The Method of the Early Church

[All about Grace]

through homily I cannot dictate to your mind (my very words, BTW) to ascribe my own manner of speech to Christ, yet when acting I can, especially if this is your first exposure to the Gospel.

So it is only through the ear gate that an unadulterated message of Jesus Christ can be properly understood?

I will go back to a question asked earlier which you did not answer: should we remove all visual images of Jesus Christ? Should we remove all nativity scenes? Should we obliterate all crucifixion scenes? What about art? Should our churches abstain from Christmas & Easter pageants?

If you are going to be consistent with your limited view, all of these "images" that could possibly border on "idolatrous" should be removed for they may create, through the eye gate, a distorted image of who Jesus actually was.

Let me give you another scenario. You are in a foreign country where you cannot speak the language, yet you have been given a copy of the Jesus film in that native language. Do you keep it to yourself to avoid the potential hazard of misrepresenting Jesus? Do you begin preaching in English and hope they understand (some type of post-Acts tongues experience)? or Do you do simply do nothing?

God is not pleased nor served by this kind of outward pomp and show.

So now you are able to discern which evangelicals are pleasing and serving God and which are not?

Can God only be honored through a certain type of baptistry? Can you provide us with that blueprint? The true issue here is motive of the heart not type of baptistry, so unless you are the judge of all hearts (which you may be if you can determine when God is pleased and served), your words are simply opinion and preference.

And while we're on the subject, are you suggesting that all the outward trappings of the Roman church, e.g. priestly garments, the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, the head bobbers, the kneelers, the statues, the kissing of rings, etc., would be just peachy if the doctrine were pure? After all, by your definition these things are only methods, and culturally relevant methods at that.

Methods in and of themselves are not wrong. But methods that violate scriptural principles are wrong. You cannot seperate the "outward trappings" of the RCC from the doctrine and purpose behind them

There are many ritualistic trappings performed every Sunday in evangelical churches. I was reminded of this a few weeks ago when I talked with a young Muslim lady who visited our church for a few weeks to "investigate" Christianity. Our conversation reminded me of the many traditional trappings that are nothing more than outdated means of convenience. Trappings can come in many forms.

Not all devices are hallowed either.

And you get to determine which are and which are not

BTW, You may want to go back and answer the two questions I raised at the end of the earlier post.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I'm a little embarrassed to call myself a IFB and on this particular forum, when I see the bitter and caustic spirit evidenced.

Hey, give each other a little break, okay? Don't put words/motives in someone else's mouth. And assume that they are somehow "afraid" if they happen to not post within an hour.

This is NOT a chat forum. You present a position and then if someone disagrees, they might post immediately . . or in two weeks.

Just sharing my opinion. Take it for so many characters on the screen.

 

[Aaron]

Methods in and of themselves are not wrong. But methods that violate scriptural principles are wrong. You cannot seperate the "outward trappings" of the RCC from the doctrine and purpose behind them.

You said the magic word. You've won a hundred dollars!

I would add that no outward trapping can be divorced from the purpose behind them. Can you honestly say that a firetruck baptistry was designed to please God and not man?

I will go back to a question asked earlier which you did not answer: should we remove all visual images of Jesus Christ?

I don't remember you asking this before. Absolutely we should remove all visual images of Christ.

Should we remove all nativity scenes?

No, just the image of Christ.

Should we obliterate all crucifixion scenes?
Absolutely.

What about art?

Aren't all the above art?

Should our churches abstain from Christmas & Easter pageants?

The pompous pageants, obviously.

[ December 21, 2002, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

[Aaron]

So it is only through the ear gate that an unadulterated message of Jesus Christ can be properly understood?

Asked and answered.

Let me give you another scenario. You are in a foreign country where you cannot speak the language, yet you have been given a copy of the Jesus film in that native language. Do you keep it to yourself to avoid the potential hazard of misrepresenting Jesus?

Absolutely. Again, the Spirit is behind preaching, not drama.

Do you begin preaching in English and hope they understand (some type of post-Acts tongues experience)? or Do you do simply do nothing?

When I am weak, then am I strong. I would not show the Jesus Film. If God did not give me the supernatural ability to speak the language, then I would begin to learn the language and to translate the Scriptures into that language.

 

[All about Grace]

methods that violate scriptural principles are wrong

And yet this is the very truth you have failed repeatedly to prove.

Can you honestly say that a firetruck baptistry was designed to please God and not man?

I can honestly say it was designed to celebrate a child's commitment to Christ and subsequent decision to be baptized (after personal counseling and direction on the meaning of baptism). What you cannot say is that one's motives can be judged based upon the type of baptistry they design.

Can you honestly say that it was NOT designed to please God?

SBC: Should we remove all nativity scenes?

Aaron: No, just the image of Christ.

Yet even a nativity scene without the image of Christ could lead to a distorted understanding of Jesus Himself. Inconsistency shines through.

SBC: Should our churches abstain from Christmas & Easter pageants?

Aaron: The pompous pageants, obviously.

Inconsistency again. Any pageant can provide a distorted view of who Jesus is, and therefore (according to your view) should be avoided.

Again, the Spirit is behind preaching, not drama.

Once again you speak on behalf of God in regards to a position God himself has not clarified in the text. Can you point me to a specific text that states clearly that the Spirit is NOT behind drama.

Second point: what type of preaching is the Spirit behind? A particular style, length, content, etc. ? Is preaching limited to your particular style and format? Can it be performed one-on-one?

I would not show the Jesus Film

And you would miss out on a great opportunity to share Jesus with those who may not otherwise hear. God uses many means. I am just sorry you have limited yourself to one. Well actually I doubt you have limited yourself to one. You simply pick and choose what is appropriate and what is not.

LURKERS who may have a similar attitude as Bob: Please do not misunderstand my posts. Baptist Board is mere entertainment for me. There is nothing that occurs here that I take personally. And none of my posts are personal attacks. I am not sure everyone maintains this same mindset, but I do not take anything said to heart. If my words appear harsh at times, they are intended innocently. I cannot speak for Aaron or the others, but I do not believe they have malicious intent either. Who cares? It is all for fun.

 

[Aaron]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Can you honestly say that a firetruck baptistry was designed to please God and not man?

I can honestly say it was designed to celebrate a child's commitment to Christ and subsequent decision to be baptized (after personal counseling and direction on the meaning of baptism). What you cannot say is that one's motives can be judged based upon the type of baptistry they design.</font>[/QUOTE]Certainly I can, because the design communicates the motives. A firetruck baptistry cannot serve any purpose other than to tickle the eyes of man--warm and fuzzy feelings about a child's commitment notwithstanding.

Can you honestly say that it was NOT designed to please God?

Certainly. Can you describe how God would take delight in such a frivolous undertaking?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> SBC: Should we remove all nativity scenes?

Aaron: No, just the image of Christ.

Yet even a nativity scene without the image of Christ could lead to a distorted understanding of Jesus Himself. Inconsistency shines through.</font>[/QUOTE]You seem to endorse unbridled creativity yet cannot imagine how the Christ child could be represented without an image? But it's not important. Toss the nativity scene for all I care. What does God care about it except that it could only do just as you say.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> SBC: Should our churches abstain from Christmas & Easter pageants?

Aaron: The pompous pageants, obviously.
</font>[/QUOTE]Inconsistency again. Any pageant can provide a distorted view of who Jesus is, and therefore (according to your view) should be avoided. </font>[/QUOTE]Not inconsistent at all. I guess it depends on what you mean by pageant. If your definition is as loose as it is for "method" it could mean anything. Those programs which simply present the Gospel narratives (without drama) and hymns of Christmas cannot dictate to one's mind an image of Christ inconsistent with the Scriptures.

Drama on the otherhand can do nothing else.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Again, the Spirit is behind preaching, not drama.

Once again you speak on behalf of God in regards to a position God himself has not clarified in the text. Can you point me to a specific text that states clearly that the Spirit is NOT behind drama.</font>[/QUOTE]I know that God has said He has chosen preaching. He has not said that about drama. There is one aspect of Greek drama that Christ mentioned over and over again only in woe. Can you tell me what that is?

Again, I have a firm foundation in the Scriptures when I say God has chosen preaching. You only have presumption to say God is has also chosen exhibition. It seems to me that you are the one who is guilty of speaking for God on a subject He has chosen not to dignify with any mention in the Scriptures except to pronounce woe upon it.

Second point: what type of preaching is the Spirit behind? A particular style, length, content, etc. ? Is preaching limited to your particular style and format? Can it be performed one-on-one?

What is the model given to us through Christ and His Apostles?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I would not show the Jesus Film

And you would miss out on a great opportunity to share Jesus with those who may not otherwise hear. God uses many means. I am just sorry you have limited yourself to one. Well actually I doubt you have limited yourself to one. You simply pick and choose what is appropriate and what is not.</font>[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]Not true. With a degree in Theatre Arts, which method do you think I would chose if it were up to me?

[ December 21, 2002, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by SBCbyGRACE:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> methods that violate scriptural principles are wrong

And yet this is the very truth you have failed repeatedly to prove.</font>[/QUOTE]SBCbyGRACE, this post leaves me confused. You complain that Aaron has not proved this, yet you stated the same thing in your sixth post on page 3:

Methods in and of themselves are not wrong. But methods that violate scriptural principles are wrong.

Are you asking that he prove that which you admit to be true? Or did you mean something else?

 

[rlvaughn]

To quote the words of my esteemed colleague:

Originally posted by SBCbyGRACE:
What happened????
I am interested in your response to my previous post.
Did you...what is that term you like to use...BAIL???

 

[All about Grace]

Certainly I can, because the design communicates the motives. A firetruck baptistry cannot serve any purpose other than to tickle the eyes of man--warm and fuzzy feelings about a child's commitment notwithstanding.

Sorry I forgot I was discussing these issues with the all-knowing judge of both human and divine hearts and motives.

Certainly. Can you describe how God would take delight in such a frivolous undertaking?

God takes delight in persons coming to faith in Him and following Him in obedience. I hate to disappoint you but you are not the determiner of what is frivolous and what is not.

What is the model given to us through Christ and His Apostles?

This fails to answer the question.

Many scholars would argue the preaching of Jesus and the preaching of the apostles are two different issues. I tend to believe both serve as proper models.

However since we have only two condensed forms of apostolic sermons, I would hesitate to suggest they serve as the exhaustive models of "preaching." If they do, toss out expository preaching as a proper model.

You still have not answered the two questions from a previous post regarding the exhaustiveness of the EC model.

[ December 31, 2002, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: SBCbyGRACE ]

 

[All about Grace]

SBCbyGRACE, this post leaves me confused. You complain that Aaron has not proved this, yet you stated the same thing in your sixth post on page 3:

My only point is that Aaron has failed to show how these methods violate a clear scriptural principle.

 

[Aaron]

I'm tired. I think I'll bail.

S'long. Glad you were willing to argue with me. I love lively discussions. Really.

 

[All about Grace]

Originally posted by Aaron:
I'm tired. I think I'll bail.

S'long. Glad you were willing to argue with me. I love lively discussions. Really.

Your choice.

I have enjoyed the discussion.

I do think a subject worth pursuing at some point is whether the EC is an exhaustive, prescriptive model for doing ministry or whether it is more descriptive of what took place. Many of the method issues stem from this primary point.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by SBCbyGRACE:
I do think a subject worth pursuing at some point is whether the E[arly] C[hurch] is an exhaustive, prescriptive model for doing ministry or whether it is more descriptive of what took place...

Good point, perhaps you will consider formulating such a topic in the near future.