I just received this comment —
It’s nice to read some supportive words. We’ve taken the no response route as you have suggested here.
On Thursday, May 1, the National Day of Prayer, we are hosting a joint worship service with at least 2 other churches from OKC – Catedral de Adoracion and Tabitha Baptist. A mostly white suburban Church of Christ, a Latino inner-city church and a black Baptist church coming together to worship and fellowship. Worship teams from all three churches will participate. Communion would be a great addition to the plan.
We’ll invite other churches of Christ and anyone else who would like to come be with us. You’re welcome as well of course.
Grace & peace to you,
Gary Bruce
Worship Minister
Quail Springs Church of Christ
I moved this to a post to make sure everyone sees it and it goes out to RSS feed and email subscribers.
On May 1, I’ll be at the Pepperdine lectureship, where I’ll be speaking on why the Churches of Christ are so divisive (kind of ironic, isn’t it?). I wish I could be in Oklahoma City! I’ll be there in spirit.
Readers, please attend this event! I pray that Quail Springs fills their auditorium, the church next door, the parking lot, and the streets with supportive brothers and sisters in Christ.
You see, those who persecute Quail Springs for worshiping God with an instrument stand opposed to the gospel of Christ. They don’t mean to. But they do. It’s the Galatian heresy — squared. We cannot sit by idly while a spiritual war is being fought by others.
It’s extremely important that the Church of Christ community in Oklahoma see that Quail Springs is supported by others. Elderships of other churches need to know that they can resist the forces of legalism and find support among their members and their sister congregations. If this isn’t worth standing for, what is?
Your brothers and sisters at Quail Springs need to see that they are loved and accepted. Please be there.
The antidote for divisiveness and backbiting is love — openly displayed.
Jay
Jay,
Why does Quail Springs even have their building still open for worship? Why don't they just close the door and go and worship with Catedral de Adoracion and Tabitha Baptist. Having this joint worhsip service is all but there already. "Communion" on Thursday. I thought the Lord set this for the first day of the week. Look at Acts 20:7.
For what it is worth, the Lord established the Supper on a Thursday evening. He never said anything about a particular day or the frequency of observance. Acts 20:7 presents one example of one church. Acts 2:42 uses the same language about breaking bread where it says they "continued steadfastly" in the apostles' teaching, the fellowship, the breaking of bread, and prayers. The same context describes them as meeting daily in the temple and breaking bread from house to house.
We have good reasons to observe the Lord's Supper when we come together on Sunday, but the "every Sunday and only on Sunday" doctrine goes way beyond "that which is written."
Mark,
Would you use this same argument about the collections of the funds to support your church?
How often does your church take up a collection? 1 Cor. 16 2, says upon the "first day of the week," This means every first day of the week or every Sunday, right.
Regarding Acts 2:42,
According to Vine’s Expository Dictionary, pg. 147, there are several “breaking of breads” used in the Bible.
The one used in Acts 2:42 is not referring to the Lord’s Supper, this was a common meal between the people. According to your logic, then they must have partaken of the “Lord’s Supper” everyday??
I agree the observance of the emblems was set forth on the Thursday evening before the Lord’s crucifixion, according to I Cor. 11:23, and then again in I Cor. 11:26, we are instructed “as often as you eat this bread.” So the Lord must have had some frequency in mind. ~ Right. Or was this just left up to when we feel like it. NO!
So He tells us the frequency in Acts 20:7, “first day of the week.” How are we to distinguish which “first day” to observe?? The first Sunday of the month? The 3rd Sunday of the month? NO! We must observe “every first day” of the week.
Yes, we take a collection every Sunday, but we don't do so because we are "required" to. People also send checks in the mail. Sometimes, we have a special contribution and take two collections on Sunday. Sometimes, a Bible class raises money for something, and they take up a collection during class on Sunday morning or Wednesday night.
The same language that is used in Acts 20:7 is used in Acts 2:42. Either one could have been a common meal, the Lord's Supper, or a combination of the two. 1 Cor. 11 seems to make it pretty clear that in some places the Lord's Supper was part of a common meal.
The Lord may well have had some frequency in mind, but he didn't say so. I think weekly Sunday observance is good, theologically sound practice. Those who, for whatever reason, don't observe the Lord's Supper every Sunday are not in violation of a commandment because there is no such commandment. Those who observe the Lord's Supper as part of worship on a day other than Sunday are not in violation of a commandment because there is no such commandment.
You can take Jesus' institution of the Supper and the first day of the week reference in Acts 20:7 and the as often as reference in 1 Cor. 11 and come up with an "every Sunday and only on Sunday" rule if you want to. In my opinion, that is extraordinarily poor exegesis and interpretation.
Actually, I think it's pretty likely that "break bread" refers to the love feast or "agape" the early church celebrated. It's referenced in Jude, and so has apostolic approval. It's an example.
Everett Ferguson notes in Early Christians Speak that the Lord's Supper was often taken as part of the love feast, which was not always the same as the weekly assembly. It would be similar in practice to the small programs many churches hold, as the early church often met in homes. First Century homes couldn't hold many more than 30 people — and that was for homes of the relatively wealthy. It's wasn't until later that some Christians had their homes expanded to allow as many as 70 to attend.
Thus, a church met in many homes, where they sometime took a common meal and, just as Jesus did, shared the Lord's Supper as part of the meal. Yes, they added fried chicken to the communion!
I've often wondered why the love feast didn't make into the famed 5 acts of worship when it was uniformed practiced, spoken of in scripture, and is a delightful practice. I think it's because we came to scriptures expecting practices suitable for church buildings rather than homes. Therefore, it was invisible to our eyes.
Amazingly enough, now there are those who consider it sin to eat in the church building or to have a kitchen in the building or even to meet in small groups! We've had such a distorted set of assumptions that we've reached conclusions exactly the opposite of the apostles'!
Mona, I find it interesting that you appeal to I Cor 16 for your Sunday collections, but in doing so you proof-text it. That passages deals with a collection for the needy saints in Jerusalem, not a treasury to pay the light bill, purchase the curriculum for Sunday School, etc. In fact the use of the treasury as is practiced within every CofC I have ever been associated with is as nonbiblical as you have claimed instrumental music is in another post on this site. The only passages that present Scriptural examples and instructions for any type of collection deal with benevolent work, exclusively (See Acts 2, 4, I Corinthians 16, II Corinthians 8 & 9).
Now, I write this not because I opposed to the way treasuries are used, but to illustrate that is is perfectly acceptable to do somethings within the CofC because they are expedients and not acceptable to do somethings because they are additions, yet the hermeneutics are opposite for both positions. One cannot, for example, prove that instrumental music is a sin because the Scripture says sing, and then turn the methodology upside down and say that using the treasury for things other that benevolence is fine because Scripture does not condemn it when it is clear by example and command that benevolence is the sole reason the collection was enacted and anything remotely similar to a treasury began.
Ray
Do any of you have to have Biblical authority for what you do in worship? It sounds like a "majority vote" works. Not, what God's says. If so, please tell me what you have Bible authority for and please cite a Bible verse or verses.
Thanks,
Mona
Yes, we have authority to celebrate/observe/participate in the Lord's Supper. Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-26. We have authority for the public reading of Scripture and for preaching and teaching. 1 Tim 4:13
We have authority for praising God with our voices and with instruments. Psalm 150 and many others
We also have authority to prophecy and to speak in tongues, if an interpreter is present (1 Cor. 14:26ff), but we don't do those things at our church.
I hope this helps.
Mark
Mark,
On the instruments of music in Psalm 150, I thought Psalms was in the O.T., which was nailed to the cross as stated in Col 2:14? Do we have a N.T. passage that states we can use these in worship?
Mona
Do a little more research on Colossians 2:14, and you will find that the OT was not nailed to the cross. That's probably why it didn't bother Paul to tell them to sing psalms in the next chapter.
I thought the old system of sacrifices as atonement for sin was fulfilled with Jesus death and resurrection. The Old Testament (as we refer to it) is more than just the "law". Didn't singing a psalm include some sort of stringed instrument? Isn't that want Paul asked them to do in Col. 3:16 "admonish one another in wisdom as you sing psalms…". If we have no regard for the old testament, am I released from obeying the ten commandments? Some of those are hard.
Mark,
What does "blotting out the handwriting of ordinances mean then? I also have a reference to Eph 2:15-16 to further explain why the O.T. was nailed to the cross. These passages show that we are no longer under this old law, but a new law, the New Testament. Right!
Mona
Mona,
While we wait for Mark's reply, I'll offer an explanation on the Ephesians passage for your thoughtful consideration. Paul was writing to gentiles in Ephesians 2 about having been "separated from Christ. Perhaps his comment about abolishing the law refers to the laws or regulations that distinquished or separated the Jews from the Gentiles such as circumcision, hand washing, etc. since he was just writing to them about being separated. Now both groups are reconciled to God through the cross.
What is your thought about Matthew 5:17. Jesus himself says that he did not come to abolish the law.
Mona,
Has someone suggested operating by majority vote? Why do you accuse people of things that have no substance?
I'll be explaining more on as the series on the Regulative Principle continues, but in the meantime, this post should be of some help in answering your question re authority:
/2007/02/13/the-16-acts-of-…
(Col 2:13-15) When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
Jesus did not so much nail the Law of Moses to the cross as nail our sins to the cross — the sins made sinful by God's law.
Nonetheless, it is true that the Law of Moses has been replaced with a new law —
(Rom 13:8-10) Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
It's really quite simple. We are commanded to love. If we do that, we've fulfilled the law. Therefore, all claimants to be "law" that are not about loving our neighbors are not law at all.
(1 John 3:21-23) Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22 and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him. 23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.
It's really just a question of whether we'll accept what's written rather than accepting what someone tries to find in the spaces between the words. It's just not complicated.
I think the best way to understand Colossians 2:14 is that what gets nailed to the cross is not the Law, but my "rap sheet" for violating the law. It's the document that could be used to accuse me, but that accusing document has been nailed to the cross because Jesus takes my guilt away.
I'm not trying to suggest that we under the Old Covenant because we are not. However, the OT Scriptures are what Paul had in mind when he said that "all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful…"
One thing the New Testament church did not have was a New Testament.
Jay,
Thanks for the information on authority. I printed it off and have read the document several times. I am in a confused state as to the 16 acts of worship in this article. /2007/02/13/the-16-acts-of-…
All I can see by what you pointed out in your class was: encourage, out of Hebrews 10:24-25 and edifies, strengthens, encourages & comforts out of 1 Cor. 14:2-5.
So are you saying that anything we do in worship if it accomplishes what these two passages say, then it is ok? Regardless of what we bring it to the service?
Mona
Jay,
I have read you article in full several time at this link /2007/02/13/the-16-acts-of-…. I am having trouble finding the 16 acts of worship in this article. Could you please clairfy waht you are talking about.
The only "acts" your words, that i found were edification, encouraging, strengthens and comforts, from 1 Cor. 14, and Heb 10. I'm confused!
Mona
Jay,
Why are my post not showing up when I reply.
Mona
Confused about your article on the 16 acts of worship. Could you please clarify what you mean. I am not finding 16 acts listed in the article that you posted up above.
Mona
Nancy,
The old law is a schoolmaster (Gal. 3:24), is was only to bring us unto Christ. The law was not abolished, never to be referred to again, but was fulfilled, or completed, did it's job.
Mona
Mark,
You never answered my question on a N.T. passage on instrumental music. If you are using Psalm 150 as authority for the use of them, I believe you are mistaken. Psalm 150 is in the O.T. As Jay pointed out in his earlier post, we have to accept what is written and only what has been written, and not add to because we do not have a NOT.
Mona
Mona,
Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 both tell Christians to sing psalms. How were they supposed to know that they were to sing Psalm 150 (and many others that reference instruments) but they should ignore everything it tells them to do to praise God? If you're going to tell people to sing psalms, but you don't want them to use instruments, you would be well advised to give them a NOT. Otherwise, they might be inclined to do what the Psalms encourage them to do.
Mark
Mark,
No! If the Lord had to tell us everything we were NOT supposed to do, we would not be able to carry the volumes that contain this information. When you go to a restaurant and make an order do you tell them everything you want or everything you don't want?
Mona
I'm sorry, but this doesn't work. If I told a reasonable person to sing the psalms, he or she would probably take seriously instructions like "For the director of music. With stringed instruments." If that same reasonable person was singing Psalm 150, he or she might also sing along with trumpet, harp, flute, tambourine, and so on.
The whole "sing means sing" argument is fundamentally flawed. Last night, 8 guys sang on American Idol. All of them were accompanied by instruments, but I don't feel any burden to tell you that they "sang while someone played." It's a ridiculous line of argument.
Mark
Mona,
I often go to a restaurant and order steak, a salad, a potato, and tea. Most of the time, the waiter brings bread and water, too. I've never complained.
Infrequently, they bring something else by mistake, such as an extra potato. Health rules prevent their taking it back. I've never complained.
When they bring a roach or a fly by mistake, then I complain!
There is no law of silence. After all, I was equally silent on both the roach and the potato, but one is bad and one is good.
Mark,
So are you calling God flawed. I don't understand. If the Bible says sing that means sing. Not play. Right!
Mona
Jay,
How do you know which one is bad and which one is good?
We have to read the Bible and take it for what it says. Not for what we want it to say.
We are told exactly what to put on the Lord's table. Fruit of the Vine and unleavened bread, right.
And we are told how to worship without an instrument in the two passages of the N.T., or new covenant of which Mark cited above, Eph 5, Col. 3. right.
I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. I agree that stringed instruments were used in the O.T. BUT, they are not for use in worship to the Lord in New Testament worship.
I really appreicate this blog and the time you both are taking conversing with me.
Mona
Mona,
You argue that common understanding invokes a "law of silence" or "law of exclusion." I offer examples that disprove that assertion and you ignore the point and repeat arguments already made.
There is no "law of silence" in the way people speak and write, as I've shown by example.
You are wrong about the Lord's Table. In Luke's account, Jesus participated in a Passover meal after the bread and before the cup. He added a full meal!
The early church often added a love feast to communion, which Jude references with approval.
Eph and Col only say "sing." They do not say "sing without instruments." The only way to get there is presume the Regulative Principle, that is, that a lack of authority implies a prohibition, but it's just not true.
If it were true, the Bible would say something like "Do in worship only those things specifically authorized." It says no such thing.
Mona,
Re the 16 acts of worship — they are listed in bullet points throughout the article.
Mona,
I am curious. How does your position on literal interpretation and application of Scripture as you have insisted be done in regards to worship, relate to such issues as the church treasury? I noticed earlier you cited I Cor 16 as a authority for the Sunday collection, but that passage is a command from the apostle Paul to take up a collection to send to the Christians in Jerusalem. In short, it is authority for a collection of monies for benevolent work, as is all other passages within the NT that have any connection to the collection/treasury. (Acts 2, 4, II Cor 8 & 9). If we are to take a literal interpretation and application of Scripture on music in worship, should that hermeneutic not be constant and consistent in application to all issues? If so, how does one justify with Scripture, all the ways collected monies are spent that are not benevolent efforts? There is not justification for those expenditures, yet they are not questioned as practices in error. Why?
Ray
Jay,
Are you kidding?
You hit the nail on the head in your statement "lack of authority implies a prohibition." Do we not have to have authority for everything we do in the worship service? Or is it just like I said before "majority vote"?
I reread the 16 Acts of Worship. Are you saying that making announcements and placing membership is an acts of worship?
Mona
Mona,
It says admonish one another in all wisdom and with gratitude in your heart sing psalms (which the readers would have associated with instruments), hymns and spiritual songs (Col. 3:16). If you prefer Acappella worship, which many do, that is great. The point is that there is no "law of silence" as Jay has so eloquently pointed out. I do hope that we aren't causing you to stumble on this issue though. Please do seek God's guidance on what is right for you.
I sense that you want to argue with Mark more than you want to really consider the points that our brother Jay (an elder in our Lord's church by the way) is asking you to consider. I believe that his points deserve our respectful consideration and comment.
Thank you Jay. I know you put a lot of time and effort into this work. I am sure that you approach each entry prayerfully and seek to glorify God. I pray that my posts do the same.
Nancy,
Are you and others getting authority for the use of instruments of music in worship because the Lord used the word "psalm"? This seems to be where I think you are coming from. I do truly want to understand this issue.
I do understand that in the O.T. there were instruments used. But why did the Lord not use words like harp and cymbal in the N.T. if he wanted them used in our N.T. worship.?
Mona
Mona,
While some argue one verse or another as providing authority for instruments, my own view is that authority is utterly beside the point. "Authority" to do a particular "act of worship" is a human concept imposed on the scriptures, not a teaching of the scriptures themselves.
There is no requirement that a particular act of worship have authority — other than in the very broad sense that it must come from faith, be Spirit motivated, must accord with the gospel and with love, and must comport with the purpose of worship.
To ask about what authorizes the act is to ask the wrong question altogether.
Mona,
You asked "Are you saying that making announcements and placing membership is an acts of worship?"
The teaching I was taught as a child, and rejected, is that whatever happens between the opening prayer and closing prayer must be an act of worship and there are but 5 such acts permitted.
Hence, I was taught that the instrument is wrong because it would be a sixth act of worship. It's not one of the five authorized acts.
If announcements aren't an act of worship, why are we making announcements as part of the worship hour? If placing membership is not an act of worship, why do we do it during the worship hour?
If we can do things that aren't worship during the worship hour, why not play a guitar? Why not serve cakes and pies?
Jay,
I think you provide an interesting and valuable point about the whole question of "authority" for "acts of worship." There is nothing in the NT that remotely resembles the detailed laws concerning worship and sacrifice in the OT.
The NT has almost nothing to say about how we "do church." Maybe that is why we spend so much time fighting over how to "do church."
Again, I appreciate your work.
Mark
Mona,
I think I agree with Jay regarding authority (3/5 @ 8:52 p.m.). It is our human nature to want to validate our opinions with some authority. As hard as one group uses this scripture to support one thing, another uses a different scripture to rebut it. God must be grieved by this. I genuinely believe that the issue of instruments is a non issue really. Jesus was so clear with his expectations regarding discipleship. He loves us and wants our total devotion. He demands it. I believe that if praising him with instruments was objectionable, we would have heard about it from his own lips, probably in the form of a parable (he loved to teach with parables.) He didn't leave us here guessing about what he expects.
Men like Jay and Mark, the elders at Quail Springs, Richland Hills, and others certainly understand the gravity of their leadership (at least they should.) Their leadership has eternal consequences. This is not something they have approached casually.
Squabbling over this issue seems like stepping over dollars to get at pennies. It is but one more illustration of why we really do need a Savior. Our pitiful humaness is just never ever going to be good enough. The constant "I know more than you", I'm right and you are wrong so I'm more righteous than you", crowing about who reads what. It reminds me of the disciples asking Jesus "who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
Nancy,
I appreciate you taking the time to respond.
Why do you, Jay and Mark open the door of scripture when the door was not opened by God. There is a "law of silence" in the scriptures! The law states "where the Bible is silent we are silent and where the Bible speaks we speak, 1 Pet 4:11.
We must speak as the oracles of God, not Mark or Jay. This is not a human concept as Jay mentioned. It is from God. Can we not take the scriptures for what they say?
I do repect that Jay may be a elder, but his gospel is not getting me nor anyone else to heaven. I have to study the word of God myself.
This issue and many others that we have discussed, comes down to having Bible authority for what we do. Of which, ya'll are saying we do not have to have, that anything goes mentality. This is wrong.
Mona
Mona,
I hope that we can agree to disagree on this issue. I believe this is one of the issues that Paul calls a disputable matter in Romans 14. Romans was a real eye opener for me. Life changing really. Romans wasn't studied in the church of my youth. If you have never studied it, I encourage you to take the time. It may not change your mind on instrumental music, but I think you will agree that the message is worthwhile. I am thankful to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that his saving grace is not dependent on my being right. I could never be sure of my salvation.
Mona-
Sorry but 1 Pet. 4:11 has nothing whatsoever to say about silence. I appreciate the passion with which conservatives defend their positions but I wonder if they would not change some of their views if they would actually read the verses they quoted. Proof-texting is rampant and I read conservatives defenses and see them quote scripture. Then, I look up the scriptures they quote and those scriptures have nothing to do with the arguments being made. For instance 1 Pet. 4:11 has nothing to do with silence just as Ephesians 5 has nothing to do with instrumental music vs. a cappella. Paul is making a different argument altogether. For people to draw the conclusions they do is absurd sometimes. Another one is Nadab and Abihu. That text has nothing to do with instrumental music but conservatives have made that argument. Of course, these same people turn around and say that the OT is nailed to the cross so how any of their arguments can come from there, I'll never know!
Anyway, that's just my two cents. I'm enjoying the conversation and Mona, I do appreciate your willingness to put yourself out there and converse with others who don't think as you do. It's a very noble thing and a mindset I wish more people would embrace.
Kent
(1 Pet 4:11) If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.
How can I bind a prohibition that God didn't utter as though speaking for God? God said nothing about instruments. Therefore, I can't — as though speaking God's words — speak my own preferences and traditions.
I think this verse pretty clear says: don't make rules that God didn't make.
"Let us speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent." That quote comes not from the Bible but from Thomas Campbell, father of Alexander.
Thanks, Kent.
By the way, the "Declaration and Address" that Thomas Campbell wrote clearly tells us what he meant by that slogan. He says that no one may impose a law to fill the silences of the scriptures.
You see, the Regulative Principle comes from Calvinism, a system of thought Thomas Campbell was fleeing.
Kent,
So what you are saying is that silence in the scriptures is permissive?
Mona
Mona,
Silence is neither always permissive nor always prohibitive. Sometimes it's one. Sometimes it's the other.
/2007/02/14/a-question-of-s…
/2007/02/15/expressio-unius…
Jay,
Noah could have choosen two kinds of wood to build the ark. But he chose to use the kind of wood that God said.
So it is with instruments of music. This is a different kind of music altogether.
Mona
Mona,
No … if Noah had built the ark of gopher wood and pine, it wouldn't be made of gopher wood. It would be made of gopher wood and pine.
There is a huge difference between doing more and doing something else.
If you ask your waiter to bring you a glass of tea, and he brings you tea mixed with coffee, he's disobedient. If he brings tea with cream and sugar on the side, he's a good waiter.
Mona-
Gopher wood is not a type of wood anyway. Another example of people not thinking about their argument. Go-pher is the Hebrew word for wood. And, again, based on your arguments above how can you use an Old Testament example to defend something that you believe to be a New Testament-based practice. On the one hand you use that example and others who think as you do will use the example of Nadab and Abihu. On the other hand, though, when someone brings up the example of Psalm 150, you cry wolf and say that we can't consider things from the Old Testament because "the Old Testament was nailed to the cross." You can't have it both ways! Make up your mind one way or another.
Kent
Another thing is that I agree with Jay: silence is neither permissive or prohibitive. Silence is not biblical.
Kent
Kent,
Moses says "Make thee an ark of "? By the way, Jay disagrees with you, he says it Cypress.
Jay,
If the waiter added the cream and sugar to my coffee he would have been disobedient.
Mona
Strongs # for gopher
Strongs # for wood
Mona
Having just arrived home from a wonderfull early morning worship service I find this discussion troubling.
The arguments over silence and music have both been going on basically forever. Meanwhile millions of hurt and troubled are seeking the peace that God offered the world through his son.
I ask the following question because I believe we argue for all the wrong reasons.
Do we as christians debate to learn? Or do we debate to win?
Much of the world does not see the Church as a place of peace but a place of petty argurments. Arguments just like the ones that clutter their lives already.
I choose to worship without an instrument because that is my choice, nothing more nothing less.
I urge everyone in the Lords body to carefully consider
how they spend time. Should we be arguing or should we be helping?
Nate,
You ask, "Do we as christians debate to learn? Or do we debate to win?"
I debate to teach — and to call brothers caught up in the Galatian heresy to repentance. And I debate to learn why those who disagree feel as they do — so I can better teach.
And I debate to refine my understanding — iron sharpens iron.
But debate is by no means the end. In fact, I long for the day that such debate becomes unnecessary. You see, the goal is to push us away from factions and bickering and toward missionality.
As you correctly point out, our mission to a lost and hurting world is the most important thing. But we'll never be as effective at this as we were meant to be so long as the cancer of legalism divides us from our brothers.
Hebrews 7:14 applies the principle of silence that Mona is talking about. "For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests." The Lord said that priests are to come from Levi. He didn't say "not from Judah, not from Benjamin," etc. Saying they are to come from Levi means that they can't come from Judah.
The "law of silence" as this principle is called has biblical precedent.
I heard someone say this past week that this "law" always applies. The argument was that where God is specific, we cannot alter – ever. I think that is going to far.
Neither side is without evidence. Mona is using a tool of interpretation that the Hebrew writer uses. Surely that's evidence that the tool exists.
But did Paul intend that "singing" in Ephesians 3:19 be understood in the same way that "Levi" in the OT in regard to priest should be understood? Mona, I don't think you'll convince Jay that it should be. Jay, et.al, I don't think you'll convice Mona that it shouldn't be. And in the end, God is Jesus is able to make everybody stand.
Mona has good evidence for her case. Jay has evidence for his. I don't believe there is enough evidence to prove that either is absolutely right. I believe there is enough evidence to prove that Jesus can save people on both sides of the piano.
I'm not trying to say here that this discussion shouldn't happen. It should. We should all try to help one another do the right thing. I am trying to say that silence is prohibitive sometimes, according to the Hebrew writer. And yet it doesn't seem like it is all the time. Everybody needs to at least acknowledge the evidence on the other side.
So what do we do with each other? That is the big question to me.
Richard
Richard,
I hope all is well with you, my friend. I understand what you are saying here. I think part of the problem is trying to make "singing" as specific and exclusive as "Levi." When I was in high school, I was part of a trip to the state capitol, and i sang one of the verses of the Battle Hymn of the Republic as part of a performance in the Rotunda of the capitol building.
Okay, I just told you that I "sang." We could also say that I "was singing." Now, you tell me: Did I sing a solo, or was I part of a choir or group? Did I sing a cappella, or with a back-up track, or was I accompanied by one or more "mechanical" instruments of music, as we like to call them?
The only given is that my singing was not of very high quality, but the rest of it leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
You ask, "What do we do with each other?" It's a good question. Maybe we could each do our best to interpret Scripture as faithfully as we know how and then extend grace to each other on disputable matters as we are taught in Romans 14-15. I don't have any problem with someone concluding that "sing means sing, not sing and play." I do have a problem with them trying to bind that interpretation on me as a matter of law.
By the way, the first one who guesses correctly the circumstances of my singing in the Rotunda gets a "get out of hell free" card 🙂
Mark
Mark, I agree with your plea to Romans 14-15 on how to address this difference.
Part of the problem, it seem to me, is that a cappella folks don't believe it's disputable; and neither do the instrumentalists. I think you ought to see that it's wrong. You think I ought to see that it's all right. In this Oklahoma tragedy, there are too many comments by those who will use instruments about the legalistic anti-instrumentalists and their completely bogus hermenuetic. Then there are the comments of the anti-instrumentalists about the "I- don't-care-what-God-thinks" instrumentalists and their totally non-existant hermeneutic. There are tons of discussions online. Many are one-sided discussions among those who have drawn your conclusion or those who have drawn mine. Others are between people of different conclusions where love appears absent.
I think it's pitiful that few are willing to say, "You've got a strong point there, I admit." or "I see the weakness of my argument." To many, the arguments for a cappella are strong and to many they are weak; we don't acknowledge this reality, though, because we don't seek first to understand and then to be understood. We want to make the others look stupid for believing what they believe. That's got to stop.
Richard
Richard and Mark,
I think you're on to something with Rom 14 and 15 — but I have a little different read. Paul considered the meat/vegetables-only issue "disputable" even though he knew the answer to the level of certainty only an apostle of Christ could have.
The test isn't how certain or uncertain we are. In fact, that makes it very subjective, meaning what's disputable to me may not be disputable to you — which will solve nothing.
My interpretation is pretty simple: if we're disputing over it, and we're both baptized penitent believers, then it's disputable. After all, if we're disputing, how can it not be disputable?? It's the very definition of "disputable"!
But to be disputable it has to be disputable among brothers in Christ — meaning baptized, penitent believers. If we're discussing whether to believe in Jesus or submit to him as Lord, then it's not disputable. But if we're both baptized, penitent believers, it cannot be a fellowship or salvation issue.
Thanks makes a LOT of issues disputable, which means I have to treat a LOT of people as brothers. Which is a very good thing, I think.
Richard,
Perhaps you and i can be an example of what we are talking about. You and I come out differently when we analyze the arguments on the musical instruments issue. To me, that's not a big deal. To your own master you will stand or fall, and he is able to make you stand.
You are my brother, and I will receive you just as Christ received me in order to bring praise to God.
I'm guessing that part of the problem is that many online discussions are dominated by more "rabid" advocates of the differing viewpoints.
Blessings,
Mark
Jay, actually your read is not really different from mine. I agree that what makes an issue disputable is the fact that immersed believers with their minds set on things of the Spirit dispute it. Paul answered the question of the Romans flat out: Eat what you want, drink what you want, honor or don't honor particular days. Since he settled it, we think it ought to be settled in the hearts of everybody. But it wasn't. There were some people who believed in the freedom Christ gave, believed in the apostleship of Paul, and understood what he said about the food, drink, and days, but still just could not eat and drink with faith.
My thoughts are too many to write here what will some day be in book form from me, but I have come to reject the idea of "salvation issues." I am much better prepared to answer the question, "Who is the saved person?" than I am "What is a salvation issue?"
Richard
Mark, we can be examples, and we must. I won't refuse a brother because he doesn't believe my arguements regarding the instrument. I believe you are an immersed believer with a mindset on the Spirit. Furthermore, I have no doubt that you do receive me.
I've got to say, though, the the letter from Gary with which this thread begins concerns me deeply. Jay affirms a couple of posts up:
"But to be disputable it has to be disputable among brothers in Christ — meaning baptized, penitent believers. If we’re discussing whether to believe in Jesus or submit to him as Lord, then it’s not disputable. But if we’re both baptized, penitent believers, it cannot be a fellowship or salvation issue."
I am quite confident that the people at Tabitha Baptist want to please God. I'm certian that they have tremendous desire to please him, yet according to their website (tbcokc.org) an individual is saved apart from and without immersion; and yet Gary is recommending communion to be part of the Thursday night service. I have no difficulty with inviting entire churches to be part of a service together, but to eat the Lord's Supper is surely intended to be a demonstration of Christian unity that, I am convinced, belongs to immersed believers. And though, most likely, most of them have been immersed; they do not believe or teach that one must be, according to their website.
Am I missing something here? Jay, am I missing something?
Richard
Richard,
I'm in the process of post my views on baptism. You'll just have to wait!
In the meantime, ponder this one: even though you and I may disagree on which baptisms are sufficient for God's salvation, we are still both penitent, baptized believers. Your disagreement with me doesn't damn you. I don't think my disagreement with you damns me.
I think our relative conditions are described here:
(1 Cor 3:11-15) For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14 If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15 If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.
We are both building on Christ — the only foundation there can be. One of us may be building with straw, in which case the other of us will smell the smoke on the first when we meet in heaven. But we'll meet.
Richard,
tbcokc.org is the website for Trinity Bible Church in OKC. tbcokc.net is the website for Tabitha. I found a sinner's prayer-type model on their site, but I didn't find anything explicit about baptism. I was impressed, however, with their statement of faith.
I don't know whether we'll have communion at the May 1 event or not. Since we don't "fence the table," I would guess that I commune every Sunday with people who haven't been baptized or have something other than our usual understanding of immersion. Both Tabitha and Catedral are conservative, Bible believing, Christ exalting churches. If we determine that it would be good to share the Lord's Table in that service, I have no doubt that the Lord is capable of sorting all of that out.
Thanks for the conversation.
Mark
Jay,
But you and I are penitent, baptized believers teaching that the response of faith to the gospel is baptism. I know you teach that. I believe, as Luke confirms in the Eunuch story, that when you teach Jesus – the foundation – you teach baptism. The call to Be united with him in his death leading to being united with him in his resurrection is inseperable from the good news.
According to their website, TBC of OKC invites you to say a prayer to be saved. As they attempt to guide their readers to salvation in Christ, they do not mention baptism. If I follow what they teach, I can view their site, pray a prayer, and be saved before and without baptism.
That is too much of a fundamental change. By the way, have you gotten to read PaganChristianity on baptism yet?
Sorry I couldn't wait.
Richard
Mark,
You got yours on before me. Punk. 🙂 I was looking at Tabitha's site, I just typed in the wrong suffix in my post.
I, too, eat the supper with people of lots of different stripes; but this is a special night. I know you don't typically communion on Thursdays. An invitation to eat the Lord's Supper on a special night at a special meeting sends a powerful message.
Thank you for the conversation. Please read my posts with a sense of gentleness. I promise you, that's what is in my heart.
Richard
Richard,
Don't worry about me taking you the wrong way. I trust your heart.
I agree that adding communion to the event would kick it up a notch (sorry, I used to watch Emeril Live pretty often). We have done communion for a few non-Sunday events here, but none when we were in a joint service with other churches. I can tell you that if the decision was up to me (it isn't), and if I had to decide today (I don't), I would give it a thumbs up.
Mark
dagwudandblondy,
I've read Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola, but not the new edition with George Barna. It's an interesting book — makes lots of good points.
Just for you — I'm going to post something on Baptist baptism.
Jay,
I am amazed at some of the posts above.
I too will be interested in the Baptism post, Jay. I hope you are not going to tell us that there are many ways to be baptized for the remission of sins?
Mark,
Are you saying that this two denomiations are baptized believers?
Mona
Mona,
I wasn't talking about two "denominations." There are presently two congregations participating with us in the May 1 event. Tabitha is a Baptist church, but I don't know which Baptist convention they are part of. If you read their statement of faith, you will see that they are believers. Every Baptist church I know of practices immersion for believers, so I would call the folks at Tabitha "baptized believers."
I don't think Catedral de Adoracion has a website. As far as I can tell, they aren't part of any denomination. I have been to their building for two praise and worship times, so I can tell you that they are believers. I do not know their baptismal practices. I'll see what I can find out.
Just a thought, related, yet probably a tangent, but…
It would be quite wrong in the eyes of the Catholic church (and in their view the eyes of God) for those from the Catedral de Adoracion to fully participate in a communion service. And, while a Church of Christ might be willing to offer it to them, the offering does not go both directions.
From the United States College of Catholic Bishops:
" We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ's prayer for us "that they may all be one" (Jn 17:21).
Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 § 4). Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 § 3)."
And their Catechism says concerning their celebrating communion elsewhere:
"Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, ‘have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.' It is for this reason that Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible for the Catholic Church. However these ecclesial communities, ‘when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory.'"
If fellowship is going to be sought with other churches, it needs to be done without naiveté of their own convictions, or you'll find that the Churches of Christ are hardly alone in having hangups, and aren't the first to get upset about them.
By the way, if my assumption that the Catedra is Catholic is off-base, then ignore that. 🙂
Mark,
Have these people at Tabita Baptist been baptized for the remission of sins, or because of the remission of sins, as an outward sign of an inward faith?
On Catedral de Adoracion, are you having fellowship as in praise and worship and you don't even know what they believe?
Mona
According to http://www.okdirect.com/Biz/8/8661C.html
Catedral de Adoracion is part of the Assemblies of God.
Trust me, Catedral is not Catholic.
Mona, I have fellowship with a bunch of folks whose beliefs are unknown to me in my own building every Sunday. In your earlier question, you wanted to know whether they were baptized believers, but that wasn't your real question. The real question is, were they baptized the one and only way that is acceptable to conservative Churches of Christ? Probably not. If Catedral is an AG church, they are immersionists, too. And guess what? After two worship times with them, I haven't heard any of them speaking in tongues. I'm sure they do, but it's amazing how much you have in common with other believers when your focus is on praising the name of Jesus. Maybe after we finish our worship time on May 1, some of us can stay late and get in a big fight about gifts of the Spirit and the "point at which" a person becomes saved as it relates to baptism. Or maybe not. Let's just worship and pray together and call it a night.
Those of you within driving distance (like Mona and Richard) are welcome to come worship or just to observe. Anyone who is interested in coming to stir up a fight is invited to stay home.
Blessings,
Mark
Mark,
There is only one church that Jesus died for, the book of Matthew tells us this.
You sound as if you are getting upset about this conversation. Please don't. You ought to be will to give an answer to anybody that asks. Richard and I are concerns individuals about our souls as well as others.
Mona
Mona,
I just re-read my post, and I can see why you thought I was getting testy. I'm not at all, so I apologize for the abrupt tone of the post.
Actually, I enjoy the conversations, and, as someone else said a few days ago, I appreciate your willingness to stay in conversations on a blog where you generally hold a minority view. That takes some moxie.
I tend to challenge people where I believe they are off base, and I need to be willing to take what I dish out. You are welcome to hold my feet to the fire on tone or content any time.
Blessings,
Mark
Mark,
Thanks for the apology. I am enjoying the conversations of all the bloggers.
I have a strong constitution and believe that I have scriptures for what I believe. I am concerned about some of the posts. Like I said before, Jesus only died for one church.
Mona
Mona and Josh,
There is only one church. When men divide the one church into competing, squabbling factions, they divide the body of Christ on earth — and it's a great sin.
The question is then is where does Jesus draw the boundaries of the church. That, of course, is what the baptism posts will be about.
I am convinced that the baptism arguments I will make will appear utter nonsense to those who don't share something close to my understanding of grace. Therefore, I'm confident they will not persuade you. We start from points of view that are too far apart, which I deeply regret.
I think it would be a great benefit to you and the readers who enjoy your comments if you'd read through the Amazing Grace lesson series starting at the beginning. /index-under-construction/a…
This series started long before you joined this blog, and so it's kind of like joining a movie during the last 10 minutes.
If you comment on these posts, your comments will show up in the sidebar to the right and in the RSS feeds many subscribe to. I would be very interested in hearing your takes, especially on some of the earliest lessons.
Jay
QSCoC will have pulled off a minor miracle getting the Baptist churches to have communion more than the few times a year they do it! "Do this as often………." does not mean much to many denominational churches. Now that QSCoC has become a denomination, maybe they will put communion on the back burner too, sounds like they had not though about it.
One thing that ALL churches 100% agree on is weekly contributions! Wonder how that is? If the money was used correctly, there would not be such universal agreement I am sure.. What am i talking about….look at your church budget and see where the money goes…mostly salaries and buildings. Not what the Bible said to collect it for!
Roy
After reading more I see that Mark said,"We have good reasons to observe the Lord’s Supper when we come together on Sunday, but the “every Sunday and only on Sunday” doctrine goes way beyond “that which is written.”
I see the seeds being planted for the next change at the QSCoC!
And there is no need for you, Mona, to even try to change Marks mind, he has made his decision along with a little help from his friend and the deed is done!
Roy
You're right, Roy – even the COC denomination doesn't "do this in remembrance of me" as often as they gather together around the table. They do it once a week in direct contravention of the most primitive practice of the church (Acts 2:42-45).
Roy,
You are right that the Biblical example of collections is not for buildings. It's for benevolence and missions. And I don't know a single Church of Christ that honors the principle.
Nonetheless, perhaps we agree that our budgets should reflect our priorities, and our priorities should be missional, that is, benevolence and evangelism.
However, QSCOC has not abandoned weekly communion, and there's no reason to accuse them of things they haven't done.
Nick Gill said "You’re right, Roy – even the COC denomination ….."
Nick, I found this on another site, it pretty much tells what is happening where man decides he knows more about running the church that Jesus taught:
"The denomination described by this passage of the Bible.
2 Timothy 4:3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths."
Long ago, most all CoC did not consider themselves to be a "denomination", but today with the new found "revelations of the mind", some, but not all, CoC have made themselves into a denomination by doing the same things as mainline denominations have done. Take QSCoC, they are now two denominations in one..one is a compromised instrumental group and the other is a compromised non-IM group..divided, but not yet renamed. How could elders agree to let the congregation divide themselves and still be one. Answer is they did not, they are now split, riding in more than one accord! One group compromised and those who stuck around compromised themselves even though they stay. I know it is hard to leave a congregation, but sometimes you have to do it, I did it one time and it is really tough to do. Maybe some are staying in hopes this bad dream will go away. Sad to say, but that does not usually happen, once Satin gets a hold of a church, it is hard to fix it. Prayers and good luck to those who make the effort!
Denomination is to divide and name. If you are in a denomination, to me, your church has divided from the original church (of Christ who's church it was and is) and renamed! Could Christ find his church using a phone book and map? Well, he would not even know it was his church by some of the names under church directory.
If I went to Nick Gill's home, I would be at the Gill house, if I went to John Smith's house, I would be at the Smith's house, etc. Where in the name XXX Baptist church, or say Lady of the Lake church, or XXX Comunity Church do you see the owners name put in the title? That should be Bible basic 101 to at least have the owners name in the church title!
Here is another URL on denominations:
http://lbolm.wordpress.com/2007/11/03/denominatio…
Not my writing , but some food for thought.
Roy
Additional food for thought – your point is exactly right but when other independent, autonomously governed churches of Christ decide to tell another independent, autonomously governed church of Christ how to worship and what they should and should not do, then you have created a denomination and that is what has happened with QS. Most denominational churches have a central governing body and they all agree to abide by one set of rules. It can't be both ways. You can't say each church of Christ is independent and we are not a denomination when you have a group of churches getting together to try and create rules for another independent church of Christ to follow. Also, where in the Bible do you find what the sign out front is supposed to say? The "church" is made up of all people who believe in Christ. As the Bible says, those who call on the name of the Lord will be saved. It doesn't say those who belong to the church of Christ denomination will be the only ones saved.
To Anonymous,
When Paul wrote to the other churches, did they write back and tell him to butt out and mind his own business? He was an example to us. We all should be concerned for all others, as Jesus was. We cant reach everyone, but do what we can. You accept His word or you reject…it is your choice.
Are you saying that, say when a flood or tornado wrecks a church (ie, the building or people of that place), that it would be wrong for another CoC to help them? You cant have it both ways…help us when we are in physical need but butt out when we are in spritual need! Where do you find scriptural example for that? I must have missed it! We dont creat rules for other churches, we admonish them to do the right thing. It is up to them to accept or reject God's will. That is all we can do. We try and sometimes we succeed and sometimes we fail. God will bless us for trying and not be happy when we dont at least try. The worldly tell people to butt out, but a Christian should at least say, I appreciate your concern, whether or not they took and heeded the advice. Remember the old worldly joke…Hey, who appointed you the Pope? Now, we hear it from former CoCs as, Hey, who appointed you elder(or bishop, or sheppard). From what I read on the net, the word from QS was hey…BUTT OUT PAL!
As for the sign in front of the church, ie, it's name. Who's church does the Bible say it is? Simple to me to put a correct name on it, why is it such a problem with you?
The devil believes in Christ, so are you saying he is saved? I dont say that only the people that go to a CoC are the only ones to be saved, however those people who do His will will be the ones saved. The people are the church, the church is the bride of Christ.
My bride has my last name, not someone elses name.
God is great, God is good…especially to put up with his children who disobey so much and so often!
Actually, there is a HUGE difference between helping churches affected by say flooding and using the biblical procedure for disfellowshipping – as the bible knows NOTHING of one church disfellowshipping another. If you go through the process that is in the bible, it has steps involved – and all have to be done, in order or you would be doing it wrong. I believe that we have not used it as much as we should, either because of fear (of litigation) or because of ignorance of our responsibility.
Now, if you feel that another congregation has gone astray, you can choose to not have fellowship with them, but you can't 'bind' the offending congregation. Also, I think that if you study CENI issue, there are many ways that we in the 'Church of Christ' have misused and abused our own hermeneutic – and have at times left ourselves between a rock and a hard place when it comes to actually spelling out what we believe to be 'doctrine.'
I am amused that you would think that there is a "correct" name for the church, most of the time – they are simply referred to as the 'church of (_insert city name _)' – you are not saved or lost by the name on the building – otherwise you must add that, along with anything else that you believe that you must do or believe to the 5 finger outline of salvation.
God is good, and I do worry that we have for too long tried to bind our own opinions of what is a salvation issue on others, and held those opinions to the point where we have condemned many that are our brothers and sisters.
Roy,
Your comments are very interesting. I am simply amazed that you, not attending the Quail Springs Church of Christ, have been able to determine that they are in fact two separate congregations – just using the same building. What they have done in using more than one service is no different that what MANY churches have done in adding multiple worship times, I attended one that actually had 3 separate morning worship times. Did that make us 3 congregations? No.
Now, I especially liked when you were talking about Jesus looking in the phone book. I don't know what could have been a more ridiculous comment. I believe that we are going to a meeting in the sky when the time comes, and we will – individually – be judged according to whether we obeyed the "GOSPEL" – did we believe and teach as Paul says, "Christ Crucified." Did we work to fulfill the law that Jesus brought – LOVE? If we are required to be doctrinally exact in all areas, if we are to be of 'one accord' on all doctrinal issues – heaven will be very barren.
Jon,
I stand on what I said. Here are a few names for the church, a little more explicite than what you say.
1 Cor 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth….
Romans 16:16 Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.
1 Tim 3:15 …that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God…….
Gal 6:10 ….especially unto them who are of the household of faith
Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Yes there are many references of "the church at (city).
But we can figure after a little study as to who's church they were talking about and that the church was composed of Christians. Having said that, I dont understand why any Christian would want to be called anything else and no one should have to make excuses or explain any other name they have given themselves. It makes no sense, at least to me.
Jon, you said "I don’t know what could have been a more ridiculous comment. "
How about what you said, "I am amused that you would think that there is a “correct” name for the church" I thought that is pretty lame. The name ought to at least be in the ball park of those mentioned in the Bible. Would you say to the Lord, after his examples "I am amused that you would think that there is a “correct” name for the church, Lord!"
I would glady go before Him and proudly say that I wanted to be called a Christian and have his name on the sign in front of the building if for nothing else, in case someone came by looking for His church. As for the phone book thing, it must be over you head.
1 Cor 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
Matt Henry Commentary
v. 3. They had mutual emulations, and quarrels, and factions among them, upon the account of their ministers, while one said, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos, v. 4. These were proofs of their being carnal, that fleshly interests and affections too much swayed them. Note, Contentions and quarrels about religion are sad evidences of remaining carnality. True religion makes men peaceable and not contentious. Factious spirits act upon human principles, not upon principles of true religion; they are guided by their own pride and passions, and not by the rules of Christianity: Do you not walk as men? Note, It is to be lamented that many who should walk as Christians, that is, above the common rate of men, do indeed walk as men, live and act too much like other men.
Whats in a name, Joe? Oops, I meant, Jon but then it does not matter to you what anyone calls you, right. Anything would be correct? NOT… apparently it does matter, according to the above scripture. Christian or carnal are two complete different things!
Roy…Ray, Hey you, Goofus or whatever you want to call me Jon.
The church in Corinth had divided themselves along lines of what teachings they followed, and the group that said that they were 'of Christ' were just as divided as the others. They were not giving themselves new names. They were not choosing a name for their church.
You made my point, that the name 'the church at CITY' was used a lot, and then you go on to say that you can that if we study a little, we know whose church it is. The point is, that GOD knows his church, he knows his disciples. We are not in a period of LAW FOLLOWING. We are free in Christ – we believe and follow the GOSPEL – we live by and work to fulfill the ROYAL LAW.
Now, I concede that if you feel that it would be a sin for you to attend a church that did not display a name that you felt was appropriate – then, for you, it is sin, and if you "compromise" on that you have to deal with that – but for those that are fully convinced in thier heart – you don't have the authority to bind them.
I also, do not like to be called a Christian, I want to be called a Disciple – what we were called to be by Jesus. The term Christian was used as a derogatory term in the first century – they were disciples and all that entailed. If everything is wrapped up in a name, then don't you think we should reexamine what 'Christians' were actually called by other disciples? Brother, Sister, elect, called, saint. Huge list, but Christian didn't show up because of the disciples.
Regarding the name calling. I am an American and Texan. Descendants of Jacob (Israel) were Jews and members of tribes (for example Levites). Cherokees are still Native American Indians. There are members of the Rockefeller family that are not named Rockefeller, but they still benefit from the family fortune. Calling yourself a Texan does not exclude your from being an American. You can't tell a Texan from an Arkansan by looking at them. You can't tell a Cherokee from a Choctaw. Smiths look like Rockefellers. Adding a descriptor to your Christian tribe does not exclude you from sharing in Christ's glorious inheritance. Not to worry, God can identify the Christians.
I love how Roy jumped on my use of the word denomination to avoid his own congregation's clear rejection of the most primitive practice of the early church.
Yes, you'd be at the Gill house, but you'd also be at the Bowman house (because we're renting from my in-laws). And you'd also be at 's house (because they still hold the note). AND, you'd be at God's house (Ps 50:10, Jos 24:15).
Which name should go on the sign out front?
Oh, and whoever said anything about putting a sign out front? If we're going to look for BCV for what name goes on the sign, we probably ought to find BCV for the sign itself, eh?
The second sentence of the second paragraph should read: And you'd also be at {insert correct bank name here}'s house (because they still hold the note).
Amen to both Nancy and Gill. The point of Jay's website and the forum that he has put here it to create Christian Unity, and we will NEVER achieve that if we start by bickering over the name out front rather than us discussing the Gospel – and it's means of salvation.
Jon is correct, if you cant even decide on the name of the church after clear instructions were given to us, then any futher discussion (bickering?) of the gospel is in vain. Do you go to Bible class or bicker class? Apparently I am in the midst of a really liberal bunch of folks.
Roy:
Consider this please. What is clear to you is maybe not clear to others, and not because there motive is wrong or something like that. What you consider to be clear instruction may not be to other intelligent people who think for themselves and ask more questions. Do you know that the church in Acts was referred to as “The Way” and in Galatia as the “household of faith’? Would have a problem with these, they would be just as scriptural as any others, don’t we claim to the church of Acts? Now while they were all the church that followed Christ the name of their group varied with specific relevance to the locale of the assembly or church. So I would suggest the function of the assembly and it's locale have more bearing on the name that people refer to themselves as rather than one verse in Romans that is an instruction to greet each other with a Holy Kiss (also something we don't do) rather than what to name the church forever and ever amen. I would suggest that just because people look at the scripture more critically or differently than you do not make them liberal. Please be careful throwing this term around.
Peace
I just accidentally posted this same basic message on a different board and then realized i had clicked the wrong link so forgive me for the double post…continuing.
This is directed at the instrumental message discussion, so i guess I'm taking it back a few steps.
From my study of the bible and early Christian history, for the first several years after Jesus death, Christians, as believers of Christ, still worshiped in synagogues. Paul's first stop in new towns was usually the synagogue or prayer house. Synagogue worship included instruments, hence the instruction for music accompanying the psalms. Both synagogues i've been in have had harps. Jesus himself would have worshiped in the jewish manner, which would have included instruments. I don't feel like i can condemn instrumental music if i can conclude that Jesus, Paul, and other early believers would have worshiped that way.
I am amazed at how presumptuous some of you could be, and how twisted your logic could be, in your support of the doctrine of using instruments in Christian worship.
I am still looking for your NT evidence of a synagogue used by Christians as worship place, complete with instruments of music like cymbals and harps–and when I say NT evidence, it's evidence from any of the 27 books of the New Testament.
Where is the command and the example that early Christians used instruments of music in worship? It is a pretty simple question that needs a plain answer.
Brother, there is no command. But the example is clear:
Acts 2:46-47 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
Now unless they convinced the priests NOT TO play instruments during prayer time, etc., it is clearly acceptable for Christians to worship to instrumental accompaniment.
For further edification, ask yourself, "Where is the command that allows Christians to worship in the Jewish temple?"
Or, even MORE exciting, "Where is the command that allows Paul to participate in a Jewish ceremonial vow?"
If it is still permissible for Paul to participate in this non-atoning aspect of Jewish worship, it is still permissible for other Christians to participate in other NON-ATONING aspects of worship.
Trust me, you do it all the time. It is called a fellowship offering. You don't actually kill the animal yourself — you're an American and we don't do that. But you sacrifice time and money to cause a meal to be prepared to be eaten by the community of God. That is a fellowship offering straight out of the Law of Moses.
I believe whether a church sings a Capella or not, whether we partake Communion every minute or every Sunday doesn't really matter. I believe God looks into the heart—are we striving to be like him in love? are we trying to be like Jesus in character, and avoiding actions that would offend our weak brothers? are we fair to other people? are we honest individuals? are we liars? are we gossipers? i think those are the most important question.
I don't see God, on the judgment day, not allowing one soul to get to heaven just because he didn't take Communion as prescribed.
Nonie,
I think you're on the something there. If God would send his Son to die for us, he's not looking to damn us on technicalities. So long as we have faith in Jesus and submit to Jesus as Lord, if we get one of the 5 Acts of Worship wrong, we'll be entirely safe.