I am conflicted in my desire to write this article. There are some who, no doubt, will see this as an attack on my brethren within the churches of Christ. That is not at all my motivation. I think it is arrogant to think that there aren’t things that we could do better, though. There are some changes that I wish we could make and I want to talk about them. I hope that some of my brethren will discuss these things with me here, but there is something of a “mafia mentality” that exists within our brotherhood that I find troubling at times. What I mean by that is that there are many who think and say, “don’t talk about the church outside of the church”. I wish that all matters could be discussed and resolved without any public discussion, but once division occurs, it isn’t always possible. What I’d like to discuss here are three areas in which I’d like to see change take place within the churches of Christ.
Removal of the “Professional Christian”
To be certain, those who preach the gospel are entitled to live by it. The apostle Paul said, “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” (1 Corinthians 9:14). Those who spend their lives preaching the gospel of Christ have every right to be supported financially in their work. I am not disputing this in any way. What I do have a problem with is the concept of a “professional Christian”. This is where the preacher is paid to do all of the work that the entire congregation should be doing (teaching, visiting the sick, etc.). I am convinced that this is borrowed from the denominational “pastor” system.
There has been debate in the past over the issue of the “located preacher” – one who stays in one place for long periods of time, or permanently. I think that the scriptures teach that the located preacher is definitely an approved Biblical expediency. Timothy, I think, is a good example of this. He was left by Paul in Ephesus to teach, while Paul continued his work as a missionary in Macedonia (1 Timothy 1:3). Does this mean that this is the ideal situation? I am convinced that it isn’t necessarily. Look:
The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. (1 Timothy 5:17)
This is a passage that teaches that elders are worthy of financial compensation, especially when they are devoted to preaching and teaching. How many congregations pay their elders to preach and teach? How many balk at the notion of a man serving as both an elder and a preacher? I am not saying that you can’t find congregations that pay their elders, or congregations that have elders who are also preachers. I am saying that this appears to be the exception, rather than the rule. Look again:
Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; (James 5:14)
Who should the sick call for? James says that it is the elders of the church. In many congregations it is the preacher who is called when someone is sick or in the hospital. This isn’t to say that the elders are not called, but we expect to see the preacher at the hospital bed. There are many other passages that I could post to show that the responsibilities that are often put primarily on the shoulders of the preacher are responsibilities directly given to elders and to each member of the Lord’s church.
I think that the big problem with this is that it leads to the hireling mentality. Look at what Jesus said about hirelings in John 10:
12But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. 13The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
When a man is hired to do all of the work that the entire congregation is charged to do, we end up with hirelings. We end up with men who view the position of the preacher as just another job, constantly searching for the highest pay and the best benefits. Since this is their profession, they may feel compelled not to preach the whole counsel of God for fear of losing their livelihood. Again, this is not to say that this is what all of those who are located preachers do, but it does happen.
There are a couple of things about the apostle Paul that I think are noteworthy:
Acts 18: 2And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome) and came unto them. 3And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers. 4And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
Here is the apostle Paul, boldly preaching the word, and yet working with Aquila and Priscilla as a tentmaker. Granted, Paul had the benefit of inspiration and didn’t have to study as we do, yet I find it telling that he was able to preach as he did and yet still work a “regular” job like the rest of us. Also:
2 Thessalonians 3: 8…nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you;
Again, the apostle is shown working a job just like those he was around so he wouldn’t be a financial burden to them. Did he have the right to ask them to compensate him? Absolutely. Even though he had that right, he didn’t demand it. How many today would do the work of the great apostle and not ask to be financially supported for it?
So what is my solution? I would like to see more congregations encouraging the men within the congregations to preach the word. I would like to see more elders being financially supported to do the work they are called to in God’s word. I would like to see members of the church actually be zealous for good works as we are expected to be (Titus 2:14). I would like to see the money that is often spent on preacher’s salaries used to care for and support our brethren around the world. Let me be clear, I am not calling for the elimination of located preachers, but I am hoping that we might one day see that position as expediency, and not the way it must be.
Abandoning the “Just Get Them In The Water” Mind frame
Let me define what I mean by the “just get them in the water” mind frame – too often, in my opinion, there is a rush to baptize individuals without making sure that they realize what they are getting into. Many seem to think that a person can become a Christian at an early age, continue to live just like their peers (in a worldly fashion), and “get serious” about their faith later. This is completely contrary to what following Christ is all about. Consider this:
Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Jesus is the mediator of a covenant. A covenant is a contract. How often are we warned of not signing a contract until we have read it in full? How foolish would we be if we signed a financial contract without first understanding the responsibilities that we are taking on? How much more so is it foolish to allow people to enter into a covenant with Jesus without understanding what He expects of us? Look:
Luke 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
Becoming a Christian involves denying self, taking up our cross and following Christ all of our days. How many of our young people understand this? Entering into a covenant with God because their friends are, because their parents expect it, or for any other reason other than to serve and follow God is not acceptable.
Part of my problem with this mentality is the inconsistencies that go along with it. For example, most churches of Christ (rightly) reject denominational baptism. We will take an individual who had a great deal of Biblical knowledge at the time of their denominational baptism and tell them that they should be immersed again in the proper mode and for the proper reason. I am convinced that we are right to do this based upon Acts 19. We will not consider that person a brother in Christ until they do so. However, we will take a child of 9 or 10 years of age who has no real understanding of what they are doing and baptize them. As they grow older, they will be allowed to serve and lead in the church without any scrutiny of their original commitment. This is inconsistent.
Again, I think there is a solution to this. When we are dealing with the young we need to make sure they understand what they are committing to before we baptize them. We need to make sure that those who want to give themselves to Christ have the knowledge that they need beforehand. I would definitely say that we must err on the side of caution – not refusing baptism because we don’t think that the person lacks the mature knowledge we may possess, or because we think we know the individual’s motives better than they do. This is a difficult subject, and must be handled with extreme caution, but I think we have a great responsibility to our young people in this matter.
Truly Pursue Unity With the Brethren
This last area in which I would like to see change made is perhaps the most difficult. Once division occurs it is often nearly impossible to repair. We often quote Jesus’ prayer for unity:
John 17: 20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
I am concerned that many, while professing their desire for unity, aren’t truly willing to take the steps to ensure it. Look at what Paul said:
1 Corinthians 8: 13Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.
Paul would have preferred giving up meat altogether before he would allow it to cause his brother to stumble. I think this shows us the lengths that we must be willing to go to if we’re going to have the unity Christ prayed for. Occasionally we’re going to have to give something up, usually our pride and self-righteousness, in order to maintain unity.
The division between the so-called “institutional” and “non-institutional” churches of Christ is a blight upon our brotherhood. This division should have never occurred. It is that simple. If a brother feels that the congregation should use its funds to support only Christians, then the rest should bear with him and not ask him to violate his conscience. If a brother is convinced that the church should not eat in the church building, then no one should ask him to do that which he is convinced he shouldn’t through the word of God. Is it not easier to tell the congregation that if they want to give as individuals to orphan homes or Christian schools that they should do so, but the congregation will not be doing it out of the treasury? Is it not easier to just say that the congregation will meet at a home or a restaurant to share a meal? Look how far Paul was willing to go:
Acts 16: 1Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, 2and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. 3Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
Paul knew that circumcision no longer had anything to do with a person’s relationship with God, but he was willing to have Timothy circumcised in order to avoid confrontation with the Jews. Never mind Paul, look at what Timothy was willing to endure! They did something I would call “drastic”, yet brethren were unwilling to take simple steps years ago to maintain the unity that we are called to.
Look at the results of this division – the denominational world points their fingers and says, “you say you want unity, but you don’t even have unity among yourselves”. Even worse, this has gone from being a matter of opinion in many minds to a matter of salvation. Non-institutional brethren damn their mainstream brethren over the support of orphan’s homes. Mainstream brethren damn their non-institutional brethren for “extremism”. How can unity be achieved when the division has run so deep?
If it could bring about unity I would tear out every kitchen that offended my brothers. I would partake of the Lord’s Supper from only one container if it would bring us together. I would (and do) give personally to orphan homes and Christian schools and allow the treasury of the congregation to be used only for the saints if it would heal wounds. I would make any concession, as long as it didn’t violate the will of God, in order to maintain unity with my brethren. While I could never teach that using multiple containers for the Lord’s Supper, or using the treasury to help non-saints is a matter of salvation, I would bear patiently with my brother who felt strongly about those matters, doing all I could to keep the bond of peace.
Conclusion
I love the church of our Lord because He gave His life for it. I love my brothers and sisters in Christ and I know that we are not perfect. There are things that we could work on, things that we could strive for, to make sure that we are pleasing to God. The things I have written about here are some of my concerns that I felt like sharing with my brethren. If you have thoughts on these issues, I’d like to hear them. If you’ve made it this far, I thank you for your time and apologize for the lengthiness of this post. May God bless you.
79 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 3, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Truth
Sorry, but I’m not having this type of discussion on this topic – Corey
February 3, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Jeff
Amen to all of those things!
February 3, 2009 at 9:13 pm
coreydavis
I’m glad to know you share the same concerns, Jeff.
February 4, 2009 at 12:19 am
ProdigalKnot
Corey,
I am glad to see you address the predominant focus of the churches of Christ in just getting people baptized. Faith and repentance have to come first. Otherwise we are giving people as false a sense of “being saved” as the Roman Catholic church does. While baptism may wash away sins, I am convinced it does not regenerate hearts. Only the Holy Spirit can do that and that works in concert with the Gospel being explained correctly. Teaching baptism is not the gospel. That’s like sealing an envelope and putting a stamp on it without including the letter! I believe that is why Christ Jesus told His disciples “Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you.” (John 15:3)
February 4, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Henry Neufeld
I might quibble with some details of implementation, but I think you’re pretty much on the right track in all three points.
February 4, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Harvey Johnson
ProdigalKnot states, “Teaching baptism is not the gospel.” I agree with him/her insomuch as the gospel is MORE than baptism, BUT you can’t teach the gospel without teaching baptism because it is an inextricable part of it.
First, note Paul’s “definition of the Gospel” in I Cor 15:1-4. The Gospel IS the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus. You can’t have a Gospel with only the death or only the death and burial nor with just a resurretion… you require all three.
Second, note the significanse of obeying the Gospel as related in 2 Thes 1:8. Salvation depends on it.
Third, in practice, it is impossible to obey facts (2+2=4, obey that, you can’t), so we look to NT examples to see how folks ‘obeyed the Gospel’ back then. The example clearest to me is that of the Romans found in Romans Chapter 6. Verse 17 and 18 sums up their conversion by stating (King James) that they obeyed a ‘form’ of the doctine that was delivered to them. A form is a likeness. Note verses 3-6 when Paul recounts their conversion via repentance (death to the old self, vs 6), baptism (burial, vs 4) and rising from the water (resurrection, vs 4-5). Notice that repentance and baptism are a likeness (form) of Christ’s death, burial and ressurection. I believe this is how we obey the Gospel today.
Blessings.
February 4, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Harvey Johnson
Corey,
I believe that you are in tune with God’s will in these areas. There are ALWAYS ways in which we can grow – individually and as a church.
February 4, 2009 at 3:46 pm
coreydavis
Harvey,
I appreciate your comments and I think you are correct. I think one of the problems that many have is that they see the death, burial & resurrection as the only elements of the gospel. Scott Wiley has written some excellent articles on this subject that I think are beneficial to everyone:
Gospel, What’s In It? Part One:
http://scotthere.preachersfiles.com/2008/08/07/gospel-whats-in-it/
Gospel, What’s In It? Part Two:
http://scotthere.preachersfiles.com/2008/11/06/gospel-whats-in-it-part-2/
Gospel, What’s In It? Part Three:
http://scotthere.preachersfiles.com/2008/11/13/gospel-whats-in-it-part-3/
February 4, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Harvey Johnson
Corey,
Absolutely. The DBR is not the Gospel in it’s totality, but I believe it is foundational, quintessential, you add the adjective. There are consequences of focusing on the DBR to the exclusion of the other elements of the Gospel. However, the predominant problem in Christendom today, I believe, is the ‘glossing over’ of the DBR and the critical nature of obeying the gospel (as the Roman Christians did).
Here’s a link to a message dealing with this topic (a little more than 3 minutes of your time) that I just came across. The speaker is trying to develop the thought that the Gospel is much more than conventionally thought of. Sadly, though he is trying to expand current denominational thought on this topic, he makes the mistake of glossing over the critical business of obeying the Gospel as the point at which we are ‘brought to God.’ I’d like to hear your thoughts on this.
Thanks for sharing your time with me.
Blessings! http://www.christianity.com/blogs/Pohlman/11599030/
February 4, 2009 at 6:23 pm
coreydavis
Harvey,
I agree with your assessment of the importance of the DBR. Paul said that those matters were of “first importance” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). I think, sadly, that when we preach the DBR that many have a “yeah, I’ve heard this before” attitude. It is the very foundation of our faith, and I don’t think it can be proclaimed enough.
I wasn’t able to view the entire video. It repeatedly stopped short of 2 minutes and wouldn’t go any further. From what I saw, I think that he did a good job of showing the magnitude of the gospel. It should be viewed as incredible, not as mundane facts.
It is good to have you here and I hope that you’ll participate in the ongoing discussions.
February 4, 2009 at 8:57 pm
walkinginlove
I know you do not consider me a brother but I do agree with your reasoning in the original post 100%!!!!
One personal matter, I would like to apologize to you for any offense I have given you in the past, I have been harsh with you because of the issues in our local area that are not your fault nor your concern. It was wrong of me to ask you to pick sides in the matter! Oh if you edit this post out I will understand considering your original context in your request for a response.
God Bless,
WIL
February 4, 2009 at 9:01 pm
coreydavis
Don’t worry about it. I appreciate and accept your apology.
February 4, 2009 at 11:05 pm
lee
i post this in full awareness of the pummeling i will receive.
First, note Paul’s “definition of the Gospel” in I Cor 15:1-4. The Gospel IS the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus. You can’t have a Gospel with only the death or only the death and burial nor with just a resurretion… you require all three.
1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
thanks
lee
February 5, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Harvey Johnson
Lee,
I only just recently joined this blog and so far, I haven’t seen anyone ‘pummeled.’ That’s one of the things that attracted me to it, it’s just a place to share ideas and heartfelt beliefs concerning our Lord and Savior.
I’m convinced that our ideas and heartfelt beliefs must be shaped by the Word of God (the Bible) and, specifically, the New Testament that came into force when Jesus died (Heb 9:16-18 and 8:6-8). It seems you share this value (e.g. your reference to scripture in your blog entry). Based on that shared value, we should be able to share what we learn with each other without a fear of ‘being proven wrong’, etc. Because, as seekers of truth, being proven wrong is a blessing!
The context surrounding Paul’s statement in I Cor 1:17 has nothing to do with baptism or preaching the Gospel directly. He is emphasizing his disgust/disdain, etc. to the lack of unity the Christians at this church are displaying in their words/actions. Certainly, he’s not saying that baptism is not a charge/responsibility given to him by Jesus Christ (see Matt 28: 19-20 and Mark 16: 15-16). Preaching the Gospel is so much more than baptism (the orginal thought of this string), BUT it does include it and can not be complete without it.
Blessings,
Harvey
February 5, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Harvey Johnson
Corey,
I wanted to share my experience with you in light of your thoughts on “Removal of the Professional Christian.”
I attended a Christian College and worked as a youth minister for one year and a pulpit minister for one year while in college. I had planned to teach high school after graduation, but was recruited to be a full-time associate minister in a congregation in my home state. Though, I’d always felt a strong ‘calling’ to teach/preach at any opportunity, I did not feel comfortable as a ‘paid preacher.’ I actually had an individual in the church try to influence what I preached because ‘they paid me.’ I was disillusioned and left full-time work promising myself never to take money for it again. I taught high school for a couple of years, then joined the US Air Force where I’ve been for the last 27.5 years. God has given me opportunities to teach and preach everywhere we’ve been stationed (3 times overseas). I’ll retire in a couple more years and hope to be busy in ministry where ever we end up (at no charge!).
This is just me and in NO WAY suggests that others are wrong for being paid to preach (you covered that well in your article). I just like the thought that the US government pays my living while I serve God and others as opportunity arises.
Blessings.
Harvey
February 5, 2009 at 2:44 pm
coreydavis
Lee,
I agree with much that you’ve said. I agree that the DBR is the gospel, but it is not exclusively the gospel. Notice that Paul said it was “of first importance”, meaning that it is the very foundation that the entire gospel is built upon. I often point to this in regards to the thief on the cross to show that he didn’t die under the new covenant because he couldn’t believe in the burial or the resurrection – he saw neither, nor knew of them. I would really encourage you to look at the three articles I linked to above. I think they accurately show what all is meant by the “gospel”.
I think Harvey accurately described why Paul would say that he wasn’t sent to baptize. We should note that Jesus baptized more disciples while He lived than John the Baptizer. All of those immersions are credited to Jesus (John 3:26) although He never personally immersed anyone (John 4:2). Why wouldn’t Jesus personally baptize people? I am convinced it is because it would create the same division that Paul wrote to the Corinthians about. If someone was puffed up with pride because they were personally immersed by Paul, imagine the arrogance of one whose baptism had been performed by the Lord Himself.
February 5, 2009 at 2:50 pm
cthoward
Harvey,
Sounds like a separation of church and state lawsuit waiting to happen…the government pays your living so that you can serve God and preach the gospel. Better keep that quiet or they’ll rule that no government employee can have any religious affiliations.
Corey,
I agree 100% as well…especially with your thoughts on unity. Most unity movements are based on being unified despite differences of beliefs, but while maintaining differences of activity. A church may have two different services for people with different views on a particular issue. I don’t think this is what Paul was getting at. Paul, as you have pointed out, advocates that we give up our differing practices for the sake of the weaker brothers and sisters. While we might maintain separate beliefs (and we cetainly will), Paul encourages us to keep those to ourselves while bearing with those who differ. I appreciate your comments on this, and your stated willingness to conform to “non-institutional” practices to maintain unity. There are definitely viable solutions that maintain unity…we don’t have to split and fight. Thanks for the post.
In Christ,
Clint
February 5, 2009 at 2:52 pm
coreydavis
Harvey,
Your story just reinforces my beliefs. I am encouraged that you have decided that you will preach at every opportunity, yet don’t feel as if you have to make it your livelihood. I am the “fill-in” preacher at my congregation most times our regular preacher can’t be there. I love doing it. I love the study that I must do to prepare a lesson. I have never been paid for it, and don’t care if they ever pay me.
I have only been a Christian for around 8-9 years. Part of me wishes that I had known the truth earlier so that I could have gone to Memphis School of Preaching. I would just like to have experienced that level of study and instruction. I do think that in many ways it is best that I didn’t, because if I had, I probably would have ended up being that which I now oppose – a “professional Christian”.
It really encourages me to know there are brothers who feel much the same as I do about this issue. I am really happy to have you here!
February 5, 2009 at 2:56 pm
coreydavis
Harvey – if you ever write an article that you’d like me to post here, just let me know. I’d be happy to have a guest writer here.
February 5, 2009 at 3:16 pm
cthoward
Not to get too far off-topic…but since there is a little ‘gospel’ discussion going on…
Check out all of the times the word ‘gospel’ is used prior to Jesus’ DBR:
Matthew 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; 26:13
Mark 1:1 (called the beginning of the gospel); 1:14,15; 13:10; 14:9; 16:15
Luke 9:6; 16:16; 20:1
Luke 16:16 is particularly interesting:
“The law and the prophets were until John: from that time the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached, and every man entereth violently into it.”
If the gospel was preached all this time prior to the DBR of Christ, then what did it consist of? What is the good news?
BTW, notice also what Jesus says about the gospel He had been preaching before His DBR:
Matthew 24:14 (ASV)
“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony unto all the nations…” (see also Matt 26:13; Mark 13:10; 14:9 compared to Mark 16:15-16).
The gospel that was preached before the DBR is the same one that Jesus says will be preached to all nations after the DBR…
We better be careful about limiting the gospel to the DBR (or even the LDBR) since Jesus preached “the gospel of the kingdom” throughout His ministry, but very rarely mentioned His death and resurrection. We also must be careful about making NT epistle church practices part of the gospel since Christ did not preach these either, though He did preach the gospel.
In Christ,
Clint
February 5, 2009 at 3:35 pm
coreydavis
Clint,
I think the gospel that was preached at the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry would have been “the Messiah has come”. It would also, it seems to me, have to include His teachings since they lead to eternal life.
Those teachings would be, and still are, preached today. I think we see that the gospel must not be limited to just that either. Matthew 24:14 was spoken before the DBR, and we know that the DBR is of first importance of the gospel.
I would think that since the gospel would grow to include the DBR that it would also grow to include the NT epistle church practices. They show us how the kingdom is to work, worship and behave. They show us how we can be pleasing to God. Is that not “good news” as well?
I’m just thinking off the top of my head here. Maybe I’m wrong.
February 5, 2009 at 4:03 pm
cthoward
Corey,
I know where you are coming from in including epistle things in the gospel…we could reason that since the church is the kingdom (or part of it, more correctly), and Christ preached the gospel of the kingdom, then church practices are a part of the gospel.
I am just not sure about this for a couple reasons. First, I am not sure that we ought to understand the gospel to have grown to include the DBR. I think this was already a part of the gospel, just not prominently preached by Jesus. It is of first importance because without it, as Paul says, we are fools for believing Jesus at all. But, the DBR was always implicit in Jesus’ teachings because it was prophesied and it was necessary for the good news to be good news. I believe a better way to understand this is to go at it from the “kingdom” angle, since Jesus preached the “gospel of the kingdom.” And to be King and inaugurate His kingdom Jesus had to die and resurrect (in order to ascend to the throne). Check out this post on my blog for more on this kingdom perspective: http://cthoward.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/taking-jesus-seriously-002/.
I am also tentative when it comes to accepting NT epistle church practices as a part of the gospel because first, Paul says we must not accept a different gospel (Gal 1). But, second, Paul indicates in Romans 14 that practices may differ among brethren. Comparing that with 1Cor 8 and 10, essentially Paul is making a ruling about “scriptural” church practice–that it is okay to eat meat sacrificed to idols–but recommending that that “scriptural” practice be broken for the sake of those who think it wrong (you’ve discussed this in relation to non-institutional beliefs and practices). Do you understand the implications? Paul gives the correct scriptural reasoning, but Paul says don’t do it if someone would stumble by it. Church practice, therefore, would be different in different places (indeed his instructions to Rome and Corinth seem to differ somewhat)…and Paul said not to accept a different gospel…
I will say that NT epistle church practices are God’s ideal for the church, and that the church will function properly and to its full potential if we follow these…but I am not sure we can say that they are part of the gospel. This is definitely something I need to explore more fully.
In Christ,
Clint
February 5, 2009 at 4:31 pm
coreydavis
Clint,
This is an interesting discussion, and I thank you for it.
You indicated that the DBR isn’t really an addition to the gospel from the point Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24 since it was always a part of the plan. I think that is a good & correct way of viewing it. If we can view the DBR in this way, why can’t we view the NT epistle church practices as the same?
As to Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, those are matters of personal judgment. They don’t pertain to things like God’s plan of salvation or the work/worship of the church. They show us how to treat brethren in non-essential matters. I am convinced that the plan of salvation and the work/worship of the church cannot be viewed in the same light as the non-essentials in the above chapters. I wrote an article on that here:
http://coreydavis.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/understanding-the-freedoms-of-romans-14/
I think that when we view something like whether or not the church should be lead by elders in the same way that we’d view something like whether or not someone celebrates Christmas, we’re headed down a dangerous road. So many people compare instrumental music in worship to the eating of meats. That is apples and oranges in my mind.
Thanks for the discussion.
February 5, 2009 at 5:41 pm
cthoward
In your mind, what makes them different? Maybe you addressed that in the article, which I plan to read…I just wanted to ask now. I am impatient…anyway.
You call Romans 14/1Cor 8,10 non-essential matters. If we categorize matters in this way how do we make such distinctions?
February 5, 2009 at 5:51 pm
coreydavis
Clint,
The difference, in my mind, is that these are personal convictions that are not addressed elsewhere in scripture. That is how I would make the distinction. For example – I think that the idea of the Sabbath rest was a great idea. I set aside Saturday as a day of rest and study of God’s word. You know that the Sabbath restrictions have been removed, you have a lot to do, and so you work all day Saturday.
It would be wrong for me to condemn you for working on Saturday since Jesus removed those restrictions. It would be wrong of you to condemn me for viewing Saturday as a special day of rest and study. Neither of our positions would violate any commandment of the NT, so we should each respect the views of one another.
If, however, I say that we should move worship from the Lord’s day to Saturday because I like the OT way better, then I am violating a commandment. That is an essential and I have no right to alter it.
That is the way I see it anyway.
February 5, 2009 at 6:05 pm
cthoward
Corey,
You said: “The difference, in my mind, is that these are personal convictions that are not addressed elsewhere in scripture.”
I say: But Paul appeals to scripture to clarify the “correct view.” The oneness of God and the Lordship of the one Christ were His argument for claiming that eating meat sacrificed to idols was “scriptural.” (see 1Cor 8:6) All parties in the matters (meat and days) reached their conclusions from “scriptural” reasoning…
I gotta go, but I will continue a little later (about an hour).
In Christ,
Clint
February 5, 2009 at 6:33 pm
coreydavis
I see what you’re saying. I guess it would be better to say they are non-essential in that there is freedom given within the word. One position is not stated to be either right or wrong. It seems to me that if there was a “correct” position to take the “incorrect” position would somehow be addressed.
Going back to the original article – I think that you can make a sound biblical case for only supporting saints with the treasury of the church. Likewise, I believe that you can build a strong case for using that money for non-Christians. Since I see nothing to convince me that one position is “right” and the other “wrong”, I should handle this in the way that doesn’t cause division or stumbling.
February 7, 2009 at 3:48 am
Matt Clifton
Corey,
As the days go by and we continue to study God’s word, it becomes more and more evident that personal sacrifice for the benefit of others is a key to walking in Christ’s footsteps. Unity would happen quickly if we were all willing to sacrifice what we want, and instead just focus on what God wants, and what our brother needs.
Keep up the good work!
Matt
February 7, 2009 at 6:08 am
walkinginlove
True enough Matt but there has to be a balance also, I believe that much of what Corey is saying in the latest posts falls under working out your own salvation etc. Romans 14 seems to hold many of the things spoken of in several posts, and I believe holds many keys to tearing down the walls that separate believers from each other because of what each believes!
Corey I would be interested to see you do a bible study on the issue of stumbling blocks, I believe that is one of the keys to reaching a balance in scripture.
I am curious Choward since you broached the subject of meat served to idols, how do you handle the issue of Paul teaching differently then the councils letter on the matter?
To me this is where environment plays a heavy roll in the differences of gentiles and Jews in Christianity. The council’s compromise on circumcision leaves the food issues in place to keep from causing anymore of a stumbling block to the Jewish believers while eliminating circumcision as the sign of acceptance. The gentiles on the other hand would not see food and idols the same way thus because of this Paul treats them differently yet also warns them not to cause Jewish believers to stumble by keeping their rights.
Corey I hope I have not stepped to far off topic in this question! One of the biggest issues in Romans 14 is getting to the point of what is and is not disputable.
God Bless you all,
WIL
February 9, 2009 at 2:04 pm
coreydavis
Matt,
Thanks for your kind words. I have noticed that you often have to go it alone on Todd D.’s blog and I know what that is like. You do an excellent job there. I have read your articles on BN and enjoy them a great deal.
WIL,
Maybe sometime I can write something on stumbling blocks. I know that is an important issue when it comes to how we deal with one another. I do think we should keep this in mind:
1 Corinthians 1:23
but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,
Notice that Jesus Himself can be considered a stumbling block. We can’t remove Him just because some don’t want to accept Him. I don’t think it is a stretch to say that His commandments may also be a stumbling block to some who don’t want to follow them. This doesn’t mean we can remove them to achieve what we think is “unity”. There is a balance to be found here.
Notice that the council’s decision regarding the Gentiles is in complete harmony with Paul’s teachings in Romans 14:
Acts 15: 19″Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,
20but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
21″For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
They were to abstain from certain things so that they wouldn’t trouble the Jews. This is exactly what Paul was saying – even though you have a certain freedom, it is better to not use that freedom if it would cause another to stumble. They weren’t given a contradictory commandment, but really the same commandment Paul would give the Romans for the same reason.
I would agree with you that environment can play an important role in our freedoms. For example, pointing with the left hand can be seen as a bad thing in some Asian countries. We know that God has placed no restriction upon pointing with our hands, but we should observe the customs of the land we are in (as long as it doesn’t violate the word of God) so that we don’t offend those people. It is a small sacrifice to make to preserve unity.
February 9, 2009 at 5:32 pm
cthoward
Corey,
Sorry I didn’t get back in an hour like I said I would. I had a visitor stop by who always ends up getting us in a long Bible study (sometimes more a like a debate, but we both appreciate the challenges to our established views…kinda like the blogosphere).
Anyway, I wanted to point out that Paul, in Romans 14, does specify the “correct” view…look: “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself” [Romans 14:14a]. He declares the “correct” conclusion, that nothing is unclean (see also 1Cor 8:4-6). But, as Paul says in 1Cor 8:7, some do not have this knowledge…some do not reach the same “scriptural,” “correct” conclusion, and we are to bear with them.
Now let me give another example of possible application. We conclude by inference that the Lord’s Supper should be taken every Sunday. But, I have to admit that I can see that that is definitely an inference, and that someone else could reach a different conclusion, in all sincerity, based on Scripture, about the frequency of the Lord’s Supper. So, does Romans 14 apply to this issue as well? Seems like it to me…and maybe it applies to many other situations as well, but we just don’t like the idea of admitting that “correct” is not always right. My logical, left-brained thinking has a hard time dealing with that.
Well, I know how you don’t like off-topic comments, and we are way off topic, but I appreciate the discussion. If you want to continue and would rather do so in email let me know.
In Christ,
Clint
February 9, 2009 at 5:51 pm
cthoward
Walking in love,
I tend to see Biblical instructions about meat sacrificed to idols a little differently….mostly based on 1Cor 8:7. It seems that it was the Gentiles, through “former association with idols,” who had a moral objection to eating meat sacrificed to idols. In any case, for me there is no difference between the council’s teaching and Paul’s teaching on the matter. They both reach the same conclusions: it is better not to eat the meat. The difference is that Paul explains why: so that you don’t violate your conscience and stumble or cause others to violate their consciences and stumble.
And I agree that environment plays somewhat of a role….if some had no problem eating the meat, and there were none around who did…then they have freedom to eat. But another congregation might have newer Christians who had a problem with it…so don’t eat the meat. Paul became all things to all men. But, I don’t believe this applies to every Christian teaching or practice. As Corey has already pointed out, we don’t change the message of the cross because it is a stumbling block or because of environment. We might change how we present it, but not the message itself. The real question is, where do we draw the line? This question also happens to be the cause of nearly all, if not all, divisions. We draw lines at different places.
So, WIL, where do you draw the line? What doctrines or practices must never be compromised?
February 9, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Randy
Clint, I have made this point on other blogs myself, and its quite obvious that many differ on things such as the Lords Supper frequency…. and made as law from inference. Shall I take what I infer and make it a “binding example?” If so, I could use other passages that suggest that they met daily for prayer, maybe even took the Lords Supper daily with their meals – shall I bind that on others? I hate to even use the word bindind, but I do so because of articles from others calling it that…
February 9, 2009 at 6:29 pm
coreydavis
Clint,
Glad to have you back in the discussion. As long as this isn’t a “debate” on doctrine (with neither side showing any interest in changing views) I have no problem getting a little off topic.
As to your comment that there really is a “correct” view regarding meats, I agree. This reminds me of the way some disagree on the indwelling of the Spirit. I believe it is literal, yet I don’t believe that it gives me miraculous powers or any revelation beyond the word. Some believe it is only through the word and that it imparts no miraculous powers, nor does it give new revelation. No matter who is “right”, nothing is changed. The same really goes along with the issue of meats. Nothing is changed, really. I would also point out that the one who believes that the eating certain meats is wrong is considered to be the weaker brother (Romans 14:2). This implies that the weaker brother is in need of patient instruction. Should they go out and begin forbidding meats because of their incorrect person views then they would be wrong, binding what God has not bound.
As to the Lord’s Supper – I agree with your statements. That said, isn’t it strange that almost every group calling themselves “Christian” has deduced that there is a collection to be taken each week? Why is that so easy to figure out but the Lord’s Supper isn’t?
I heard of missionaries that went to Romania (I think). In one home they found a family that were observing all of the things that one would find within the churches of Christ in America. The wife/mother even proclaimed to her husband, “I knew we weren’t the only Christians!” The only thing they weren’t doing was partaking of the LS each Sunday. When they received further teaching they began to do so. Do I understand how some could not understand clearly that we should partake each Sunday? Sure. The problem is, what happens once they are shown? What if they reject it then? That is a “heart” problem in my mind. Where is the heart of one who has been taught, yet rejects the teaching of weekly communion (but no doubt continues the weekly contribution)?
Could I bear meekly and gently with those who don’t understand this at first? Absolutely. Would I still openly fellowship them if they reject it after being patiently taught? No, I don’t think I could.
That is what I’ve continually said to Randy – what happens when people reject further instruction, being comfortable with the teachings of the denominational world? How can we pursue unity if people won’t accept that we are to move toward maturity (Hebrews 6:1) and accept further teaching?
February 9, 2009 at 7:35 pm
cthoward
Corey,
I agree, sort of…
The thing is, though, that in Romans 14 Paul gives no indication that we are to give further instruction in the type of matters he is discussing. I am not saying there is not a time for further instruction, but just thinking of Romans 14:22a: “The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God.” Paul seems to be saying that we need to be content with some differences and be patient with the “immature” (weaker) brethren. By the way…a teacher I respect very much in preaching school made the comment about this section, “Everyone thinks they are the stronger brother.” That statement is definitely true, and says a lot about us as people and Christians…
Now, I agree, if someone is obviously wrong, and shows no indication of a desire to do God’s will, but maintains their practice/belief simply because they like it or what have you, there is a major heart problem that needs to be addressed or else disciplined. However, if I patiently show someone why I take the LS every week, but they still sincerely disagree based on their reasoning from scripture, then who am I to withhold fellowship from them? As Paul says, “Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand” [Romans 14:4].
It is a dangerous thing to judge a person as insincere and unworthy of our fellowship simply because they do not reason to the same conclusions we do. They may be insincere and self-seeking in their refusal….but, then again, they may have a strong desire to search the Scriptures and please the Lord, and, having done so, still reach different conclusions than me. Before their own master they will stand or fall, and God is able to make them stand.
Since we are talking about the frequency of the LS…would you be willing to pursue that particular issue (and weekly contribution for that matter) along the lines we have been discussing?
Oh, and by the way, although I consider you the weaker brother, I still will not say that I am unwilling to change my views.
“Test everything; hold fast to what is good” [1Thess 5:21].
In Christ,
Clint
February 9, 2009 at 7:52 pm
coreydavis
Clint,
I would say that there is evidence that the weaker brother (the one who believes certain meats to be wrong in the context) is in need of further instruction. There is a need for maturity:
Hebrews 5: 12For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.
13For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant.
14But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.
We should all strive to get to the point where we could be teachers. If the brother in question does not reach maturity (isn’t taught further) on this matter, then he would teach falsely – that certain meats are unclean and to be abstained from. To not try to fully explain God’s will on these matters can lead to disharmony and false doctrine.
It is a dangerous thing to judge a person as insincere and unworthy of our fellowship simply because they do not reason to the same conclusions we do. They may be insincere and self-seeking in their refusal….but, then again, they may have a strong desire to search the Scriptures and please the Lord, and, having done so, still reach different conclusions than me. Before their own master they will stand or fall, and God is able to make them stand.
To the matter at hand (the Lord’s Supper) – what, in the word, could possibly cause a person to conclude that a weekly observance of such wouldn’t be pleasing in God’s eyes? Furthermore, can you think of anyone who would reach such a conclusion without bringing the baggage of denominational doctrine with them? That is what it usually seems to boil down to for me – people come out of a denomination (or are in one) that only observes communion a few times a year. They don’t want to admit that there is a problem with that and so we have an area of contention.
Since we are talking about the frequency of the LS…would you be willing to pursue that particular issue (and weekly contribution for that matter) along the lines we have been discussing?
Sure.
February 9, 2009 at 8:25 pm
cthoward
Corey,
Glad you have obliged. I studied, discussed with a close friend, and thought a lot about this recently (weekly LS that is).
First let’s establish why we conclude LS should be weekly:
Acts 20:7 and 1Corinthians 11 coupled with 16. Anything I am missing?
Acts 20:7 first: “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.” Since Luke records that the first day of the week was “when” they gathered to break bread, we conclude that it was likely regular practice for them to take the LS every Sunday. Am I missing anything in the argument?
1Corinthians 11 next: Paul talked about “when [they] come together” (vv 18,20), and proceeded to discuss the taking of the LS. Then, in 1Corinthians 16:2 he talks about “the first day of every week” being the time for contribution. We then reason that this is likely the case because the first day of every week is when they “came together.” Therefore, we reason that the LS, taken when they came together, was taken every first day of the week. Am I missing anything in that argument?
I will wait for a reply to make sure we are on the same page about our reasoning.
In Christ,
Clint
February 9, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Randy
I think it may be a good idea to accept each other as Christ accepted us. We all were accepted without proper understanding on “the issues.” I understand your concern Corey, but taking that position has also broken up many churches, causing them to dis-fellowship weaker brethren.
I think the early Church did observe the Lords Supper each Sunday, but they most likely done so because of their love for Christ ( His Resurrection Day ) and not an observance of what some law says, “They shall observe the Lords Supper each Sunday.” I think there is good reason to honor Christ each Sunday and not simply because it was a pattern or some rule. They done so because Jesus rose from the dead that day.
I understand your concern, as to others only partaking once a year or three times, at the most, and it is sad that they do so, but they honestly do not understand this as you – and its not because they refuse to – they really do not see it as “binding.” Heck, I don’t even like to think of that way – sounds almost legalistic. It should be honoring, not binding. The example at Troas should be one of love and one of honoring Christ, not some binding example that we treat like the 11 commandment.
Didnt mean to jump between you guys – please continue…comment later on what I said
February 9, 2009 at 8:42 pm
coreydavis
Clint,
I would add that the Lord rose from the grave on Sunday. I would also point to Acts 20:6 that indicates there was purpose behind Paul staying until Sunday (otherwise what he did could have been done over multiple days or on another day). I think 1 Corinthians 11:26 shows that this is not to be something rare (monthly, quarterly, annually, etc.). Considering the importance of the Lord’s Supper, I think it likely falls under the teachings that Paul proclaimed in every congregation (1 Corinthians 4:17).
I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that I would add.
February 9, 2009 at 8:50 pm
coreydavis
Randy,
Isn’t it strange that most of these people have inferred that there is a collection to be taken each week, but not that they should partake of the Lord’s Supper with the same frequency?
How many “churches” that partake monthly, quarterly, etc. do you think you could persuade to partake weekly?
How many could you persuade to take the collection monthly, quarterly, etc?
Paying the “pastor”/ bills = important. Essential even.
Proclaiming the Lord’s death until He comes = eh, whatever…
Let me be clear – I sat in a Baptist church for years and never even thought about the frequency of the Lord’s Supper. We just did it when we did it and I wouldn’t have questioned it until I was taught further. Once I was taught I saw the benefits & blessings of it. It was much easier to accept than whether I should be re-immersed or not. My problem, as usual, is what happens to people when they’re taught further and are content to just keep on doing things the way they’ve always done them.
February 9, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Randy
“Isn’t it strange that most of these people have inferred that there is a collection to be taken each week, but not that they should partake of the Lord’s Supper with the same frequency? “
*Corey, can we give to the poor on Saturday? Some churches of Christ have a Wed offering – is that a sin? If you attended a tent meeting and a poor woman was there on Friday night, needing money to feed her kids, shall I tell her, “ we only take a collection up on Sunday” – or maybe the church could show her some love and take an offering up for her that Friday….
I do think many Pastors and other groups take advantage of people, but we often gp to the other extreme
February 9, 2009 at 9:33 pm
coreydavis
I personally have no problem with any of those things you listed, provided that they aren’t done in place of the Sunday collection. My congregation just did a special offering for a brother who is from India and planting churches there. We’ve taken collections for people who lost their homes, poor people who lost their spouses, etc. We’ve given to the needy who appeared on a Wednesday.
None of those things apply to me or my congregation, so I don’t see how you can accuse me of going to any other extreme. Most of my brethren here are just the same as we are.
February 9, 2009 at 10:08 pm
cthoward
Corey,
Agreed….and I will add Jesus’ resurrection day to the list of evidences to be addressed. But first, some ground work.
We would agree that in order for weekly LS to be “binding” (sorry, Randy) we must have either a command, approved example, or necessary inference. I hope we can agree that there is no command concerning weekly LS (let me know if I assume too much). I hope we can agree that our practice is based on examples, but that those examples are based on inferences. So, that means we must figure out if our inferences are necessary or not.
Disclaimer—I will be playing devil’s advocate a bit here, so keep that in mind before you jump to conclusions
Now the evidence:
Resurrection Day—reasoning: since Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday, then that is a good day to remember Him in the LS. But is it? The elements of the LS point to His death (broken body, spilled blood). And Paul states in 1Cor 11 that we are to “proclaim the Lord’s death.” Why is it that a meal remembering His death is taken on resurrection day?
Now, I agree, to “proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” requires us to remember that He also rose…how else could He come back? But not everyone agrees with this (I know a man who thinks we should only be remembering Christ’s death for the reasons I gave).
But, let’s assume that our inference about remembering Christ’s resurrection as well as His death are “necessary”…what next? We infer that that means we should take the LS every Sunday. Is this a necessary inference? Does the resurrection of Christ on one Sunday out of the year necessitate remembrance of it every Sunday of the year? I think it is reasonable, but not necessary…but reasonable is not enough to be binding.
1Cor 11 and 16—reasoning: since the Corinthian church was taking the LS when they came together, and since Paul told them take up a contribution every first day of the week, then it is likely that they came together every first day of the week, and, therefore, that they took the LS every first day of the week.
Now, I agree that this is reasonable…let me just say that upfront. But it is definitely an inference…and so we must determine if it is necessary.
First, how necessary is it to infer that “when [they] come together” is Sunday? Don’t we have examples in Acts of the early church “coming together” every day of the week, meeting in homes and at the temple? Isn’t it at least possible that “when they come together” could refer to every time they met, whether Sunday or not? I am not asking if it is likely or probable, but only possible…because if it is possible, then weekly LS is not a necessary inference from 1Cor 11.
Second, is it possible that “when you come together” in the context of 1Cor 11 refers specifically to coming together to take the LS, and not a general reference to coming together for the “regular assembly”? In other words, I am saying that it is at least possible (perhaps not probable, but possible) that Paul is saying, “when you come together to take the Lord’s Supper,” rather than, “when you come together and you take the Lord’s Supper.” If this is true then it is possible (perhaps not probable) that the Corinthians could have been in the habit of taking the LS once a quarter (for example), and Paul simply refers to that time (“when you come together to take the Lord’s Supper”).
But, to build the case we tie in 1Cor 16 which talks about a contribution every Sunday. But, to tie this in we still have to infer that “the first day of every week” is the same time frame Paul had in mind when he spoke of them coming together to take the LS. Is this a necessary inference? Or is it possible (perhaps not probable) that in 1Cor 11 Paul could simply be referring only to the times when they take the LS (be it every week or once a quarter), while in 1Cor 16 he is explicitly referring to every Sunday?
If any of this is possible (not all, but any), then we cannot say that weekly LS is a necessary inference from 1Corinthians. It may be a probable inference, but not necessary.
Acts 20:7 (and context)—reasoning: since Paul, Luke, and company stayed in Troas for seven days, it seems their purpose was to take the LS on Sunday, which they knew they would be able to participate in since all of the early churches were in the habit of taking the LS every Sunday. This is made more evident because Luke seems to indicate that the purpose of meeting on Sunday was the LS since he says that they were gathered on Sunday “to break bread.”
Again, let me just say that this is reasonable, and I agree that this is likely the case. However, again, we have to ask if our inferences are necessary.
Is it possible that the church at Troas only took the LS, say, once a quarter, and as Paul and crew were traveling along when they came to Troas they found the brethren, found out that this Sunday was the “communion service” (I don’t like that term either…but for the sake of argument), so they stayed to participate? I am not asking if it is probable, but only possible. As far as I can tell, the church at Troas could have taken the LS at any time with any frequency, and Paul and crew could still have found out about it and decided to stay and participate.
Next, is it possible that the LS on that Sunday in Troas had something to do with the recent “days of Unleavened Bread,” which included the Passover (see Acts 20:6)? Is it possible that Troas church of Christ did not take the LS every Sunday, but perhaps even as little as once a year, around the time of the Passover, to commemorate Jesus’ institution of the LS that took place at that very feast. I, too, do not think it probable, but I can see someone sincerely reasoning that it is probable.
Furthermore, we assume that the “when” of “when we were gathered together to break bread” refers to Sunday. So we say, “See, Sunday was ‘when’ they took the LS.” But isn’t it possible that the “when” that Luke uses refers to the time of day rather than the day itself? In other words, he could be saying something like this: “On the first day of the week, at around 10am (when we were taking the LS)…” (I know, they probably didn’t take it at 10am….just for example). If this is true, then Luke is not necessarily saying that Sunday was “when” they gathered to take bread, but only referring to a specific time when those events were taking place in order to set up the historical context of the events that follow (Eutychus “falling” asleep…get it?).
Furthermore, we assume that “breaking bread” means the LS when we assume that it means a regular meal at other times (Acts 2:46; 20:11). Is this a reasonable inference? I think so. But is it necessary? Could “breaking bread” refer to them gathering for a fellowship meal, say, before “services”? If it is possible, then weekly LS is not a necessary inference from Acts 20:7.
So……………….what am I saying? I am saying that it is possible for someone to reasonably conclude from the Bible that the early church took the LS every Sunday…but that it is also possible for someone to reasonably assume that the early church took the LS intermittently, or even in connection with the Passover once a year (I understand that Sunday in Troas came a couple weeks after the Passover…and we could ask about why they wouldn’t take the LS on the Sunday immediately following Passover, since that would be the anniversary of Jesus’ resurrection…but the closeness of this event to the days of Unleavened Bread is, in the least, interesting.).
I am saying that our examples are based on inferences that are not necessary, though reasonable and probable in my estimation. But, I am saying we need to be careful…we cannot err in binding that which is merely probable and not necessary. I will teach weekly communion, and I will recommend weekly communion…but if someone disagrees with me after a sincere study of Scripture I will not withdraw fellowship from them…I will bear with them as Paul encourages in Romans 14.
Okay…sorry for the length….let me know what you think….gotta go for now….
Clint
February 9, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Randy
Jesus did not specify either a certain day or a frequency for us to eat the bread and drink the wine, but simply said that “as often as” we do it, we should do it in remembrance of him (1 Cor. 11:25). The Apostle Paul adds that “as often as” we partake of the Lord’s Supper we also proclaim the Lord’s death (1 Cor. 11:26).
The earliest believers “broke bread” daily, according to Acts 2:42, 46, and it is impossible to say whether that refers to the Communion or to a common meal. I infer this refer to Communion, not a common meal.
There is evidence by the second century of a weekly Eucharist on Sunday, the Lord’s Day. Some also infer that from Acts 20:7, though we cannot know with certainty whether the “breaking bread” in that verse refers to the Lord’s Supper or to a common meal.
The notion of limiting Communion to Sundays only, results from a non-biblical assumption held by some (but consistently followed by none) that any detail not specifically authorized in the New Testament is automatically forbidden.
February 10, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Randy
Acts 2:42 says; “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” If one is arguing that the Lord’s Supper MUST be performed ONLY on Sunday, then they should be willing to admit that “teaching and fellowship” MUST be ONLY on Sunday. The two, well actually three, are placed in a list beside each other with none having precedence over the other. If one Must be done EACH Sunday ONLY, why not the others?
From the context of the chapter we know the regularity of their meetings at this time was daily. Some who promote their restrictive tradition will declare that all the other items in verse 42 (teaching, prayer, fellowship) were experienced daily, but the Lord’s Supper was not. “Regularity” meant weekly in this one case, whereas the steadfastness of the others was daily. Is there anything in the context that even remotely suggests this interpretation? Of course not. This is a case of eisegesis, not exegesis.
“And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread…” (Acts 20:7). Well, there you have it. Based on these few words an entire theology has been built.”
Is the singular example of Troas forever binding upon all disciples the world over until the end of time? If the answer is “yes,” then where in Scripture is such a demand ever specifically stated by our Lord?
Can a singular example override or restrict a command given by Jesus Christ ( AS OFTEN AS ) and repeated by an inspired apostle? In other words, which bears more weight — a command of our Lord or an example of mere men (about which many assumptions must be made)? Which has more authority — a precept of deity or a practice of men?
February 10, 2009 at 3:50 pm
coreydavis
Clint and Randy,
Rather than deal with what you’ve written point-by-point I think that one of the best ways I can address the things you’ve written is to address the implications of them. I am big on implications. Sometimes someone in a class I teach will say, “well I believe such-and-such” without any regard for what that belief does to the rest of scripture, so I think that all teachings/beliefs must be viewed in light of their implications.
Here are the implications of stating that the Lord’s Supper should not be taken weekly:
1. We may choose to take up a collection as little as once per year.
2. We don’t have to assemble for worship on Sunday.
3. We can choose to assemble as little as once per year.
3a. We can choose to only speak to each other in psalms, hymns & spiritual songs as little as once per year.
What we’re dealing with are people that have a problem with observing the Lord’s Supper weekly. I don’t know of a single group calling themselves Christians who would agree that any of the above are acceptable (with the exception of the Seventh Day Adventists who would balk at the notion of not assembling on each Saturday).
If we don’t have to partake of the Lord’s Supper weekly based on the arguments given, then we can also argue for all of the points I’ve listed above. To me, it seems that most are aware of the blessings/benefits of taking a weekly contribution, assembling each Sunday and singing to one another each week. Is it so difficult to see the same in regards to the Lord’s Supper?
February 10, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Randy
• We are free to take up collection when needed or each time we assemble or as the need arises such as the case of a someone needing help on another day other than Sunday. We make laws where there isn’t a law and rob freedom from those Christ set free from such bondage.
• What about Wed night meetings and our tent meetings?? Must we do that or do we so from freedom ?
• Can we miss Wed. night and just attend on Sundays? Can we miss Sunday nights?
• We can to sing to each other in psalms, hymns & spiritual songs everyday, if we desire to…no law says “You must sing to each other in psalms, hymns & spiritual songs only on Sunday.”
The problem isn’t with authority. The problem is with inferences/assumptions that WE make authority. We see the account at Troas and deem it as some law, requiring one only partake the Lords Supper on Sunday and each Sunday, as if God would send one to hell if he desired to partake the Lords Supper, say….each Sunday and each Thursday. Would God send one to hell for honoring Jesus twice each week via the Lords Supper? Perhaps those at Troas desired to honor Christ on Sunday out of love for what Christ done for them and not because there was some law stating “ You must observe the Lords Supper ONLY on Sundays – if not, you will lose your salvation.”
February 10, 2009 at 4:44 pm
coreydavis
You miss my point. Those who only want to take the LS once per year or quarterly are “bare minimum” Christians, IMO. They look to the scriptures, see something they should do and take a “how little can we do this and still say we’ve done it” mentality.
Are we free to take up collections outside of the Sunday collection? Yes. (Acts 2:44-46)
Are we free to assemble on Wednesdays or for special meetings? Yes. (Acts 2:46)
Are we free to sing spiritual songs to one another on days other than Sunday? Yes. (James 5:13)
Can we miss Wed. night and just attend on Sundays? Can we miss Sunday nights?
You see, this is just what I’m talking about. Even though there is no commandment that says, “thou shalt assemble each Sunday for worship”, people correctly infer that we should. They then go back to “what is the least I can do and still fulfill my duty”. Is that not forsaking the assembling of ourselves (Hebrews 10:25)?
We rarely encounter folks who want to take the Lord’s Supper more often than each Sunday. That isn’t what we’re talking about.
February 10, 2009 at 4:53 pm
coreydavis
Randy,
On what day of the week can you be scripturally certain that it is acceptable to partake of the Lord’s Supper? Is it not Sunday?
Assuming you’ll admit that it is Sunday, we come to two mindframes:
#1: I know that Sunday observances of the Lord’s Supper is scriptural. I will observe it on that day because I know it is pleasing to God.
#2: I know that Sunday observances of the Lord’s Supper is scriptural. However, I’d like to take it on Thursdays as well. I’m sure that the Lord won’t mind because He didn’t tell me not to.
For me, I will always be like example #1. I think that it shows the most reverence & respect. It doesn’t rely on human emotions or feelings, but solely upon the word of God.
February 10, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Randy
You miss my point. We do need to look for commandments and “binding” laws, but we do. We make commandments where there arent any.
Far as people seeing the Lords Supper as you do, meaning they MUST meet each Sunday for this purpose. Corey, they do not see this. I think we should because of what Jesus done, but not from some law attitude.
It is sad that many only do this once a year, I agree.
I know people dont really want to take the Lords Supper more than each Sunday – you missed my point. I believe I could do this and not be condemned, we are free to do this.
February 10, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Randy
meant DONT need to look for cammandments
February 10, 2009 at 5:02 pm
cthoward
Randy asks some good questions…
I think you are right about implications…there are some to be dealt with. But, be careful about saying, “Well, if we get rid of that we have to get rid of everything.” That is not true. Every issue must be dealt with on a case by case basis. You may be right….if we admit weekly communion is advisable but not bindable we may have to release some other things as bindable. But I have to be true to Scripture…
So, show me in Scripture a command, example, or necessary inference for weekly contribution. I was going to ask for more, but let’s just start with this…
Now, I don’t doubt that people understand the blessings of meeting each week and taking up a collection each week. But can we make these things a “salvation” or “fellowship” issue simply because people don’t receive all of the blessings? Same with weekly LS…we understand the blessings of it….but that’s not the question. The question is: do I have a right to withhold fellowship from those who sincerely disagree based on their understanding of Scripture? We might be able to establish that weekly communion was probably the NT practice, and that it is probably God’s ideal, and that it has its pros…but if we are going to stick to CENI then we have to stick with it and not over-step our declared boundaries. If we are making inferences that are not necessary, we cannot bind them, whether we like it or not.
February 10, 2009 at 5:06 pm
cthoward
Corey,
You said: “Those who only want to take the LS once per year or quarterly are “bare minimum” Christians, IMO. They look to the scriptures, see something they should do and take a “how little can we do this and still say we’ve done it” mentality.”
I say: I disagree. In fact, the churches of Christ are often belittled because we take the LS every week, and, therefore, make it more of a ritual than a remembrance. They criticize us for not putting enough emphasis on it. And their reasoning for having it only once a quarter or whatever is to build it up, make it a special event, put more emphasis on it.
Now, I don’t necessarily agree with this reasoning. We should be able to observe it once a week and still put the proper emphasis on it. But, my point is that many reach their conclusion from a sincere desire to remember better, not because they are minimalists (although it is true that some undoubtedly are….but certainly not all…..and we have the same problem in the churches of Christ of people wanting to just get by).
February 10, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Randy
I have seen the Lords Supper honored each Sunday and at other times and Clint has a valid point…it can become ritualistic if we are not careful.
The people desiring to do so at other times make much a bigger deal out of this than we do….many have a sermon about Jesus and His death and resurrection prior to the Lords Supper and I have seen some cry and weep and show emotions during the coomunion because they understand what is behind the wine and bread.
We are almost emotionless each Sunday and just seem to go with the flow and not give too much thought about what it represents….its just routine…part of the 5 acts….
February 10, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Randy
looks like Jay has made some of the same points – he just posted this:
http://oneinjesus.info/2009/02/09/renewing-our-worship-the-lords-supper/
February 10, 2009 at 5:45 pm
coreydavis
Randy said:
I think we should because of what Jesus done, but not from some law attitude.
I agree completely. Are you judging the motives of others? Just because some do it out of a “law attitude” doesn’t mean that what they’re doing/teaching is wrong. Remember that Jesus said to do as the Pharisees said to do, but not according to their ways.
I believe I could do this and not be condemned, we are free to do this.
The part in bold is where I see the problem.
Clint said:
But, be careful about saying, “Well, if we get rid of that we have to get rid of everything.” That is not true
It is not an issue of “have to”, but an issue of “can”. If I CAN get rid of one then I CAN get rid of another.
So, show me in Scripture a command, example, or necessary inference for weekly contribution.
Surely you know where I’m going to go with this. 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 commands the Corinthians to do just as Paul commanded the Galatians. This is reinforcement of what he’d said in chapter 4:17, that he taught the same in all the churches. In Acts 2 we see one of the first things Christians began doing was selling goods/taking collections. I guess there are other places I could go to, but those will have to do for now.
I say: I disagree. In fact, the churches of Christ are often belittled because we take the LS every week, and, therefore, make it more of a ritual than a remembrance. They criticize us for not putting enough emphasis on it. And their reasoning for having it only once a quarter or whatever is to build it up, make it a special event, put more emphasis on it.
Just like I said to Randy, just because some choose to do it because of wrong motives doesn’t make the practice wrong.
The people we’re talking about have no problem preaching, singing, praying and giving each week. Why don’t they say that doing those things each week takes away the special nature of those things? Why is the Lord’s Supper alone the one thing that needs “build up”? I see this position (and I understand it isn’t necessarily your position) as being woefully inconsistent.
If I may give you my thoughts on why I think it isn’t observed like the other things mentioned among those who profess to be Christians – they saw the Catholic church (and others) going beyond the word and making it into something mystical. I think they saw an over-emphasis on something that shouldn’t be changed an elevated to such status. To solve this problem they went to the opposite extreme – they de-emphasized it to the point that it wasn’t even necessary to observe it weekly. I think this is the same way we came to “faith only” salvation – as an objection to the works-based salvation that the Catholics were teaching at the time. Sometimes in seeking to avoid an extreme people gravitate to the opposite extreme, rather than finding the truth somewhere in the middle (where it usually is).
We should be able to observe it once a week and still put the proper emphasis on it.
Absolutely we should.
But, my point is that many reach their conclusion from a sincere desire to remember better, not because they are minimalists
I don’t mean to paint with too broad a brush and include everyone as minimalists. I’m saying that the minimalist mindset is a popular one. Their desire to “remember better” doesn’t take away from the inconsistencies that I mentioned.
February 10, 2009 at 5:52 pm
coreydavis
We are almost emotionless each Sunday and just seem to go with the flow and not give too much thought about what it represents….its just routine…part of the 5 acts….
Who is this “we”? Are you willing to speak for each member of the Lord’s church?
Just because some have the attitude that you speak of doesn’t mean that everyone does. We are responsible for ourselves.
If one brother teaches that we are to sing to one another, but his motive is because he just loves to hear pretty voices doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t sing. It is on US to sing for the proper motives (to encourage one another and to praise God). Just because that person’s motives are wrong doesn’t mean that his teaching is.
February 10, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Randy
You are right. I cant speak for every member, none of us can. I will check back tonight or late tomorrow – have to go right now. TTYL
February 10, 2009 at 6:04 pm
cthoward
Corey,
Short comment now, but I’ll be back….
You said: “Just like I said to Randy, just because some choose to do it because of wrong motives doesn’t make the practice wrong.”
I say: I am not saying weekly communion is wrong. In fact, I think it is the “correct” thing to do. But, my point is that it could be a Rom 14 issue…although the practice is “correct” is it right to withdraw fellowship from those who sincerely disagree? I don’t think so.
Be back later…
February 10, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Randy
Corey, one more thing: Perhaps you could visit Jays blogs and voice some of these things there, that you have here. I think you make some good points, but so does Jay.
BTW, I am saying the same thing Clint just stated. Got to go. ttyl
I am not saying weekly communion is wrong. In fact, I think it is the “correct” thing to do. But, my point is that it could be a Rom 14 issue…although the practice is “correct” is it right to withdraw fellowship from those who sincerely disagree? I don’t think so
February 10, 2009 at 6:25 pm
coreydavis
Randy,
I have no desire to visit another blog where I will engage in fruitless debate. I’ve heard from Jeff how those who believe as I do are dealt with on Jay’s blog and I trust it is true.
Let’s say we have an individual who we consider a brother who “sincerely disagrees” that we should take communion weekly. What do his actions say as he refuses the Lord’s Supper while the others partake? To me it says, “I’m not willing to proclaim the Lord’s death with my brethren”.
Honestly, I feel that individual only brings condemnation upon himself. I wouldn’t say, “I’m withdrawing myself from you until you begin taking the LS weekly”. I wouldn’t. However, if he began trying to teach others that they shouldn’t partake weekly I would withdraw myself from that individual.
February 10, 2009 at 7:39 pm
cthoward
Corey,
I’m not sure anyone would do that…not take the LS weekly with everyone else. They have no moral or scriptural reason for it…….at least I haven’t come across anyone like that.
But, that’s not the situation I am thinking of…
More like if you were explaining to a new Christian about weekly communion compared to quarterly or whatever and they saw how it could be beneficial, but didn’t agree that it had to be done weekly….how do we treat them? Withdraw or bear with? Paul says bear with.
Probably they would generally keep that conviction to themselves and go on taking it weekly with everyone else, but can we withdraw if they disagree? I don’t think so…
As for weekly contribution…the only section that mentions weekly is 1Cor 16, and that specifically refers to the contribution for the needy saints in Jerusalem. Is it a good practice to follow? Debatable…but if it were binding we would have to bind all of it…and send the money to Christians in Jerusalem. But that is ridiculous. Besides, it doesn’t seem like the Acts 2 church took up weekly contribution….they just helped those in need. It seems to me that the instructions in 1Cor 16 are to help an immature church who has a problem with generosity get on track in preparing their offering for Paul’s arrival. If that is the case then we ought to move beyond a ritualistic weekly contribution to a lifestyle of giving…a maturity that does not require a weekly contribution because the members are giving more than enough and spontaneously enough that it is not necessary….
Anyway, my point is that weekly contribution is not a necessary inference (or a command as we here from the communion table between the LS and the offering).
February 10, 2009 at 8:04 pm
coreydavis
Withdraw or bear with? Paul says bear with.
I agree.
but can we withdraw if they disagree? I don’t think so…
Again, I agree. My problem is when they begin teaching that belief, discouraging others from taking weekly.
the only section that mentions weekly is 1Cor 16, and that specifically refers to the contribution for the needy saints in Jerusalem.
You are correct that 1 Cor. 16 is the only passage that mentions weekly giving. However in 2 Cor. 8 we read about the generosity of the Macedonian church and their giving is was to the “saints” and no location is specified. Did they give each Sunday as the Corinthians & Galatians had? Was Paul truly teaching the same thing regarding giving in all of the churches? To me this seems more than likely. Again in 2 Cor. 9 Paul talks about the attitude of the giver. The fact that each is to give as he has purposed in his heart seems to indicate to me that there was a collection that the giver would know about and was to plan for.
If that is the case then we ought to move beyond a ritualistic weekly contribution to a lifestyle of giving…a maturity that does not require a weekly contribution because the members are giving more than enough and spontaneously enough that it is not necessary….
I think there is a great deal of truth to that. I also know that Paul wrote that all things should be done in decency and order. Note that Paul didn’t want to have to run around and collect the money from various individuals (1 Cor. 16:2). The most orderly method I can think of for collective giving is to give at once when all of the saints are assembled. Furthermore, this isn’t even an area of contention. No matter what differences exist between those claiming to belong to Christ, you can be assured of one thing – if you assemble with them on Sunday a collection is going to be taken.
Anyway, my point is that weekly contribution is not a necessary inference
Is a weekly assembly upon Sunday a necessary inference? Why or why not?
February 10, 2009 at 8:32 pm
cthoward
Corey,
You asked: “Is a weekly assembly upon Sunday a necessary inference? Why or why not?”
I would say no…not necessary. It is an inference, and a viable one (to me based on Acts 20:7 and 1Cor 16), but I’m not sure I can call it necessary. I can say that 1Cor 16 indicates that Corinth met every Sunday, but it doesn’t actually say that…it is just a viable inference…they were just told to put something aside and store up on Sunday.
That being said, I think it is not only a good idea, but also too little…let’s meet more, and let’s do it because we want to, not because someone said we have to. Let’s meet every day like the very early church did. And let’s understand that the reason we do not forsake the assembly is not because we are commanded to go, but because we benefit by going, and we help others by going….that is the Hebrew-writers point. He does not say, “Do not forsake the assembly,” he says, “Do not forsake the assembly because it would be to your disadvantage to do so…you need to be built up and to build others up.” Let’s put the emphasis on the blessings of God’s instructions rather than the law of God’s instructions (the Sabbath was made for man…and so was the assembly). And while we’re at it, let’s see Christianity as a lifestyle and assembling with the saints as a tool for living that lifestyle.
Let me deal with a potential reaction…someone might say, “So, since you don’t think Sunday assembly is a necessary inference then you are saying that people don’t have to attend.” But, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that people should want to attend every time the church meets, Sunday or not, because it will help them and they can help others. In fact, this attitude would push us to meet more, not less.
anyway….some more thoughts…someone else’s turn
February 10, 2009 at 8:39 pm
coreydavis
I completely agree with what you’ve said about how we should desire to meet more often for our own benefit and for others. I see the daily meeting of the Jerusalem church in Acts 2 as the ideal situation.
You said:
I would say no…not necessary. It is an inference, and a viable one (to me based on Acts 20:7 and 1Cor 16), but I’m not sure I can call it necessary. I can say that 1Cor 16 indicates that Corinth met every Sunday, but it doesn’t actually say that…it is just a viable inference…they were just told to put something aside and store up on Sunday.
Let me ask you – what is “the Lord’s day” that John spoke of in Revelation 1:10?
February 10, 2009 at 8:48 pm
cthoward
Corey,
I think “the Lord’s day” John refers to is Sunday…it is the most likely conclusion in my mind.
My question to you: does the fact that John called it this necessarily imply that we are to meet every Sunday? If so, why?
Again, I don’t doubt that we should and that it is good…just whether we have been wrong to view it as a necessary inference rather than what it is…just a plain old inference. And, again, I wonder if we have been wrong to emphasize attendance rather than what attendance is for (and certainly not just worship).
Clint
February 10, 2009 at 8:57 pm
coreydavis
My question to you: does the fact that John called it this necessarily imply that we are to meet every Sunday? If so, why?
Absolutely it does. If Sunday is the Lord’s day, then grammatically it is just like the Lord’s Supper – something that is consecrated to, or dedicated to, Him. If it is His day then there must be something special about it, no? The whole of scriptures seems to indicate that Sunday is the one day that you could count on the entire assembly to come together. Even secular history bears this out.
Again, I don’t doubt that we should and that it is good…just whether we have been wrong to view it as a necessary inference rather than what it is…just a plain old inference.
If it isn’t a necessary inference I hardly know what is.
And, again, I wonder if we have been wrong to emphasize attendance rather than what attendance is for (and certainly not just worship).
I agree, but this doesn’t diminish the fact that assembling each Sunday is a necessary inference. If you assemble each Sunday out of routine and a sense of obligation you are right to assemble, but your motives are wrong. If you assemble each Sunday out of love for God and the brethren you are right to assemble and your motives are right. This doesn’t have to be a “one or the other” situation. It is the balance of Spirit and truth that Christ desires (John 4:23-24).
February 10, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Randy
The Fourth Commandment, requires that we remember a day to keep it holy
February 10, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Randy
You guys make some real good points. I think Scott could add to this conversation too. I especially like this statement from Corey: “If Sunday is the Lord’s day, then grammatically it is just like the Lord’s Supper – something that is consecrated to, or dedicated to, Him. If it is His day then there must be something special about it, no? The whole of scriptures seems to indicate that Sunday is the one day that you could count on the entire assembly to come together.”
But , I understand where Clint is coming from too. I could not break fellowship with someone who hasn’t yet understood this as I, nor could I kick them out of the assembly. The question is, how long should we allow one to not understand?? Long as needed, I think. I am sure there are those each Sunday who disagree, but keep quite about it – does God break fellowship with them, seeing he knows all and knows they have not yet understood?
February 10, 2009 at 9:23 pm
cthoward
Corey,
To get from John’s reference to “the Lord’s day” to mandatory weekly attendance we have to infer two things, and they both must be necessary:
That a day devoted to the Lord must be observed by assembling;
That “the Lord’s day” refers to every Sunday.
Where in Scripture are we told that a day devoted to the Lord must be observed by assembling? Couldn’t a day be observed by spending the day alone in prayer? I am not advocating replacing the assembly, but just questioning why assembly is necessary on a devoted day.
Where in Scripture are we told that “the Lord’s day” refers to every Sunday? Isn’t it possible that it refers to the anniversary of the resurrection? Or the anniversary of the crucifixion? If not, why not?
If one of these two is not a necessary inference then the whole is not necessary. i agree that it is a viable inference, and that it is even a likely inference…but I have to admit to other possibilities.
February 11, 2009 at 1:49 pm
coreydavis
Clint,
Because of our discussion I’ve had what I can only describe as a shift in thought. Specifically I’ve somewhat changed the way I view assembling, giving and the Lord’s Supper.
I won’t go into specifics here because it would be too lengthy. Perhaps I’ll have to write an article to properly say what I want to say.
I thought about those things all day yesterday. I’m glad that you were willing to engage in this discussion and it has really helped me in ways that I hope to fully express later. For now I’m going to discontinue with this line of discussion if you don’t mind.
Thanks again,
Corey
February 11, 2009 at 3:07 pm
cthoward
Corey,
I’m glad you have benefited from our discussion. I has helped me a great deal as well, especially in figuring out how to understand and express what the Bible seems to be saying on these issues. I don’t mind discontinuing at all. In fact, it’s probably better for me time-wise anyway. Thanks for your sincerity and willingness to lovingly discuss difficult topics. I wish we could have more of this honest inquiry in our congregations without fear of retaliation.
In Christ,
Clint
February 11, 2009 at 3:19 pm
cthoward
Corey,
I just wanted to say that I look forward to what you have to say…as I read over our discussion I realize that there are some major principles (not just about weekly assembly or communion, but over-arching principles) that I have been exploring and thinking a lot about lately and would like to express much better…but I look forward to reading your thoughts and responding with mine.
Clint
February 16, 2009 at 3:22 am
walkinginlove
Choward wrote:
Walking in love,
I tend to see Biblical instructions about meat sacrificed to idols a little differently….mostly based on 1Cor 8:7. It seems that it was the Gentiles, through “former association with idols,” who had a moral objection to eating meat sacrificed to idols. In any case, for me there is no difference between the council’s teaching and Paul’s teaching on the matter. They both reach the same conclusions: it is better not to eat the meat. The difference is that Paul explains why: so that you don’t violate your conscience and stumble or cause others to violate their consciences and stumble.
——————————————————————
I kindly suggest you restudy this then because there is a huge difference. The Council clearly said do not do it period, there is no exception to the rule. Paul said it is ok, do it except do not do so if it causes a brother to stumble. That brother is a Jew most likely as meat would be a huge issue to him, The Gentile on the other hand who had not been grounded in Jewish practices would see it as not a big deal. Thus there is a difference in Jewish vs Gentiles practices except it cause a brother to stumble is the middle ground to keep unity.
——————————————————————————————
And I agree that environment plays somewhat of a role….if some had no problem eating the meat, and there were none around who did…then they have freedom to eat. But another congregation might have newer Christians who had a problem with it…so don’t eat the meat. Paul became all things to all men. But, I don’t believe this applies to every Christian teaching or practice. As Corey has already pointed out, we don’t change the message of the cross because it is a stumbling block or because of environment. We might change how we present it, but not the message itself. The real question is, where do we draw the line? This question also happens to be the cause of nearly all, if not all, divisions. We draw lines at different places.
—————————————————————————–
That is the key to the issue what is the line. Certainly Jesus coming to earth as a man yet being God, death, burial and resurrection is not up for negotiation or removal because it serves as the cornerstone of the message of the cross.
But when I read references to symbolism of baptism in letters written by Paul vs Peter’s message that water saves you, I see a difference in how things are presented to the gentiles vs. the Jews. I guess the simple question of water baptism is why? I mean simply why was it done as it was. My reasoning for Acts 2:38 was the Levitical practices of yearly Atonement. Priests washed before contact with the sacrifice and I see this purification to be much like Peter’s call for those who had killed Christ to be baptized was a way to make it easier for the Jews to enter into the kingdom. God will have to prove his case when the time comes and this practice makes his case strong when he stands before the Jews who did not believe. They were giving a choice to remain a killer of God or become a Priest, to me that is a no brainier as it were, gentiles on the other hand would have little ability to understand the nuances of the Lavitical process but would understand the symbolism of Jesus death burial and resurrection in the process of baptism. Also because baptism would have to be done to everyone to keep common ground it is logical to see passages by Paul stressing faith to the gentiles, while Peter stressed acts to the Jews. Both would be open to such arguments had it been done 180% backwards both would have resisted more. The Gentiles would have asked why God needed water to clean me of my sins, surely Jesus blood was enough for that to happen. And Jews who were acts based would not seem things symbolically but as a rule to follow, the symbolism would be less likely to carry the weight as Acts 2:38 did. Thus each were teaching towards a common goal but moving from a different starting point of reference.
——————————————————————————————
So, WIL, where do you draw the line? What doctrines or practices must never be compromised?
——————————————————————————————
Death burial and resurrection of Jesus as God the son and Love God and People as a summation of the ten commands originally given are those that are non-variables. There are so many issues with codex differences and effects of environment that I struggle to find more absolutes. This same issue prevents or excuses the CoC from the Holy Kiss since it has been declared a local custom and not a command, yet the word seems to say otherwise. But I know that environment was to play a huge part of scripture. For instance you see the passages where Paul tells women to be silent in the Church as literal no exceptions to the rule, yet I read that same passage and see that Paul was dealing with a culture who had a female as a deity and from reading also dominate women in the church itself who were disrupting service to ask their husbands questions since they were in the back on the church and could not hear well. Paul finally snaps at the disruptions and speaks the words that silenced all women for all time in the church. Yet I know that Deborah led Israel and did it well, that Paul himself had women helping in ministry and that there is a passage that talks about equality of the sexes, in that time women were generally less or uneducated and second class citizens and I have to wonder if Paul’s environment had been taken into account and woman had not been treated as second class people would we have a feminist movement in the USA, or if the church had really understood the Good Samaritan if the church would have been split down racial lines as it seems to be in most churches.
So I do not have an clear black and white answer where I draw the line, but I do know this, the church will not stand if it continues to fracture as it has been doing, and also that if all the parts of those fractures were all false religions then God is making his case harder by not dealing those groups a death blow to remove them from the planet.
February 16, 2009 at 4:23 pm
cthoward
WIL,
Sorry I don’t have the energy today to reply to everything…but something to keep the discussion going…something for you to think about…
You indicated that the DBR of Christ and Love of God and People are the uncompromisable issues. What about the following:
The “ones” of Ephesians 4:4-6;
The humanity of Jesus Christ per 1John 4:2 and 2John 7;
Confessing Jesus as the Son of God per 1John 4:15;
Keeping Christ’s commandments, 1John 2:4-6;
Not being entangled by the defilements of the world, 2Peter 2:20-22;
Growth in virtues, 2Peter 1:5-9;
Obeying the gospel, 1Peter 4:17-18;
Showing no partiality, James 2:1-9;
etc…..
My point is that there are many issues and doctrines that are presented in Scripture as vital and uncompromisable. I have only given a selection, and only listed ones that have exclusive language (like “one”) or speak of condemnation for those who do not adhere. To view everything (nearly) but the DBR and Love as flexible is dangerous.
I agree that God can and does show mercy…but even mercy implies that we have failed to meet His standard. Even if we do not see the black and white of it all, it seems that God does. And we ought to strive to see as He sees (as well as show mercy as He shows mercy).
Well, that’s all I have in me right now…I am already pretty tired and worn out from preaching and a 4-month-old…and I just got some bad news, so I am pretty drained. I apologize in advance if I do not respond all that quickly.
In Christ,
Clint
May 4, 2009 at 1:34 am
lee
hi corey,
hope your feeling well.
lee
May 4, 2009 at 1:25 pm
coreydavis
Hey, Lee,
All is well with me. My job has changed a little (there is almost always someone looking over my shoulder now), so I have very little time for my blog.
I hope you’re doing well.
May 5, 2009 at 4:59 pm
lee
good thanks,
still remember from time to time to pray for your condition.
i work with a guy now who has MS . takes a shot 3-4 days a week.
praise god anyhow!
lee
May 5, 2009 at 6:18 pm
coreydavis
Thanks, Lee.
I’m the same – 3 shots per week, a couple of pills each day…seems to be helping. I feel like a human pin cushion, but other than that, it is all good!