal to breaking God's law. Your analogy therefore leads me to correlate a prohibition of instruments inside the building to a HUMAN law - the very definition of binding. (If the elders say it's wrong to bring instruments into the building on Saturday night, and I bring an instrument into the building on Saturday night, I'm sinning, because I'm breaking a law of expediency.) I don't see how this is not an example of elders binding something that is not God's law. To use an analogy of my own, since we don't allow women to speak in the assembly, would elders be within their rights to prohibit women from speaking in the hallways or in the foyer, just to avoid "giving the wrong impression"? I'm not trying to mock or sound absurd - just trying to give an equivalent example.
------------------------------
And let me re-post my questions to Rick:
Part 1:
You said "anytime anywhere psalms, hymns and spiritual songs are sung, it must be reciprocal singing, as per Ephesians 5:19 & Colossians 3:16".
When "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" are sung at a wedding or funeral at the church in Lindsay, are the people gathered there ALL singing, or just a select few (i.e., wedding/funeral singers/quartets)?
Part 2: If the elders can "bind" in all areas of expediency, then your original charge of "show me one example of the church of Christ binding a tradition of humans" is pointless, since you can answer any accusation with, "well, it's under the elders' authority to make that decision."
“I don’t see the specifics in the amount to give. I do see a guideline but no specifics.”
(II Cor 9:7)
Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
The specific amount is that which every man thinks appropriate. Each individual is to determine within themselves, without the interference of others, what they want to give to God, and give accordingly. If a dollar or percentage amount is specified for all, then giving that amount becomes “of necessity” which is forbidden in this verse.
“We don’t know if God wants 10%, 20% or what portion of our income.”
God wants what you think you should give. If you think 10% is good, and you give it willingly, that’s what God wants. If you think you should give 20%, but only give 10%, or give 20% grudgingly, then you need to make adjustments in your life. The key is the preceding verse:
But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.
If you want to sow bountifully, do so. It’s just like any other area of life – how much do you want to give to God?
The key here is that there is no scriptural basis for a set amount. No man can determine the heart of another.
Jeff
Here is another "can of worms"...
Anonymous wrote in part:
"This is to be expected since we have the power of the holy spirit living inside counseling us."
=====================================
Do you have scripture for this Calvinistic notion that the Holy Spirit is inside counseling us?
-----------------------------------
Concerning HUMAN laws:
When a child disobeys his parents he thereby disobeys God as well.
When a child disobeys the government he thereby disobeys God as well.
When a servant disobeyed his master he thereby disobeyed God also.
Why is it so hard to accept the authority of elders in matters of expediency? And that to rebel against any God ordained authority is a sin?
J. Dean,
You're missing my point. I'm asking how FAR elders can go in matters of "expediency."
Can elders order women to be silent at a Saturday night fellowship since they're silent during worship on Sunday morning?
If so, why? How far does this authority go, and when does it become "binding" human-made laws?
If not, why not, if they can order instruments out of the building since they're not used in worship on Sunday?
No one is responding to my specific points.
I think a better question is not how far can elders go in areas of expedience, but how far do areas of expedience extend? As per my previous post, in order for something to be an expiedient, it must be a scriptural option. If a eldership makes a decision that is in the realm of expiedency, it must follow that the decision is under the realm of authority that scripture has granted them - otherwise it would no longer be expiedient.
The context of women remaining silent is in the "churches" (ie, not the building, but the assembly).
Paul gives us the context and circumstances of the silence as well.
In 1 Cor. he is speaking of the whole church together in one place where there was prophecy and tongues. It was in this situation that women were forbidden to speak.
To Timothy Paul wrote that the women are not to teach or exercise authority over the men.
General talking is not in the context. To demand silence beyond this is to enter not violating personal rights.
Instruments are not a right. But they are tools of making music. The church worships with the voice in song only.
I do not believe that your comparison is valid.
J. Dean, let me re-post your reply with my changes in brackets, and tell me why my comparison is not valid.
----
The context of [making music in our hearts and without mechanical instruments of music] is in the "churches" (ie, not the building, but the assembly).
Paul gives us the context and circumstances of the silence as well.
In [Eph. 5]. he is speaking of the whole church together in one place where there was [singing]. It was in this situation that [mechanical instruments were forbidden].
[Not EVER playing instruments] is not in the context. To demand silence beyond this is to enter not violating personal rights.
[Women speaking] is not a right. But [it is a tool of communication].
------
I think my comparison is perfectly valid.
If we forbid instruments in the building on Saturday night for "practical" concerns (i.e., appearances, consistency), then why do we not also forbid women talking on Saturday night for the same concerns?
Since no one will answer this, I will: because, for some reason, instruments are on a different level of taboo than other things. We are anti-instrumental instead of pro-acappella (and there is a difference). There are plenty of things that are not permissible on Sunday morning that don't get as much of a rise out of people.
If I walk through the building Monday night carrying a hamburger, no one would much care, even though we don't eat hamburgers in the Sunday assembly. If my wife and I walked through the foyer talking on Monday afternoon, no one would care either, though she doesn't speak on Sunday morning.
But if I bring my guitar case through the foyer (even just to transport it from one place to another), people freak out.
J. Dean, OKC said...
Here is another "can of worms"...
Anonymous wrote in part:
"This is to be expected since we have the power of the holy spirit living inside counseling us."
=====================================
Do you have scripture for this Calvinistic notion that the Holy Spirit is inside counseling us?
Here are the scriptures:
1 Corinthians 6:19
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own
2 Timothy 1:14
Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.
John 14:26
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
John 15:26
"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.
John 16:7
But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.
Romans 15:13
May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 6:5
This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism.
Acts 8:15
When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit,
Concerning the verses posted about the HOLY SPIRIT:
Here are the scriptures:
1 Corinthians 6:19
This text is not about the individual but the church. There is only one temple. If you will check the KJV or ASV you will notice that the plural pronouns YE, YOU, and YOUR (rather than the singular THOU, THEE, THY) are used with body in the singular and temple in the singular. This is a composite group (ie, the church).
2 Timothy 1:14
Timothy was a miraculously endowed evangelist.
The preposition “in” is not here used in reference to location but relationship. The Holy Spirit is not a corporeal being that takes up space or location.
John 14:26 / John 15:26 / John 16:7
These three texts were all a part of Jesus’ upper room discussion with the Apostles. It concerned their future inspired ministry.
Romans 15:13
One thing you should probably do is refrain from using the NIV especially with the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. It has one of the worst Calvinistic biases on the market. It cannot be trusted.
Always remember the historical context of the NT as well. The original audience lived in the days of the miraculous and would likely have understood this as such. We would do well not to take such texts and apply them in a non-miraculous way today.
Acts 6:5
Again this is during the days of miracles and Stephen was also an endowed preacher.
Acts 8:15
Here we see that the people did not automatically receive the Spirit at baptism (although saved). It took the intervention of the Apostles with prayer and the laying on of hands. And what they received was the power evidence by tongues.
Anonymous cited this scripture:
John 14:26
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Anonymous, if you have the Holy Spirit in you like this Scripture states, you have no need for a Bible. You are able to infallibly recall every word Jesus spoke and to know the entire revelation contained in the New Testament. Do you claim that ability?
Tex said:
Anonymous, if you have the Holy Spirit in you like this Scripture states, you have no need for a Bible. You are able to infallibly recall every word Jesus spoke and to know the entire revelation contained in the New Testament. Do you claim that ability?
Tex,
Can you please show me scripture where it states the following abilities if you have the holy sprit living inside you:
"you have no need for a Bible. You are able to infallibly recall every word Jesus spoke and to know the entire revelation contained in the New Testament."
You just gave the scripture, anonymous. This is describing how the disciples would be called into remembrance of all things, and would be taught all things. It's obviously the miraculous, meant for those who would proclaim the word and write it down for the world (look at John 12:16). If you look closely at Tex's question, he asked if you had the Holy Spirit "like this Scripture states" - or "in the same manner" as this scripture. We believe that the Holy Spirit dwells in us as well, but we certainly don't believe he operates in this manner in our lives - I certainly can't remember all things, and I haven't been taught all things -- have you?
There are references to the Holy Ghost in both miraculous and non-miraculous contexts. You have to rightly divide.
Jeff
1 Corinthians 6:19
This text is not about the individual but the church. There is only one temple. If you will check the KJV or ASV you will notice that the plural pronouns YE, YOU, and YOUR (rather than the singular THOU, THEE, THY) are used with body in the singular and temple in the singular. This is a composite group (ie, the church).
Let me clarify your reasoning. The church is the temple. The church is not a building but made of individuals. The holy spirit is in the temple. Thus, the holy spirit must be in the individuals. Is this your reasoning?
Anonymous wrote:
"Let me clarify your reasoning. The church is the temple. The church is not a building but made of individuals. The holy spirit is in the temple. Thus, the holy spirit must be in the individuals. Is this your reasoning?"
====================================
No. Just the opposite. The Holy Spirit, in his person, is not inside of any individual.
The "in" terminology is not about location but relationship. Paul spoke of the Philippians that he had them in his heart. This is obviously not locational but relational.
Also when speaking of the location of an individual and a group the person is "with" or "among" or "in the midst of". For instance if my son were a Boy Scout I might say he is in the Scouts but no one would assume that he was inside of the Scouts individually.
The Greek preposition "en" can be rendered "in" and often is. But more often than not when referring to an individuals relationship to a group is rendered "with". The exception seems to be in regard to the Holy Spirit.
Also the Holy Spirit is a non corporeal being having no bearing on spacial location.
Another NOTE:
To ask WHERE the Holy Spirit is...is to confuse categories.
It is kind of like asking what the color blue tastes like.
The Holy Spirit being God is omnipresent, but not in a tangible literal sense.
I have a question:
Most CofC say that not one example of conversion was accomplished without the act of baptism.
What about the 5,000 below, Cornellius and the thief on the cross? They were all considered saved believers prior to the act of baptism.
In Acts 3, Peter preaches to a massive crowd at the temple porch. The priests seized Peter and John as they were speaking and threw them in jail. The Bible records, however, that about five thousand believed and were added to the church. Peter and John couldn't have baptized them, for they were in prison! Peter didn't even get to finish his sermon. The people are considered believers nevertheless.
Anonymous,
I will take the question about the thief on the cross.
1. You cannot know that he was never baptized. He seemed to understand a lot about who Jesus was and his coming kingdom despite the fact that Jesus was dying too.
2. New Testament Gospel baptism is into the death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3-5). Jesus was not yet dead; let alone buried or raised. This was a Jewish man putting his trust in the Messiah who had power while on earth to forgive the sins of those under the still in force Old Covenant. That covenant was taken out of the way when Jesus died. The New Covenant Gospel of the death, burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 15:1-4) was not preached until Pentecost...almost 50 days later.
3. The last will and testament of Jesus (the testator) did not go into affect until after his decease (Hebrews 9:16-17).
Anonymous,
Why would you assume that those in Acts 3 & 4 who believed were NOT baptized? Virtually every detailed account of conversion in Acts complies with Mark 16:15-16. The gospel is preached and those who believe are baptized in order to be saved (See Acts 2, 8, 10, 16, 22).
Even Cornelius was baptized. His prayers did not save him. His good deeds did not save him. An angelic visit did not save him. The empowering of the Holy Spirit did not save him (it merely proved to the Peter and the others that the Gentiles were acceptable). Cornelius was told to send for Peter who would tell him WORDS by which he would be saved. This was the gospel plan of salvation which includes the apostolic command to be baptized.. which he and his household obeyed.
Another busy week for the Lindsay evangelism crew; we trotted down to Palestine, Texas for a two-day campaign and a six day gospel meeting. We arrived home at 3:45 AM this morning after co-laboring with the good brethren at the South Jackson Street Church of Christ. Ten souls have been added to the Lord's church in Palestine. We are grateful to God for His grace and power.
The brethren desired to extend the meeting for another week but our schedule just does not allow that at this time.
Please continue to pray for your new brethren who were snatched out of the kingdom of darkness (Methodist & Baptist Churches) and translated into the kingdom of his dear son.
rick
Rick,
It would be adding to the holy scripture to say they were baptized. It does not say they were baptized. It does say they were believers added to the church.
Acts 4
1As they were speaking to the people, the priests and (the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to them,
2being greatly disturbed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.
3And they laid hands on them and put them in jail until the next day, for it was already evening.
4But many of those who had heard the message believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand.
anonymous, you will have to help me understand what you are trying to say I did not use the word "baptized" in my post.
I said, "Ten souls have been added to the Lord's church in Palestine. We are grateful to God for His grace and power."
Therefore, I am at a loss as to what you are speaking of in your post.
By the way it would not be "adding to the holy scripture" to say that they were baptized (cf. Acts 2:38, 41).
rick
anonymous, I have been gone in campaign so my mind is slipping somewhat - I believe that you are speaking of what j. dean wrote in his post. If I am wrong, please correct me and direct me to the proper place.
May I suggest that when one considers all the historical data of salvation in the book of Acts one would be compelled to say that baptism is, without doubt, a part of God's divine plan to save man from his sins.
rick
Acts 4 mentions that they "believed" but that is not entirely the same as saying that they were "believers" in the full sense of the word. Even the demons believe but they are not believers.
Acts 4 does not say that they repented or confessed either. Should we assume then that they did not?
Many texts contain elements necessary for salvation, but no one text is sufficient to give all that is necessary.
We derive a composite of all the essentials from a variety of texts. One can compare all the accounts of conversion in the book of Acts and see that baptism is the most often mentioned element.
are you an a capella or instrumental church?
oc alumni
We *are* members of New Testament churches.
We *practice* worship without manmade instruments because they aren't used in the NT.
I guess since musical instruments are only found in the old Law, "instrumental" churches could be called Old Testament churches.
Jeff
oc alumni, ask... "are you an a capella or instrumental church?"
This is not an either/or question but a both/and question. I worship with a congregation that is both a cappella and instrumental in its music but it is much more restrictive than either of these two words.
By this I mean the following (Eph. 5:19 & Col. 3:16):
First, the New Testament authorizes instrumental music in worship to God but it restricts the instrument to the heart and the voice ("speaking," "singing," and "making melody in your heart").
Second, the New Testament authorizes a cappella music in worship to God but it restricts the kind to that which teaches (“singing,” “teaching,” “admonishing”).
Third, to say we believe in a cappella music, without clarification, allows for a cappella vocal bands, choirs and solos which are not authorized (“speaking to one another”).
rick
The New Testament church practiced the command below. The command is very specific for a sick person. Going to a doctor is not authorized. I don’t see this being practiced in the Church of Christ but they will exclude and shun other congregations for using musical instruments.
James 5
14Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up.
"The command is very specific for a sick person. Going to a doctor is not authorized."
My first impulse on reading this question is do you practice this? if you had a heart attack, would it be sinful to be rushed to the hospital instead of the eldership? Sometimes when I am talking to people about following God's word, they will counter with "Well, do you do such and such? It's commanded right here" not realizing that the passage (a) does not apply to them or b) has been misinterpreted.
That would be fine, I don't mind answering questions, but they generally don't follow it themselves, or intend to. In other words, they are deliberately ignoring what they perceive to be a biblical command. People like this fall into two categories - the first group don't really believe the scriptures apply to them or are not fully inspired, and the second are hypocrites and those opposed to God.
The first sentence I have quoted from you does not apply to the post miraculous age (obviously), and the second is a misinterpretation. What category do you fall under? If you practice this, great - I would be happy to explain further. If you think you can pick and choose what parts of scripture you want to follow and ignore others, I won't waste my time - there are bigger issues at hand.
Jeff
Since the term "a cappella" is Latin for "like the church", isn't it a bit odd to ask if a church is a cappella?
By practical application is refers to unaccompanied singing. And it is singing that the scripture calls upon us to do.
Let me clarify that post a little.
Here's what I'm asking - some people bring up things (mostly misinterpreted) in the bible that they think are silly in order to illustrate that the "details" of the Bible are unimportant or outdated. They will read "ye also ought to wash one another's feet" and think that this is a literal command, but they will not do it because they do not look to the Bible to rule their lives - they just pick out verses that they like and ignore the rest. We are not commanded to wash each other's feet, only to be humble and serve one another, but if I thought this was meant literally, I hope I'm the kind of man that would go and do so. That's my question - are you taking a "silly" verse as an example, or do you have a honest heart and want to know why we do not anoint with oil like you do? If so, I apologize for getting so far off track, and I will answer your question in greater depth.
Jeff
Rightly dividing the word is a serious task.
One must always take into account...
- what covenant
- what age
- inherent limits
- original intent
- original audience
- etc.
The age of miracles had a time limit. Any commands associated with miracles are limited by the same time frame.
Jeff and j. dean have answered well but allow this addition: just because one thing is not practiced does not exclude the truthfulness of the other!
rick
Jeff,
I totally agree with you that some do not look to the Bible because they have no real faith in God or Jesus to save them. There are even some of these folks in church every Sunday.
We are each to interpret scripture for ourselves and we are each accountable for our own interpretation. Teachers are accountable for what they teach. None of us has perfect interpretation including the teachers. We all do our best to divide the word rightly but none of us are perfect at it. Thank you Jesus for your grace and mercy in our imperfections.
I do not agree with everything my congregation teaches. However, I know they are earnest in their attempt to interpret scripture correctly and I consider them my brothers and sisters in Christ. If I was to judge them and split hairs over their interpretation of the scripture then I would have to judge myself because not mine or no anyone else’s interpretation is perfect. If it was, we would be God and in no need of the grace thru Jesus.
You interpret "ye also ought to wash one another's feet" as not literal while someone else may interpret as literal. Would you consider this person as a fellow believer? What about the musical instrument? You interpret the scriptures to exclude musical instruments while another interprets the scripture that musical instruments are not excluded. Would you consider this person as a fellow believer? The same question could be asked about the James 5 scripture.
I think there are things that are very black and white and that we should split hairs over but there are just some things that are gray and we should be accepting of each others imperfections. It’s ok for us to discuss differences in love as long as we don’t exclude or brand another because they don’t have our precise view on scripture.
I doubt there is a congregation out there where every single person in the congregation interprets the entire scripture alike.
Anonymous,
Your approach to this whole thing makes it look as though you accept the notion of agreeing to disagree.
This would also mean that you do not believe that truth is really knowable and that one can know that he knows.
Jesus said that if we abide in his word that we will know the truth.
People may disagree and both be wrong, but they cannot both be correct. All truth is important but some truths are essential.
There are those things essential to initial salvation and things essential to maintaining fellowship with God and brethren.
The instrument is without authority from the New Testament as part of Christian worship. Those who would introduce it do so only from their preference.
This causes division which is a defilement of the temple/body for which the Lord promised to destroy those who do such (1 Cor. 3:17).
Bringing division into the church is deadly serious business.
Anonymous:
If "we are each accountable for our own interpretation" then my question to you is extremely important: do you anoint with oil? This is clearly your interpretation so it follows that you will be accountable for it, and if you don't go to the elders when you are sick or if you ever visit a doctor, you stand condemned by your own mouth. Rightly dividing the Word is pointless if you are unwilling to live by what you find in the Scriptures - what's the point of study if it is not applied to your life? When we "Study to shew thyself approved" (I Tim 2:15) it is not the knowledge gained in and of itself that God approves, it is living according to that knowledge. II TImothy 3:17 says that scripture *furnishes* us unto good works, it is what allows us to follow God - how can we live according to God's will if we don't know what God's will is? That's the real value in study - it lets you know how you should live.
Tied in with this concept is the idea of "judging yourself," which you portrayed in a negative context:
"If I was to judge them and split hairs over their interpretation of the scripture then I would have to judge myself because not mine or no anyone else’s interpretation is perfect."
How is judging yourself wrong? Should we not turn an eye to our own lives to determine if we are living faithfully? Is it not commanded to remove the beam from our own eye, so we can see clearly to help our brother (Luke 6:42)?
II Corinthians 13:5
Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
Take the Bible on the right, and your life on the left, and see if they match up. If you aren't perfect, then seek to remedy the area in which you lack (do this your entire life). If you believe that anointing is a command, why don't you do it? Where is the willingness to line your life up with the Word? You admit that we are accountable, why would you chose to ignore that which (in your eyes) God commands? Every verse in the Bible has a purpose - there are no idle words. Our obligation is to seek out what God requires and *follow* it. That's what I want to clear up before these other issues - if we aren't willing to do God's will, what good does it do to debate what God's will is?
Jeff
Judging
There are 2 kinds or aspects of judging.
1. judging/discerning
2. judging/condemning
As we study God's word and learn his will we discern areas of our life and doctrine that need adjustment. We also see the same in others. When we make this discernment and bring to another person's attention we might be told that we are being judgmental.
But isn't the person so responding doing exactly the same thing. Rather than examine themselves and their beliefs in light of the scriptures the want to silence the "critic".
The very fact that we are told to preach the gospel to every creature which includes preaching repentance (Lk 24:47) is to bring them under the judgment of God's will.
The moment we seek the conversion of an individual we are essentially saying that they are in danger of condemnation.
The object is salvation not mere condemnation. It is because we love God, love truth, and love souls that we speak the truth.
Post a Comment