"Biblical Authority"

Dhk:
I have already done so for the rational mind. You might want to try a new line of argumentation. 1.USE THE SCRIPTURES.
2.LEARN THE MEANING OF CONTEXT.
3.LEARN HOW LANGUAGE WORKS. All of it works the same way,even french.
4.LEARN THE MEANING OF THE WORD GATHERED, AND CHURCH.
5.TWR THREE ARE PLURAL IN NUMBER.

By the way, bear my folly is a reference to Paul using sarcasm. It also is in the scriptures. II Cor. 11:1. Moreover, what I said in reference to the english language and Canada would not make me a racist, but it would make me a nationalist.
Have a good day.

 

Dhk:
Mat.18:20 is a declared statement of Christ. he said where, the word where denoted a place, as the context is about exercising church disciple which consists of the saved ( plural Acts 2:41-47). It is as clear as crystal. plain as a pie, and as simple as sugar. Mat. 18:20 authorizes Christians to meet in his name. Jesus said where,a PLACE, TWR THREE ARE GATHERED IN HIS NAME HE IS IN THE MIDST OF THEM.
The immediate context teaches this. The remote context and the other scriptures relevant to this issue teach this. Now, if you disagree, PROVIDE SCRIPTURE THAT REBUTS MAT. 18:20, ACTS 16:12-16; 16;24,25; 5:12, ROMANS 16:3-5.

I have posted the scriptural evidence for this issue. It will not change.
If you answer this post without a SCRIPTURAL REBUTTAL, I.E. GENESIS- REVELATION, I will not respond as it will be superfluous to do so.

 

I'll repeat the question, as you have only alluded to the answer. Maybe you'll get it yet.
Now, demonstrate to me through the context of Mat. 18, that verse 20, is speaking of a place to meet. Demonstrate that it has anything to do with a place of gathering at all. Otherwise don't use it agian. Notice the words "through (i.e., 'using') the context"
DHK

 

Dhk:
You continue to have problems with understanding the IMPLICATIONS of word meanings and language in general. It is most difficult to gather without being in a place. I would like to see how one can gather with another and NOT BE IN A PLACE. This is beyond ridiculous. It borders on insanity. I would like to see how one gathers with another person but is not in a place. Unfortunately, you must actually believe it is possible. Mat. 18:20. The meeting place is IMPLIED by the DECLARATIVE STATEMENT OF CHRIST IN MAT. 18:20. The EXAMPLES ARE PROVIDED OF THOSE WHBEY THE DECLARED STATEMENT OF CHRIST. Acts 5:12,16:24,25, Romans 16:3-5, Acts 16:24,25.

It is obvious from the many different places Christians met that the meeting place was and is an expedient. I Cor. 6:12. Expedients do not violate the laws of God. They do carry out the lawful acts. Therefore, based on the IMPLICATIONS of the SCRIPTURES one must rationally conclude that the place is an expedient as Christians met in a variety of places.

I also realize that making rational conclusions based on the IMPLICATIONS OF SCRIPTURE is not important to you. Again, that is your problem.

Furthermore, I answered the question. You do not like the answer! If I were in your position , I would not like the answer. You then have the unmitigated gall to request an answer different than what is declared in the text because your position has been exposed as false. Your defense and rebuttals have been BOOK 000, CHAPTER 000, VERSE 000.

Therefore, to repetitiously repeat your diatribe that has no basis from SCRIPTURE is ridiculous and unfuitful. You have not presented anything in the last post that has not already been answered several times. Do yourself a favor and go in peace!

 

You have not answered the question, and seem afraid to do so. If you honestly answer the question, and expound the context of the verse in question (Mat.18:20), you would see that it is not talking about a meeting place at all. Like any person belonging to a cult you take Scripture out of context and "wrest it to your own destruction." If that is not what you are doing, then prove otherwise by demonstrating what the verse means USING THE CONTEXT ONLY
DHK

 

Dhk:
One can demonstrate a thing to be true and some will still reject it. Any rational person who reads the totality of the evidence posted will accept what the Bible says is true in this matter. Your constant insinuations that I have not examined the context, the word meanings and their implications, as well as the totality of the evidence on this issue is a blatant falsehood.


Frankly, you use this approach because you cannot defend your position with scripture. So, your only alternative is to question, ignore, evade the issue, distract, and " poison the waters." This is typical S.O.P. for those who espouse the many ists and isms of the religious world.

The only cult member in this discussion is YOU. You are the cult of one. The cult of unsubstantiated and false assertions. In short, BOOK 000, CHAPTER 000, VERSE 000.
Have a good day.

 

Matthew 18:15-20
15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.


“You have not answered the question, and seem afraid to do so. If you honestly answer the question, and expound the context of the verse in question (Mat.18:20), you would see that it is not talking about a meeting place at all. Like any person belonging to a cult you take Scripture out of context and "wrest it to your own destruction." If that is not what you are doing, then prove otherwise by demonstrating what the verse means USING THE CONTEXT ONLY”

The above is the sixth time I have asked for you to explain Matthew 18:20. You have refused every time. The reason you refuse to do so is because you continue to use verse 20 out of its context as a pretext for a meeting place for a church. Nothing could be farther from the truth. This has nothing to do with church buildings, or meeting places of any kind. I think you know that, and that is why you deliberately avoided any honest exposition of this passage as a good cultist would do. So let’s look at What Matthew 18 really says:

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother
--The context is the local church (“assembly”). This is not talking of a building. It is speaking of a brother who sins or offends another brother in the local church. If that happens, go and tell him alone what the problem (the offence) is, and resolve it. If he is clearly in the wrong, and repents, then you have gained your brother. You have restored a good relationship because sin was repented of.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established
--But, if he doesn’t listen to you, and prefers to continue in sin, then Jesus advises you to take one or two more church members that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. But the objective still remains the same. Go, and try to bring the man to a place of repentance.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.
--If he still persists in his sin, then you must bring the matter before all the members of the church. If the offending member does not heed the members of the church, then “let him be as a heathen man and a publican.” This was an idiom in the time of Christ which would denote a type of excommunication. In other words do not have any fellowship with him at all. The Jews would never go into the house of a heathen, never eat with a publican, would not fellowship with either one. The members of the church are to treat that offending member just as the Jews treated the heathen and publicans in their social relations.

18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
--This was a local church decision. Whatever decision they made: whether to receive that member back on the basis of repentance, or to excommunicate or disfellowship on the basis of rebellion or sinful behaviour, the decision of the church would stand firm. It would be just as if God himself were making the decision because Christ indeed is the head of every local church. In every Bible believing local church the pastor has Christ as his head. Christ is at the head of the local church.

19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
--Still in the context of the local church, if just two shall agree in prayer, their Father in Heaven will answer them.

20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
--Again, in the context of church discipline, Jesus says where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. It may be a small church. At the business meeting held, there may be only two or three present to make up a quorum when the matter of disciplining the offending matter comes up. But if just two or three are there to discuss disciplinary matters, then Christ is also there in the midst of them. It is the local church that he is in the midst of. It is church discipline that is being spoken of. The church is an assembly of believers. It is the people, not the building. There is no building being spoken of or referred to here Frank.
I have asked you to take the context of Matthew 18, and show how verse 20 refers to church buildings. Since you were stubborn and would not, I have taken the liberty and done it for you. It is now evident to all that there is no possible way that verse 20 could possibly refer to any kind of church building, so I request that you stop using the reference as a proof text for a church building.
DHK

 

Dhk:
You have ignored the totality of the evidence used to teach about meeting places. Instead, you have attempted to distract from the real issue by using a text that supports the rest of the evidence. Mat. 18:20 is not the only passage in the new testament that teaches us about lawful assembly. Your contention about Mat. 18:20 is just a part of the divine scriptures that by that implies by necessary inference the expediency of meeting places. It is the totality of the evidence which includes the DIRECT AN DECLARATIVE STATEMENT OF CHRIST of the WHERE Christians may meet. The words gather and church in the context teaches anyone with a rational mind the church is gathered when it is told of the discipline that is exercised.

The Bible authorizes by declarative statement, approved examples,and inpications by necesary inference. It is apparent you do not understand the way language works. Therefore, I will provide an example of IMPLICATION from the INFERENCE OF SCRIPTURE.

Inference is a perfectly legitimate means of obtaining truth.

There is an example related to Solomon’s dedication of the temple that enables the careful Bible student to derive some information that he COULD NOT KNOW but for inference. Look at the following data.
At the dedication of the temple, Solomon prayed a wonderful prayer soliciting Jehovah’s blessings upon the sacred house. An inspired writer subsequently notes that “Jehovah appeared to Solomon by night” in response to the petition (2 Chron. 7:12). The text does not mention precisely how the Lord “appeared.” That leaves the episode clouded in mystery, since there were various ways by which deity could “appear” to men. Other passages, however, allow us to arrive at the full truth relative to this incident.
In a parallel record, a sacred writer says that Jehovah “appeared” to Solomon “as he had appeared unto him at Gibeon” (1 Kg. 9:2). Well, how was that? This text does not specify. In yet another related passage, though, the Scriptures reveal the following: “In Gibeon Jehovah appeared to Solomon in a dream by night” (1 Kgs. 3:5). Putting the related information together, therefore, one reasons:
1. If God appeared to Solomon in Jerusalem as he did in Gibeon.
2. And he appeared to the king in Gibeon “in a dream.”
3. Then it necessarily follows, then, that the Lord’s appearance to Solomon in Jerusalem was in a dream.
Let me cite a couple of examples that help focus upon crucial matters pertaining to Christian practice.
1. Since the New Testament teaches that valid baptism requires both belief and repentance (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38), and inasmuch as babies can not believe, nor do they need to repent (seeing they have no sin), it follows necessarily that infants are not amenable to baptism. The logical use of necessary inference eliminates the sectarian practice of “infant baptism.”
2. The first century church of Christ met each Lord’s day for worship. This is established by the phrase “first day of every week,” as reflected in the Greek text of 1 Corinthians 16:2 (as most of the modern translations reveal; see RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV). The preposition kata in the original text definitely means “every.” (See: Danker, F.W., et al., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000, p. 512).
Additionally, the New Testament record establishes the fact that the main purpose of the Sunday meeting was to celebrate the Lord’s supper. That is established by the infinitive phrase of purpose in Acts 20:7; the disciples were brought together “to break bread.”
Since we know that the Christians met each Lord’s day. And inasmuch as it is clear that the primary purpose of their gathering was to observe the sacred communion. It necessarily follows that the early church, under the supervision of the inspired apostles, observed the Lord’s supper every Sunday. Churches today, therefore, who seek to be biblical in their worship, will emulate the apostolic practice.

The logical concept of “necessary inference” is a perfectly legitimate reasoning device. We use it most every day in common procedures, and it is no less valuable in arriving at scriptural conclusions.

This is also the case with meeting places. I have demonstrated with the following: Mat. 18:20, Acts 5:12; 16:12-14; Romans 16:3-5, Acts 16:24,25. The totality of the scriptures imply by necessary inference the expediency of meeting places. On this matter, it is clear as the word clear could ever be clear.

Have a good day.

 

Sure is Frank. I don't know why you wouldn't use it more.
Catholics infer from the Bible the teaching of purgatory.
They infer that Peter was the first Pope.
They infer that praying to the saints in heaven is perfectly legitimate.
They infer that praying to idols is not praying to idols at all, but praying to saints.

If inference is perfectly legitimate Frank, why don't you just become a Catholic. They also infer that infant baptism is Biblical.
DHK

 

Dhk:
Just because one infers something does not make it a rational conclusion unless it is supported by the scriptures. There is a difference!!

Inferences must be NECESSARY, a MUST, not a matter of opinion unsubstantiated by scripture, such as is the case with infant baptism, women preachers, mechanical instruments of music, and a number of other things used in the religious world.

My post demonstrated perfectly the principle of implication based on the NECESSARY INFERENCE FROM SCRIPTURE. In other words, the conclusion one makes from the scriptures is the only rational one, based on the scriptures, a person could necessarily infer. There are no other possibilites based on evidence and rationality.

Consider the following:
On Saturday, I go out to fish on a lake. I ask my son where is my tackle box? He replies in the trunk of the car. I then ask him where is the bait or the worms we are going to use? He replies in the tackle box. Now, by necessary inference I can imply, though it is not DECLARED, that the bait or worms are in the trunk of the car. This is IMPLIED BY NECESSARY INFERENCE FROM THE EVIDENCE, as the tackle box is in the trunk and inside the tackle box are the worms and or bait. As I said, we use it everyday!

Have a good one.

 

Frank,
Thus, according to the logic of your above post:

Mat.18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

I can infer from this one verse which in context is speaking of church discipline that a church building is a necessity. You got me!

There were no church buildings for 250 years after Pentecost, and yet you continue to use this verse to prove your premise for the necessity of a church building.
DHK

 

Dhk:
No, I affirmed that buildings are expedients, NOT ESSENTIALS. There is a difference. The words expedient and essential are not the same. I have said one CAN MEET ANY WHERE TWR THREE ARE GATHERED IN HIS NAME. I have also presented the SCRIPTRUES THAT SUPPORT THIS POSITION. You can meet in a tent, on the square in town, in a synagogue, etc., according to the command of Christ and the implication drawn from the necessary inference of scriptures that teach Christians met in a variety of places.

It would be foolish to assert that one may only meet in a specific place and structure by command. However, if anyone attempts to use declarative statements only as his guide and ignores the way language works, in this matter and many others, he finds himself in a hopeless quandry trapped by his own false hermeneutic. For, in this case, he would have to meet in one place and one place only if it were by declaration only, as the Bible never changes. Now, my question would then be, Where are you going to gather in the one and only one location authorized by the declarative statement? Regardless of what one answers, he is forced to violate that which is written in the scriptures, as Christians met in many lawful places. Therefore, one must conclude from the scriptures that God approves of Christians assembling where two or three are gathered in his name. This would include, not exclude, jails, temples, houses, rivers. In other words, places of EXPEDIENCY. I Cor. 6:12.

 

It is expedient to you to use Scripture out of its context to support whatever doctrine that you wish to believe in. You are like the proverbial Mormon, who quotes from Proverbs:

18:22 Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing,
And then:
Mat.6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Using the totality of Scripture he says, the Lord's will is that we have all (many) wives (things).
Now Frank this is your type of thinking and logic right down to the very letter. Take two unrelated verses out of there context and justify your pet doctrine. See how it is done. You do the same thing.

Verse #1.
Mat.18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Verse #2.
12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

Your logic, like the Mormon's, is something like this: Verse #1 is talking about a church building (which it is not), and verse #2 proves that it is expedient, when in actuality it teaches that it is not expedient. In both cases, both verses teach exactly opposite of what you claim.

ALL THINGS ARE NOT EXPEDIENT
That is the teaching and the exact words of 1Cor.6:12, isn't it? How then, can you claim a church building to be an "expedient?" It is not an expedient. The Bible says very clearly that it is not. You do not need a church building to have a church. On that statement you will probably agree. On the other hand you cannot justify the use of a church building through Scripture, for it is not expedient. Many countries do without them. Musical instruments are not expedient either. Both fall into the same class. They are not expedient, but they are not wrong either.
DHK

 

Dhk:
The Bible teaches Christians may meet where ever two or three are gathered in his name. Mat.18:20. By necessary inference from the scriptures it is implied that meeting places are things used to carry out a lawful command. The scriptures teach by example the implied authority to meet in lawful places. Acts 5:12; 16:12-14; 16:24,25, Romans 6:3-5. A thing must be lawful to be an expedient. SEE THE CONTEXT OF I COR. 6:12. i.e. immediate and remote.
It is obvious you have NO SCRIPTURAL REBUTTAL to offer as you have provided NOTHING TO SUPPORT your unsubstantiated and false assertion. The context of the above all contain the following:
1. Two or more are gathered in the name of Christ.
2. They are worshipping God in some manner.
3. They are gathered in a place.
4. NONE of these situations are objected to by the inspired apostle as being unlawful or sinful who has knowldge of the meeting place.
5. The apostle Paul participates in worship in more than one place. Acts 16:24,25, Acts 18:7,8, Acts 20:7.

It is a blatant falsehood that I have not studied thes scriptures in context. I have done so from immediate and remote context.

If mechanical instruments are not wrong, then meet the divine standard and prove it by the expressed will of Christ. I Thes. 5:21, Mat.28:18-20 John 17:17. Where in the SCRIPTURES DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT OF CHRIST AUTHORIZE ONE TO USE THEM?

If it is right to use them, Why then do some participate in the right thing and some do not?

If both the use of instruments and the lack of use are acceptable, where does Christ authorize this different action?

This is the list of scriptures you have posted for mechanical instruments in worship. BOOK 000, Chapter 000, Verse 000.

This is the list provided that rebutts the scriptures posted for meeting places as expedients. BOOK 000, Chapter 000, Verse 000.

Dhk, Have a good day,and remember, Jesus said, where two or three are gathered together in my name there I am in the midst of them.

[ July 31, 2003, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: Frank ]