Church of Christ Question

'Book, chapter and verse'.
All well and good if things are taken in context and nothing is read into it. But often these are just proof texts that make a statment look "biblical", but something has in fact been read into them. For this reason, arguments like this (as well as music style, Calvinism, etc) are more about what scripture does not teach that what it actually does. Too many people read all sorts ofthings into areas of silence, and this is where all the "arguments and contentions" that Paul condemns come from.
Anyway,

Read the passage where Paul is correcting the Corinthians on this. It was more like a meal, where people could horde and fill appetites, which they should be doing at home. How can you do that with little crumbs or wafers and vials?
So if the COC is using those things, then you have not really researched early Christian practice as much as you think. You just followed the common tradition on that while choosing something else (instruments) to make an issue of. Yet there is more scriptural evidence for a meal then for a ban on instruments!

Still, with your idea of "expedience", you override this when you think it is OK.

I was going to address this verse, and figured you would eventually. You are apparently taking it backwards. Everything may seem expedient, but not everything is lawful. So just assume everything is unlawful unless it is specifically mentioned. When "expediency" overrides this is to be determined by us; when we do it, it is right, when others do it it is wrong.
No, it's the other way around. It shows that nothing is to be assumed to be unlawful, unless you can find a legal/moral problem with it. As I said, the only principles we have as to what is lawful is God's Law. Even you admitted that it still sets the principle. So if instruments do not violate the laws against other gods, idols, blasphemy, rest in Jesus, and the moral commands (murder, etc), then you cannot say it is "unlawful". Else, once again, you are making up your own law.
And also remember that there is more liberty now than in the OT. You take instances where God gave specific commands where one thing rules out another. If you use one kind of fire, it is not the other type. Yet, the NT Church is not a specifically detailed Temple cult, so we do not have as many of those specific rules. Just the general principles of the universal law. That is why we have chapters like Rom.14 and 1 Cor.8 where we are told how to resolve various issues of practice and conflict. Just remember all of the "expedient" practices the CoC follows that weren't mentioned, but you feel are lawful. Saying "sing" does not exclude instruments, as if you couldn't do both at the same time. It is not an "either/or" statment. Else, as I had said before, "sing"/"make melody with your heart)" would also not mean to recite words read out of text, as the CoC probably does (along with everyone else. I actually find it hard to put my heart in it while reading it!)

But people claim these were issues, just as you do. That was the point. No text says that instruments were excluded (why don't you povide the book, chapter and verse). There are many possibilities of why. The issue wasn't important. People had liberty to use them or not. (Remember, it violated no law or principle). This is the most likely. Then, to go and grant to you that their lack of mention may have indicated they weren't present (which is granting you a lot, because that is no proof at all), perhaps there weren't many musicians around. They were in the Temple, which had money raised through the tithe, trained musicians, a stable place for them to be kept and played, etc. but the church did not have such amenities until much later, and that is the much cited time when instruments began to come in!) Compare a huge cathedral today with a home church. Or, under persecution, it would be an unnecessary distraction.
The best evidence you and others like Aaron can offer is from fathers centuries later, who read their own assumptions into the matter, based on the prevailing philosophies that had taken hold by their time, that only quiet somber reflective type music (i.e chants) were spiritual.

Many of them were not handed down. You just take what was popular when the CoC arose and did not bother to question, and then choose some issues to distinguish yourselves from the rest of Christendom, and try to force all of it back into apostolic practice. But a better case could be made for some of the things you ignore than what you are arguing over.

 

As for the debate between Thomas and Charles, and Charles asked about someone dying before baptism. As I discuss on
http://members.aol.com/etb700/baptism.html, "It's baptism 'by one spirit into one body' (becoming a Christian or member of Christ's body)(1 Cor. 12:13) that saves, and water baptism was the outward symbol of this transaction (a person's conscience is cleared when he receives forgiveness for his sins, which are symbolically 'buried' in the water, and then the 'new man' rises out of it, as in a resurrection)." This would occur right at conversion. But the problem is, "Every group wants to make sure that the people claiming to accept Christ really understand what they are doing, and that they are sound, and start to learn the Bible. (according to the group's particular interpretation of it, of course) Most churches have membership classes, and baptism has become associated with the act of joining an organized church fellowship. Since most do not want just anyone to join their church, nobody just baptizes anyone who comes without knowing them. Originally, the church was not a corporate 'organization', and people were baptized directly into Christ, and then it was up to them to find a local fellowship of Christians to become a part of. Now, it is all 'organization' oriented, drawn according to doctrines and practices, many of them outright false (cults, liberals/modernists etc), and even among the "orthodox", various denominations or circles such as Calvinism, Arminianism, separatistic fundamentalism, or charismaticism believe they are truer to the Gospel than others; so they can't just baptize someone into Christ and then tell them just to go fellowship somewhere. (This is precisely what Billy Graham is often criticized for). So Baptism remains associated with local church (or at least denomination) membership." Then I go on to explain how the altar call has sort of taken the place of Baptism at evangelistic rallies. Campbellite groups are often standing outside saying "where in scripture is that?", but do they believe in just baptising people on the spot instead? No; they will send them through a membership process just like every other group. So what I say to them, if they really believe water baptism is what saves, then they are taking a great risk with peoples' souls if someone converts, but they hold them off for weeks or months to be indoctrinated into the Church of Christ, before this saving act of baptism occurs.

Obviously, it's by faith we are saved, so the person dying before baptism is saved. Either the CoC would have to say "sorry, you can't be saved for sure until we put you through the classes or whatever and you prove you have really joined us", or if they say they are saved before the ceremony just by converting, then they have to admit that the ceremony, while an act of obedience, is not what saves in itself; it is apart of the public profession of Christ, and is tied to salvation only in the sense of Jesus saying "if anyone confesses me, I will confess him to My Father, and if anyone denies me before men, I will deny Him before My Father". Still,in that is is clearly faith, not water that saves.

 

**Revelation 15:2,3 says they were to sing the song of Moses. It does not say the harp was literal and was to be played. The act is still singing. The word play, make noise or bang shang alang is not in the text. You have forced that meaning.**

Revelation 14:2 says “and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps.”

I don’t see how you can argue with that.

Revelation 15:2 says these people ‘stood ‘having the harps of God.’ You say it doesn’t say the harps were literal. That’s a pretty dangerous line of reasoning. There is no specific verse that uses the word ‘literal’ to say that Christ died on the cross. No verse of scripture says “Christ literally died on the cross” but if someone teaches otherwise, he teaches false doctrine. Show me where the Bible teaches that a verse has to use the word ‘literal’ in order for a verse to be true.

*Yes, the old testament is for our learning. Romans 15:4. If one does not learn from the old testament he misses many PRINCIPLES of GOD.(ie. grace, faith, obedience). These three have never changed and never will.**

And what principle does the Old Testament teach us about musical instruments? Psalms 150, which commands praising God with musical instruments? The praising God with musical instruments is a good thing. This is the principle we can see from the Old Testament.

** I also used Hebrews 7:14 and Hebrews 8:4 which demonstrates the same principle as the LAW OF SILENCE. It demonstrates the consistent harmony of God in rejecting man acting apart from his expressed will. This was true under all dispensations. NO EXCEPTIONS! NONE! You may not like it, but you cannot refute the truth. **

This argument seems pretty lame to me. I don’t see any ‘law of silence’ in the verses you quoted. In fact, I see in the Old Testament where it is pretty clear that only Aaron’s descendants could be the priests. Your ‘law of silence’ argument has even less weight when one realizes that only Aaron’s descendants could be priests in the Old Testament.

**Link, provide one verse under the law of Christ where Christians assembled and played instead of, or in conjunction with, singing. You cannot do it.**

Show me one verse of scripture that says that you are allowed to use a Bible bound on the edge instead of a scroll. Show me one verse of scripture that says you are allowed to use a brown Bible. You can’t show me a single verse can you!

The question is, should you have to show me a verse that says that the Bible has to be bound a certain way, or in a certain color cover. Is there any commandment of the Lord against using books rather than scrolls, or colored covers? No. And there is no commandment of the Lord specifically about whether or not to use instruments in church meetings. What we do have is plenty of Old Testament scripture that affirms the principle that musically accompanied music is appropriate to use in praise of God.

And those believers who sing to musically accompanied music, if they make melody in their heart to the Lord, are being obedient to Paul’s instructions when they sing.

Consider the example of David. The Law didn’t say anything about putting musicians in the tabernacle. But David put them in there. He also had certain groups of Levites the Law assigned to carrying the tabernacle be reassigned to musical duties. Yet the Psalms show us the principle that God is positive toward musical praises of His name.

** Why? It was not heard of, nor was it practiced in the church for hundreds of years. Josephus, the jewish historian, acknowledged this fact.**

Can you quote the passage from Josephus that proves that there were no musical instruments in the church for hundreds of years. I wasn’t aware that Josephus lived that long, or that he could see the future after his death.

** The problem is yours. I have produced ALL EIGHT scriptures in the new tesetament that speak to this issue and not one of them teaches us to play.**

And none of the verses address the issue of instruments (unless the command to sing psalms means that instruments must be used) any more than they address the issue of whether or not you can bring a yellow Bible to a church meeting. The Bible doesn’t specify that you can wear deodorant or underpants to a church meeting either. But it’s not a sin to wear them. The Bible doesn’t specify that you can speak English to praise God. But you can.

I John 3:4 says that sin is the transgression of the law. Where is the law against using instruments in church, or do you disagree with John’s definition of sin?

**The Old Testaement was for Jews only.( Deut.5). So , since you are a gentile why appeal to a law for authority that was never meant for you? I use it for learning about the eternal principles of God, not as a means of authority for teaching or practice or even justification for salvation. There is a difference.**

I really don’t see the difference. I am getting principles from the Law. Notice I pointed out that the instructions for the temple and the church meeting are not the same. So I am looking for principles, too. What do you do with all those good, positive principles about praising God to instrumental accompaniment?

**The Law of Christ specifically states what is to be done. It is to sing. There are eight verses that speak to this. This law is written is not silence. I am appealing to that which is written. It is you who has made a feeble attempt to prove your contention with silence. I just exposed you!!**

I agree with you that we are to sing, so what is your point? The scripture is silent on whether musical instruments are to be included, and you should be silent about it as well. You shouldn’t invent a law against instruments when the scriptures does not. You are the one making the fuss about something the scripture is silent about. You have now exposed yourself.

I used that which is written to prove that God does not authorize without his expressed will. The words that "he commanded them not" are real simple english. In other words, God did not say to do it. IMPLICATION! GOD was silent.

**God authorizes in three, and only three ways: Command, Approved example, and or Implication. I have used all three in demonstrating the truth of the position. By the way, these are the only three ways langauge works. **

First, I’d like to see scripture for your three ways here. Second, I don’t see where you have proved your position by any of these three ways. There are plenty of commands, approved examples, and implications that praising God with musical instruments is approved by God. I don’t see where you have shown any commands, approved examples, or implications of scripture that demonstrate that using instruments in church meetings is forbidden.

**Jmaes 2:2 uses the term assembly.**

King James’ translators used the word ‘assembly.’ Look up the word that was translated from in Greek and you will see that it is the Greek word for ‘synagogue’, from which we get our English word ‘synagogue.’

**You claim about instruments at the temple at all times cannot be substantiated and is a violation of the Law of Christ as per the eight scriptures that addresses this issue.**

First, it is clear that if the temple in Jesus day followed Old Testament teaching on how the temple is to operate, that there would have been instrumental music and singing, a lot of it. And you can know this from studying history as well. From scripture and history, and a little common sense, we can figure out that the sound of this music would likely have made it to Solomon’s porch. None of these facts contradict the ‘Law of Christ’ or any verses of scripture that command Christians to sing. And none of the verses you quoted prove your contention that instruments are forbidden in church meetings.

***The new testament,not protestantism, has clearly defined for the church what is to be done. The scriptures teach the following:
1. Prayer. I Thes. 5;17,I Tim. 2:8;2;1-3).
2. Lord's Supper. Acts 20:7.
3. Giving. I Cor. 16:1,2.
4. Preaching. Acts 20:7.
5. Singing. Hebrews 2;12, I Cor. 14:15.**


I don’t have a problem with your list per se, except it depends on what you mean by ‘preaching.’ There are three Greek words translated as ‘preach’ in the KJV. Usually, the words are used in the context of evangelistically proclaiming Christ among unbelievers. In fact, one of them is the Greek word from which we get ‘evangelize’, ‘evangelism,’ ‘evangelism’, etc. The Bible does not teach us that the church meeting is the normal place for evangelism. Repeatedly, in scripture, we see evangelism taking place in places where the unbelievers were, rather than in gatherings of the saints. We are to be sensitive to the presence of unbelievers in our midst (as I Corinthians 14 indicates) but evangelizing unbelievers is not a main focus of our gatherings. So if one means ‘preach’ in that sense, then I wouldn’t say this should be a main focus of our church meetings.

In Acts 20:7, the word for preach or teach there is the Greek word from which we get our English ‘dialogue.’ Paul _ talked with _ the believers all night. While he may have been leading the teaching, the passage does not tell us that Paul gave a long monologue all night long.

I would also add to your list ‘exhorting one another.’ I Corinthians 14 contains other things to add to the list: teaching, speaking in tongues with interpretation, and sharing revelations/prophesying.

**I believe Paul was a preacher of much education and would not be considered by your definition a regular believer.( Phil.3:4-6).**

Paul was an apostle, and he led a discussion all night. Are any of the RM preachers who give extended monologues without an opportunity for the rest of the saints to speak in a given meeting apostles as well? Do they have a special right to speak and not allow others with gifts to speak in the assembly?

When Paul gave instructions to churches on what to do in their meetings, he did not say that everyone should come in, sit down, and listen to the preacher. Rather, he gave instructions on how to take turns speaking in an orderly manner to edify one another. In I Corinthians 14, Paul encourages the believers to seek to prophesy and to seek gifts that edify the body. His gave instructions that allowed for all to prophesy in church. Paul did not limit the speakers in the meeting to a select group of elders, evangelists, apostles or ‘pulpit ministers,’ though elders, evangelists etc. are certainly supposed to use their gifts to edify the assembly as well.

Were these instructions just for Corinth? No. Paul implies that his instructions were the universal practice of the church, with comments like ‘as in all the churches of the saints’ and by asking the Corinthians if the word of God originated with them, or if it had only come to them. And Paul adds that what he wrote was the commandment of the Lord. Can we ignore these commands and just set up church according to Protestant tradition?

** The scriptures teach all those things you dislike are to be done.**

What are you talking about? What things do you believe I dislike that Scripture says should be done? I am in favor of Paul’s instruction to ‘Let all things be done….’—all those things that Paul mentioned including teaching, speaking in tongues with interpretation, and prophecy. Are you? I am also in favor

**Furthermore, your reference to I Cor. 14 was written to correct a problem. They were not doing things decently and in order. ( I Cor. 14:40).**

And Paul told the Corinthians the orderly way in which to do things. And these instructions are ‘profitable for doctrine’ for us as well. It is clear from the passage that Paul didn’t tell everyone to sit down and listen to one preacher.

Hebrews 10:24-25 also shows us that we are Christians are not to forsake assembling together, but rather to ‘exhort one another.’ ‘Exhort’ here is a command. The command is to ‘exhort’ not ‘listen to only one person exhort you.’

** If you want two people to speak on the first day, I have no problem with it.**

That is good. Do you have a problem with Paul’s instructions which would allow a large number of people to speak in a church meeting?

 

Frank,

If you look at the way Jesus taught the disciples to have communion, it is clear that they ate a meal. We also see that the Corinthians were eating a meal, but wrongly. The Bible refers to Holy Communion as "The Lord's Supper." I looked up the Greek word for 'supper' and it means 'supper'. Shocking, isn't it. The Greek word for 'supper' in 'Lord's Supper' means a meal eaten toward the evening, not tiny crackers and thimbles full of drink.

 

I agree that good works will follow (or accompany) true faith, but it is not automatic. Otherwise, Paul would have not warned that those who believe in God "should be careful to maintain good works. (Titus 3:8)

You can't tie gift of salvation to the deeds of the mosaic law, but salvation is intimately connected to works of obedience...

"...for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth--those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.(John 5:28-29)

"....the righteous judgement of God, who 'will render to each one according to his deeds': eternal life to those who by patient continuence in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immmortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obeys unrighteousness--indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish on every soul of man who does evil...but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good" (Romans 2:5b-10)

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision not uncircumcision avails anything but faith working through love." (Galatians 5:6)

"You see then that man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)

(Of course, there is many more such passages)

I agree, but baptism is neither legalistic or unscriptural but is the normal occasion of the new birth and remission of sins as it is the uniting of the believer with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. It was only many centuries later that the outward sign became divorced chronologically--in the minds of some--from the inward reality.

 

DT,

I'm not referring to baptism in that last sentence - rather I'm referring to the COC demands about instruments and other denominations.

I do however disagree that baptism is any PART of salvation. It is undertaken by all Christians as a sign of obedience; but in isolation is it a WORK.

Did Paul not inveigh against those who would attach necessity to circumcision?

Jesus also told us to commemorate the last supper. But does this confer salvation?

The notion that baptism confers grace is in essence the same as catholic sacramentalism!

God confers grace - God alone!!

 

Charles:

1. You accused members of the church of smacking with phariseeism.
2. You have called members of the church a denomination.
You cannot and have not substantiated either claim.

I have already provided a scriptural answer to your question about the conversion of the jailer. However, let me make it as clear as the word could ever be clear. The conversion is consistent with all that is written about salvation. Paul connects salvation to belief and baptism. Repentance also takes place by implication as the jailer washed their stripes which is a reference to the punishment received in the jail. Repentance requires a change of mind that leads to a change of action.( Mat. 3:8).


Furthermore, the eight examples of conversion of the Bible mention various elements the are essential to salvation. Moreover, many times writers use a grammatical vehicle called synecdoche to describe salvation. Synecdoche means a part for the whole and the whole for it's parts. In short, the confession you mention in Romans 10:9,10, you call it the nutshell, is an example of synecdoche. The rest of the essentials to salvation are implied.

Your assumption that belief and repentance are the same is a falsehood. Repentance is from the Greek word Metanoeo. Believe is Pisteou. ( Acts 16:31, John 8:24). Confession is homologea. ( Romans 10:9, Mat. 10;32). Baptism is baptizo. ( Mark 16:16). Jesus said all of these were essential to salvation. He used distinctly different words to describe each of the various acts. They all have different meanings. Things that are different are not the same.

Your argument is not valid. It cannot be supported by the scriptures.

Belief itself is a work. JESUS SAID, in John 6:27-29. 27  Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
28  ¶Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29  Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Belief and baptism are connected , not disconnected. ( Mark 16:16, Acts 8:12-16;8:36-39 16:31-34;18:8).
Repentance and baptism are connected, not disconnected.( Acts 2:38).
Confession and baptism are connected.( Acts 8:36-39.

Baptism is a work of God. PAUL affirms this in Col. 2:12. It reads Colossians 2:12  Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Last time I checked when someone is operating they are working. Unless,you have changed the meaning of the word operate ,too.

I say this kindly but your assertions are as
Jeremiah said, in 2:13,  For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. Your doctrine holds no water. No pun intended.

 

Of course God alone confers grace, but you are creating a false dichotomy between God being the source of grace and bestower of grace and water baptism which is the occasion/medium in which we receive God's grace through faith.

The illustration of Naaman the Syrian from the OT is helpful. God is the One who graciously heals Naaman of leprosy in the waters of the Jordan River, which Naaman immersed himself in seven times by faith in the instructions of God's prophet. There was nothing "magical" about the waters of the Jordan; they had no innate power to heal leprosy. Yet God chose to use the bathing in the Jordan as His occasion to heal Naaman of his leprosy. Likewise, immersion in water cannot of itself wash away sins, but God uses the waters of baptism as the occasion in which He cleanses the sinner and unites him to Christ.

So if God wants to use matter to convey His grace, who are we to argue? Afterall, He graciously became a physical man who shed physical blood being nailed with physical nails to a physical cross for our atonement.

 

Link:

What constitutes a Supper? Book, Chapter and Verse? If you cannot answer biblically, why press the issue. I do things decently and in order. I partake of the Lord's supper in the manner in which it is described.( Mat.26:26-30). I refuse to go beyond that which is written.( I Cor. 4:16). It must also be note the Supper was abused also in I Cor. 11. It had become a drunken feast of a physical nature. We often times have a fellowship meal at our building on the first day. However, it is not the one described in the Bible for remembering the Lord's death until he comes. There is a difference.
Let it be noted, that in Acts 20:7 the text indicates Paul was the singular preacher at this meeting. He was preachihg to his disciples. it is scriptural for one tohave a singular preacher during a service. However,at our congreagation, we have our young men, sometimes two and three, read scriptures before I preach. I always make sure the audience has the chance to ask any questions about what has been taught. They may address it to me or another member of the congregation. Again, it is done decently and in order. You could have 12 people preach if the congregation so desired. However, I believe the pot roast would be burned if you did. LOL!

I do not trust in any man's " common sense." I do not appeal to history for my authority for practice.

The silence argument has been substantiated by scripture. I posted them. Your rebuttal was the " argument is lame." Your rebuttal is actually lame.

As for Hebrews 10:24,25, one may exort another in several ways in the assembly. He may exhort by singing. ( Col. 3;16, Eph. 5:19). He may pray with others.( James 5;15,16). All people are not commanded to teach or preach during an assembly.

 

Frank,

I'm pretty adept with classical Greek so you needn't inform me of the words here.

Regarding the Acts verse...

One step, two step, and bow to your partner! You're still dancing around my question! In Acts 16:30,31 was Paul, or was he not, correct in his answer????

Yes or no?

 

DT,

Dominus vobiscum my son!

You're still sounding a little popish!

So how is baptism different than circumcision? It's physical (boy is it!) too. Both are works which mean nothing without faith.

And what about the sinner on the cross? He wasn't baptized.

 

Frank wrote,
**What constitutes a Supper? Book, Chapter and Verse? If you cannot answer biblically, why press the issue. I do things decently and in order.**

What constitutes 'order?' What if someone wanted to define the word 'order' to mean 'everyone jumping around loudly, acting like a chicken" and demanded that you provide book, chapter and verse to prove otherwise.

Words have meaning. 'Supper' refers to a meal. The Greek word for 'supper' (deipnon if memory serves me correctly) according to Greek dictionaries, refers to a meal eaten toward evening. This is a matter of what the words used mean. You don't find a lot of verses of scripture that give dictionary definitions of words. What if someone wanted to redefine baptizo to mean 'sprinkle some water on a baby's head.' The problem is, 'baptizo' has a MEANING, and it doesn't mean sprinkle water on a baby's head. Deipnon/Supper refers to a meal.

If you want chapter and verse, find that verse in I Corinthians 11 that says 'it is not the Lord's Supper that ye eat.' I expect you, as a preacher, to be able to find verses like that. I don't have my Bible search program on this machine, so I won't do all your homework for you.

** I partake of the Lord's supper in the manner in which it is described.( Mat.26:26-30).**

Do you eat it during a meal as verse 26, which you refer to, shows?)

** I refuse to go beyond that which is written.( I Cor. 4:16).**

So then do you eat a supper rather than the tiny crackers and thimbles full of wine?

** It must also be note the Supper was abused also in I Cor. 11. It had become a drunken feast of a physical nature. We often times have a fellowship meal at our building on the first day. However, it is not the one described in the Bible for remembering the Lord's death until he comes. There is a difference.**

Why don't you remember the Lord's death during a fellowship meal. According to I Corinthians 10, the meal should be a fellowship meal. I Corinthians 10 also mentions the 'table of the Lord'-- table! That's a 'meal' word there! Paul tells the Corinthians they cannot partake of the Lord's table and the table of devils. No doubt the pagan temples had table to eat at. But the Christians also ate at tables in the homes they met in.

**Let it be noted, that in Acts 20:7 the text indicates Paul was the singular preacher at this meeting. **

What this shows me is that you haven't studied the subject enough before you commented on it. As I pointed out earlier, the 'preaching' here is the Greek word we get 'dialogue' from. Paul 'spoke with' the brethren all night. KJV says 'preached' but that is KJV, and not the origial great. You aren't a KJV-onlyiest are you?

**He was preachihg to his disciples. it is scriptural for one to have a singular preacher during a service. However,at our congreagation, we have our young men, sometimes two and three, read scriptures before I preach. I always make sure the audience has the chance to ask any questions about what has been taught. They may address it to me or another member of the congregation. Again, it is done decently and in order. You could have 12 people preach if the congregation so desired. However, I believe the pot roast would be burned if you did. LOL!**

The Bible also says 'Let the prophets speak two or three". If a church disobeys this, it disobeys scripture. What about your church. Do you guys obey this? What would you do if a prophet stood to share a revelation in church?

**The silence argument has been substantiated by scripture. I posted them. Your rebuttal was the " argument is lame." Your rebuttal is actually lame.**

You refer to something scripture _specifically forbids_ as an example of your argument about silence. The verses you quoted don't back up your principle. You'll have to do better than that. Besides, scripture isn't silent about musical instruments. Scripture is positive about praising God to instrumental accompaniment.

**As for Hebrews 10:24,25, one may exort another in several ways in the assembly. He may exhort by singing. ( Col. 3;16, Eph. 5:19).**

Apparently, the early Corinthian church exhorted one another through singing by taking turns singing solos. I can't find any scripture that specifically authorizes CONGREGATIONAL SINGING in the church meeting. Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19 ('speaking to yourselves') could just as well refer to individuals taking turns singing solos to the group, according to one retired Greek professor I know. Since there is no scripture that commands everyone singing at the same time, if I used your 'silence' hermenuetic, I might be compelled to reject congregational singing and insist on solos.

But since I don't accept your hermenuetical methodology, which you haven't proven by scripture, I have to take into account that 'group singing' occurs in the OT and in Revelation.

As a side note, in 200 AD, according to Tertullian, Christians sang solos to one another after the Agape Supper.

 

Is baptism a work of God or a work of man? I thought that the Church of Christ rejected baptismal regeneration because they considered baptism a work of man not a work of God. Was I mistaken?

 

Oh no...the old Roman Catholic bogeyman! ....just to reassure you I reject "papism" or "popery" or whatever else one can call it. However, I generally (but not necessarily completely) agree with them on baptism. (Though I think sprinkling can hardly be called "baptism" )

Because in circumcision we're not buried and resurrected with Christ. In circumcision we're not "born from above".

I already addressed exceptions such as that in an earlier post. (One must also note that the thief's repentence took place before the Resurrection.) However, the exceptions don't disprove the rule. We are bound to baptism, but God is not.

 

Link:
The question about the Supper was rhetorrical.
Furthermore, there is a distinction between the common meal and the obersvance of the Lord's Supper. The fellwoship meal is not commanded. The observance of the Lord's Supper is. Again, there is a difference.
1 Corinthians 11:23  ¶For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24  And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25  After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26  For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27  Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Please note the fellowship meal.

20  When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
21  For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
22  What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

Note they had houses in which to eat their common meal. Again, the meals are different.

Paul is explicit about this when he said the night he was betrayed this was to be instituted. The passover meal they were eating had long been established prior to this.( Mat, 26:26-30).

The text of I Cor. 11 paul describes two meals one the Lord's supper. ( Mat. 26:26-30), and the common one that could be eaten at home. Note the phrase have ye not houses to eat and drink in?( verse 22).

You seem to be very good at asking questions, but have a proclivity for not answering them as well.
Again, what foods and how much are consumned at the Lord's Supper?
What foods are consumned at the common meal?
Are the two meals different? If not, why not? How do you know?

Your professor friend must have not read Hebrews 2:12, along side Col. 3;16, Eph. 5:19.  Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
Therefore, when one is engaged in singing he is speaking to others who are present in the church. This is called IMPLICATION from scripture. Your professor friend should do his homework.The phrase speaking to yourselves is a reciprocal receptive pronoun which requires folk to speak to each other at the same time.

Again, when and if you get to heaven, you can make your argument about instruments, but first you better learn to play the harp. LOL!

[ July 14, 2004, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: Frank ]

 

Baptism as a work of God: "by one Spirit are ye baptized into one body" (becoming a Christian or member of Christ's body, upon belief and repentance)(1 Cor. 12:13). Water baptism (man's work) was the outward symbol of this transaction, not the means of saving in itself.

 

Eric:
The scriptures teach baptism is a part of salvation for the sinner. The Bible says in Galatians 3:26  For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27  For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29  And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
We become children of God. How? By faith in Christ Jesus. ( vs, 26).

We are the children of God by faith. When? By being baptized into Christ.(vs. 27).

The Eunoch, who had believed and confessed in Acts 8, rejoiced AFTER he was baptized into Christ, not before.( Acts 8:39,40).

You said, " Baptism as a work of God: "by one Spirit are ye baptized into one body" (becoming a Christian or member of Christ's body, upon belief and repentance)(1 Cor. 12:13). Water baptism (man's work) was the outward symbol of this transaction, not the means of saving in itself." The scripture you quote says nothing that you purport.

 

Frank wrote,
**Furthermore, there is a distinction between the common meal and the obersvance of the Lord's Supper. The fellwoship meal is not commanded. The observance of the Lord's Supper is. Again, there is a difference.**

According to Paul, the cup of blessing which we bless is the FELLOWSHIP of the blood of Christ, and the bread which we break is the FELLOWSHIP of the body of Christ. The Greek word for 'communion' here, 'koinonia' is the Greek word for 'fellowship.' Paul implies that the Corinthians were supposed to be eating the Lord's SUPPER and the Greek word for supper refers to a meal.

So clearly, the Lord's Supper is a meal, and it is fellowship, so it is a fellowship meal. It is not a 'common' meal in the sense of being ordinary or unsanctified. It should be 'common' in the more modern sense of the word members of a group are to partake of it.

I can't think of any scripture that specifies that Christians are supposed to partake of a meal together that is the Lord's Supper when they gather together as the church. If I were to use your 'silence' hermenutic, and the reasoning you use on instrumental music, I might be inclined to try to forbid eating meals that weren't the Lord's Supper, but I do not hold to your hermenuetic.

I would also like to point out that Paul tells the Corinthians, if any man is hungry, let him eat at home. We should consider this when we read that he asks if they had houses to eat and to drink in. He is not telling the church to collectively eat 'common meals' in houses. The people each had their own home of some sort or another, where they could eat. When they ate the Lord's Supper together, they were to eat it to remember the Lord. But even so, if they gobbled up all the food, and didn't save any for the poor, they shamed them that had not (v. 22.) This is a much weightier argument if Paul has the poor in mind.

Paul describes the ordinance as "the Lord's Supper." He also speaks of "the table of the Lord." Jude wrote of the church having 'love feasts.'


**Please note the fellowship meal.

20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

Note they had houses in which to eat their common meal. Again, the meals are different.**

In the houses, they were to eat 'ordinary meals'-- not necessarily meals eaten 'in common.' I don't think you should use 'common meal' because it has a dual meaning. Do you mean 'ordinary meal?'

Also, their church meetings likely took place in houses as was the case with other churches started through Paul's minsitry. Gaius was the 'host of the whole church' according to the greeting section of Romans 16.

Look at verse 20. The meal the Corinthians were eating was not the Lord's Supper--BUT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE. By eating greedily, the Corinthians had turned it into their own supper. (v. 21 'taketh before another his own supper."

The fact that this was SUPPOSED TO BE the Lord's Supper is shown by the fact that the Corinthians were coming under judgment for not rightly regarding the Lord's body.

They were taking, each before another, his own supper. To solve the problem of not regarding the Lord's body properly, the Corinthians were to 'tarry one for another.' Imagine all the rich people getting to the church meeting early, in an age with no clocks, while the slaves and poor had to perform duties before they could go to the meeting. (I'm imagining a 'Saturday night' meeting, as may have been the case with Acts 20, since that is the beginning of the first day of the week by Jewish reckoning. Night because they were eating supper, not lunch or breakfast.)

**The text of I Cor. 11 paul describes two meals one the Lord's supper. ( Mat. 26:26-30), and the common one that could be eaten at home. Note the phrase have ye not houses to eat and drink in?( verse 22).**


If the Corinthians were justing eating an ordinary meal to satisfy hunger, and that was all they were doing, why would Paul have warned them about being guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? They were supposed to be eating the Lord's Supper, but the way they were doing it they were actually eating their own supper. This was wrong. Paul tells the people who are hungry to eat at home. It's okay to eat to satisfy hunger, but do it at home. Notice "And if any man hunger, let him eat at home:" Notice 'if any man'. That doesn't sound like terminology to introduce the concept of a group church meal not eaten to remember the Lord. It sounds like Paul telling hungry individuals to eat at home. And this goes right along with his question "have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?"

**Again, what foods and how much are consumned at the Lord's Supper?
What foods are consumned at the common meal?
Are the two meals different? If not, why not? How do you know?**

Whatever a church eats at the meal, the church must remember the Lord through bread and wine.

My personal preference, based on scripture, (backed up with what I've read of history, too, even if you don't care for that) is to eat a meal without gluttony, and to break a single loaf of bread, if possible, with a single vessel of wine to remember the Lord. Traditionally, the last part, with the bread and wine to remember the L


**Your professor friend must have not read Hebrews 2:12, along side Col. 3;16, Eph. 5:19. Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.**

Thank you. What verse actually backs up what he was saying. That verse doesn't say anything about David or Christ singing WITH the brethren. It looks like singing a solo before the brethren to me, which is just what he was talking about. Btw, I've never heard or read my retired professor friend has not argued that congregational singing is forbidden.

**Therefore, when one is engaged in singing he is speaking to others who are present in the church. This is called IMPLICATION from scripture. Your professor friend should do his homework.The phrase speaking to yourselves is a reciprocal receptive pronoun which requires folk to speak to each other at the same time.**

Based on the responses you've sent to me so far, I would assume you aren't sight-reading a Greek New Testament as you post, as this retired professor does. Where did you get your information that the reciprocal receptive pronoun requires folk to speak to each other at the same time? Would you care to cite a source?

I've met the retired professor and church elder in person, but I've mostly communicated with him through email. Sometimes he's busy and it takes a long time to get responses. If you had a source for your quote, I'd feel better emailing him for his opinion on it. He often rebutts assertions made about Greek by citing counter-examples from the Greek New Testament, the LXX or other Greek sources.

This is a tangent of course. Since I don't hold to your argument from silence heremenuetical principle, I don't try to forbid congregational singing. Solos are supported by I Corinthians 14:26.

 

You know, if we followed apostolic practice and doctrine, a lot of these questions about baptism wouldn't have much effect on how we function as a church.

In the Bible, Peter told men under conviction to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Philip baptized the Samaritans who recieved his Gospel message. Philip apparently included baptism in his presentation of the Gospel message to the Ethiopian eunuch, and baptized the eunuch who believed and requested baptism.

When Ananias came to Saul of Tarsus, he told him to arise, and be baptized, and calling upon the name of the Lord, wash away his sins.

Later, Paul baptized the Philipian jailer and his household. When Corinthians believed, they were baptized. And on and on it goes in the book of Acts. Paul associates baptism with burial and resurrection with Christ in Romans 6 and Colossians 2.

So if we follow apostolic practice, when someone is ready to recieve the Gospel message, they will be baptized. If we did this, then the debate about whether someone who gets fed to the lions before his baptism, or how the theif on the cross could go to paradise would simply be issues of theological discussion, and not issues of how to lead people to Christ.

The Bible does not teach us to have people come down to altars, repeat sinner's prayers, and then declare them saved. Repeatedly, we see the sinners who recieved the Gospel message with faith and repentance were baptized. We should follow the teaching of scripture.

 

Link:

The point of I Cor. 11 is that those in Coritnh were not properly partaking of the Supper. Paul criticized them for making a mockery out of the Lord's Supper by fellowshipping and excluding others. The Bible says in I Cor. 11: 21,  For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
22  What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. 34  And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. all things must be done decently and in order.( I Cor. 14:40). Paul had a problem with the way these events were taking place. It can be implied that eating a common meal and attempting to also remember the death of the Lord unitl he comes is a problem. This is precisely the context of I Cor. 11.

This meal was not comanded. The exclusionary wanton behavior was condemned because it showed disrespect for Christ and respect of persons.

Furthermore, the Bible says in Acts 2:46  And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, This is a fellowship meal. It is not the same context as Acts 20:7. Context is the final factor for understanding word meanings.

In regards to temptation, we are never given more than we can stand the we may be able to bear it. This is quite different from the bear jumped into the water after the Salmon.

As for singing, it is clear by the context, the meaning of words in the text, from history and and scholarship, the church of the first century sang unaccompmnied by instruments. They actually sang together many psalms. Your contention about solos is unsubstanitated. Speaking to yourselves requires a minimum of two people communicating to each other. This is why it is called speaking to yourselves. The pronoun is plural.

Your Argument fails as per the following:

1. If you contend instruments are included, and they are not, then everyone must use them or they violate Ephesians 5;19.

2. If the vision of John authorizes the use of an instrument,then all should learn to play the harp or they violate what is written.

3. If the vision of John is a example of music in the church, and it is not figurative, it necessitates the following:
a. All must hold the harp.
b. All must be in heaven.
c. All must sing the song of Moses and the Lamb.
This is expresssly stated.

Furthermore, spiritual beings have no need for the temporal.The vision of harpers holding their harps represents praise to God. The written word says they were holding them, not playing them. The act of praise described in heaven is that of singing the song of Moses and the Lamb. ( Rev. 14:2,3;15:3).

The fact you do not like the divine respect God has for his silence and his expressed will is a problem of you rejecting the bible. I have posted many examples where this is demonstrated. You do not like it. However, it does not change the truth.

Nadab and Abihu were destroyed by fire because they offered strange fire to God that and I quote," which he commanded them not."( Leviticus 10:1,2).

Jesus could not be the High priest on earth. Jesus being from Judah could not serve in this capacity. Why? God had already expressed his will, and I quote, MOSES spake NOTHING concerning the priesthood." ( Hebrews 7:14).

In II Samuel 6:1-6, Uzzah was struck dead for steadying the shaken ark as it was riding on a new cart. God was displeased with two things. One, God did not give his expressed permission for Uzzah to steady the ark under these circumstances. He was silent. Two, The Ark was to be carried on the shoulders of the Levites using staves.( Exodus 25:13-15). God never said to use a cart. He was silent about carts. The divine record says God was displeased and punished the violators one with death. Note: in I Chronicles it is done by the expressed will of God. 26  And it came to pass, when God helped the Levites that bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, that they offered seven bullocks and seven rams. Note: in I Chronicles 15:28, the difference in obeying the expressed will of God from those who do not. The Bible says, " 28  Thus all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of the LORD with shouting, and with sound of the cornet, and with trumpets, and with cymbals, making a noise with psalteries and harps."

When men violate the expressed will of God by appealing to what God did not say they seperate themselves from God and cause death and punishment. The Bible says in Chronicles 15:13,  For because ye did it not at the first, the LORD our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order.
14  So the priests and the Levites sanctified themselves to bring up the ark of the LORD God of Israel.

Moses struck the rock in the wilderness. Unfortunatley, God had spoken expressly that he was to speak to the rock. The divine record tells us he was not allowed into the promised land because of his transgression. God never told he could not strike the rock. Rather, God told him expressly what to do.( Numbers 20:7-12;27:12-14).

God repects his expressed will and silence. It is unacceptable for men to act without faith which is found in his word, not the absence of it.(Romans 10:27;14:23).