Try the White Castle Diet....the food will evacuate in 15-20 minutes. 
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Church dinner or fasting
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
David Crosby
Member
Amen, with the focus "on prayer"
I never said there was a scriptural nullification just an almost absence of mention.
But I don't believe it is part of being filled with the Spirit or being led of the Spirit.
Fasting is good for you if done correctly. Go ahead and fast.
I have had protracted fasts in my own life for both health and spiritual issues.
However when Jesus approved of prayer AND fasting it was when the Law of Moses was still in effect.
Prayer is mentioned on many occasions in the epistles but not fasting apart from 1 Corinthians 7:5 and Paul's personal testimony.
...Pray without ceasing...
That's all I'm saying. IMO it has taken a back to prayer (although, yes, I do it myself).
HankD
Thanks for the clarification. Because of its limited mention, fasting can be considered less vital than prayer. OTOH, Christ told us to do it (prayer and fasting in secret) and we are commanded to observe all He commanded, so do not see the fading away of the obsolete Covenant as nullifying the instruction to fast.
Now to make a run to the doughnut shop before they run out of "plain cakes."
Now to make a run to the doughnut shop before they run out of "plain cakes."
What it actually teaches is that the Holy Spirit sent them off through the church rather than without the church.
Where do you get the idea that Acts 13 was a transitioning from an OT to a NT venue????? The church at Antioch was a Gentile church. The church at Jerusalem was not under the OT or administering OT law or ceremonies
The entire Book of Acts records that transition. Acts 13 records a portion of that struggle.
ALL the churches were under judaizer influence to some extent or another as Acts 15 clearly illustrates and as was the initial mission of the apostle Paul - to inform Jewry that the OT venue was soon to vanish away.
Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
This was necessary to keep the judaizers from polluting the church (Grk. ekklesia) venue of the grace and truth of Jesus Christ with the synagogue (Grk. sunagoge) venue of the Law of Moses.
John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
The sunagoge venue of the Law of Moses continues on to this very day under the title of Talmudic Judaism and also to this very day seeks to (and in some cases is successful) carry away disciples from Christ back to Moses.
e.g. The Hebraic Roots Movement: They are subtle and deceptive.
All the churches were still under the shadow of the law and had to be admonished of the NEW venue.
Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Acts 15: 4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
which ended with this:
Acts 13: 22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
Acts 13
Acts 13? Well for starters they met in a synagogue (not a church) on the Sabbath (not on the Lord's Day) speaking to Jews to convince them of the New Covenant venue..
Acts13: 14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.
in order to inform the the Jews of the fulfillment of the promise of verse 23
Acts 13:23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:
Of whom John the baptist spoke of
25 And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose.
Of whom John gave another promise concerning the one of whom he was not worthy.
ASV Luke 3:16 ... he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:
So, then they were informed that there was a transitioning from not being baptized in the Holy Spirit and fire to being baptized in the Holy Spirit and fire.
Then they were informed that they could not be justified by the law of Moses but by believing in aforementioned Jesus Christ:Warning them of consequence of unbelief.
After a show of disbelief on the part of the synagogue leaders: Paul and Barnabas declare
46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
HankD
In essence I agree with your position as explained here although I might take issue with some points.
Break-fast?
To be technical, what happened was not that they were sent through the church, but that the church released them from church authority. The word for "sent" in v. 3 is apoluo, meaning to release from control or even divorce. The word used for the Spirit's sending was pempo, a more usual word for "to send."
This was simply a recognition of the Baptist distinctive of the autonomy of the local church, meaning that the Antioch church would not have control over the churches planted by the missionaries. It does not mean that the missionaries no longer had a home church, since they returned to Antioch after their first missionary journey.
Having said all of that, in line with the OP, a time of fasting and prayer by my home church would have been great when my wife and I left with our baby for Japan in 1981. Didn't happen.
John, the term "apoluo" can simply mean "separated" with intent to send them to the mission field as instructed by the Holy Spirit. Hence, they were acting in obedience to the Spirit. When they came back in Acts 15 there was a business meeting that appointed them to go to jerusalem in behalf of the church. They were still under the authority of the church. It is the church that authorizes and supervises its missionaries. The church believed it had the authority to follow up and act with regard to its preachers on the field (acts 8:14; 11:19). The act of church constitution is what releases baptized believers from church authority.
Can't speak for everyone; only myself...but I don't fast cuz it could be harmful to my health. In a way, to me, it's like baptism. There are some people who simply cannot be safely dunked into a body of water.
But if one is able to SAFELY fast, fine - long as it's for the proper purpose.
But if one is able to SAFELY fast, fine - long as it's for the proper purpose.
The word apoluo occurs 63 times in the Greek NT. In none of them does it clearly mean what you say. It often means "divorce" (Matt. 1:19, 5:31-32, etc.), and there is not another word with that meaning. When the meaning is "sent away," there is never a leader/follower type of meaning, with authority remaining.
They were still under authority only in that they were members of the church, not in that they were missionaries, or the churches they planted would have been under the authority of Antioch--and that is how denominations begin. Their trip to Jerusalem was as preachers and members representing their church, it was not to do church planting--two different issues.
About your references in Acts 8:14 and 11:19, how in the world do those passages represent local church authority? I really don't see it there, especially in 11:19.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "the act of church constitution." Do you mean when a church is fully planted, or when they adopt a constitution, or some such thing? Church planting in Japan I learned that it was better to have church membership from the very start, the very first service, or confusion resulted.
What you are saying makes no sense to me. You admit they retain their membership and as members are subject to church authority, but then based on one word, you deny they are acting under the authority of that church when doing mission work because you think that when they organize the baptized believers into a church that places that church under the authority of the church at Antioch??? That makes no sense to me either. Baptism does not make them a church! It is the act of gathering baptized materials together as instructed in the third aspect of the Great Commission is when a church is constittuted. That very act FREES them from the authority of any other church as they become an autonomous church by that very act of organized committment. I still think the term "apoluo" simply releases them from their present obligations as members for the work the Holy Spirit through the church called them to be separated unto.
Acts 11:19 was a typo, it was supposed to be Acts 11:22. Both texts illustrate that the church at Jerusalem believed it had the authority to follow up on ministers and their evangelistic works. Both texts use the verb form of the noun translated "apostle" which infers they acted as authorized representatives of those sending them. Acts 11:22 is even more explicit as the church sent Barnabas "as far as" demonstrating he was acting under the authority of the church at Jerusalem.
I believe the Great Commission is given to the church or a plural body of baptized believers who are in a state of observing Christ's commands. I believe the third aspect of the Great Commission is authority to bring baptized believers ("them") into membership of an existing church (Acts 2:40) or the authority to constitute baptized believers into a church.
I mean when the missionary gathers two or three baptized believers into a covenant relationship to "observe all things" Christ commanded. If two or more missionaries are organized into a church on a mission field then those baptized are directly added unto that assembly. However, that terminates all membership ties with the sending church which is not the case with Paul and Silas in Acts 13-15.
John, I hate to drop this discussion but I am in the middle of preparing 15 class sessions for a college class that begins in four weeks. I have a published work on my position for church constitution and you can access it at the following address. I had to drop a discussion with Martin also because the subject requires too much time to respond to fully. Sorry, but I had been waiting on the Dean of our College to finalize some aspects of my class before I could begin and he just did it this weekend and so I got to boogey!
http://victorybaptistchurch.webstarts.com/uploads/Church_Authority_Final_Printer_fix.pdf
Last edited:
We may be talking past one another, and agree on more things than not. My perspective is that of a missionary church planter for 33 years who sees a trend in home churches in the US listing a missionary church plant as a branch work.
Thanks for the interaction. I'll check out your pdf file. I'm kind of busy too, though I'm not teaching anything new first semester. Have a great school year!