Q&A: Who is dividing the church, and why do some leave the faith?
July 22 2004 at 3:19 AM
(no login) from IP address 68.19.232.218
Source: Bible Infonet/Firm Foundation
___________________________________________
Q&A: Who is dividing the church, and why do some leave the faith?
Joseph D. Meador
The church is deluged with denominational attitudes. Sectarian teaching has found its way into many pulpits and into the classrooms in many of our schools and universities.
John gives us an apostolic view of the causes of such apostasy. "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us" (1 John 2:19). Guy N. Woods has aptly portrayed:
They became apostates from the fold by going out. They were not 'of' the disciples, i.e., they did not possess the same spirit of obedience characteristic of the disciples, for if 'they had they would have continued with' the disciples. In apostatizing from the faith, they were 'made manifest' (shown to be not of the disciples).
Others, like those of this text, adopt false and heretical doctrines, forsake the church, and make shipwreck concerning the faith (1 Tim. 1:19).
The Bible presents varied reasons for the infection and spread of the disease of apostasy. Why do some leave the faith?
Deception is one reason for division. Paul noted that false teachers of Corinth posed as pious and informed brethren, yet because of their lack of true Bible knowledge, were void of spirituality (1 Tim. 1:19-20; 6:4; 2 Cor. 11:14-15).
He further says that such impostors feigned Christian maturity:
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel, for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore, it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works (2 Cor. 11:14-15).
The Bible points out that many will be deceived into believing doctrinal error because they choose to follow personalities rather than the teaching of Christ (2 Tim. 4:1 ff; Matt.7:21-23).). During the premillennial heresy of the '20s end '30s, many were deceived by "that sweet- spirited preacher," R.H. Boll. In the mid-'30s, K.C. Moser advocated "unmerited grace" which placed more emphasis upon the "personal" Jesus than upon his doctrine. Obedience was minimized. Many followed Moser because he showed an irenic spirit, however contrived that spirit might have been. Some remember the "kind and meek" attitude which was displayed by the leader of the modern "Unity in Diversity" movement, W. Carl Ketcherside, though at times he exhibited a vicious spirit.
There are convincing personalities in this generation who are using the same strategy to draw away many disciples into accepting their favorite theories of grace only, and change of the unchangeable, and mutating the immutable. (The essential elements of the church, which is the body of Jesus, cannot be altered without destroying it. Instead of being the bride of Christ it becomes a harlot.)
The desire for pre-eminence is a driving force among some "professing" Christians who are bent on a course of control. Some have ventured so far in their quest for power that they encourage congregational rebellion in an attempt to "change" and "reform."
The apostle John recounted to Gaius the sad state to which Diotrephes had fallen in loving preeminence (3 John 9). Diotrephes wanted to be the petted and pampered. He refused to receive the apostle John as a brother in Christ. No doubt, Diotrephes thought he had risen to new heights of spirituality.
When the goal is control, the end always justifies the means. Such a perverted spirit would rather rip apart the body of Christ rather than mend; divide rather than graft; and, split apart rather than seam.
Some in the church despise doctrine and seek to amend the will of God to make it mold and conform to their notion of "progressive" Christianity. The Bible says we should attend to sound doctrine, continue in it, and hold steadfastly to it (1 Tim. 4:6; 1 Tim. 4:16; 2 Cor. 2:17; Titus 2:7, 12; 2 Tim. 1:13; Titus 1:9; 2:1).
Truth does not divide. It is incapable of division. When the hammer of error falls on the wedge of discord, it recoils against the seasoned stone of faith, but fragments the unstable sandstone of human ambition. Error and weakness are the cause of division.
We cannot walk in fellowship with those who have gone out from us, even though they were once of us (1 John 1:7; 2:19).
(Joseph D. Meador is the director of the Southwest School of Bible Studies, an excellent institution for the training of men who aspire to preach the Word. He may be contacted by calling [512] 282-2438.)
A change agent is a false teacher within the brotherhood of Churches of Christ who is not content to follow the faith and practice of Christianity as set forth in the pages of the New Testament. He or she therefore works to convince our brethren that they should adopt changes in their faith, worship and practice that will be more acceptable to the world of the 21st Century. The adjective "closet" means they operate undercover, or covertly to accomplish their evil purposes.
Among the things they are trying to change are:
Our commitment to restoring the faith and practice of the church of the Bible. They argue that such an approach is no long practical or needed.
Our praise worship. They think we are wrong in opposing the use of instrumental music and should change to at least be tolerant of those who do so. Many of them are already using musical instruments in their worship. They also think we are wrong to insist on congregational singing and thus they want us to accept the use of soloists, choirs, etc.
The way we commune. Some of them think we are wrong in observing the Communion as a sacred memorial to Jesus' death. They would turn it into a "joyful celebration" and combine it with a regular meal for the belly. Also they wish to be able to commune on other days than the first day of the week.
The role of women in the church. They think we are wrong for not allowing women into leadership roles, and are willing to allow them to serve as preachers and teachers of men.
The nature of the church. To them the Church of Christ is a denomination of the same worth as the hundreds of other denominational churches founded by men. They would have us not think or speak of the church as the exclusive body of Christ.
They think we have been wrong in not fellowshipping the Christian Churches and other denominational bodies. They wish to change us so that we will do so.
They say we have not understood the Bible properly. So they would change the way we read and understand it. This is to allow them to impose their unauthorized changes.
They argue that we have misunderstood the way men are to be saved. They believe we are saved by grace through faith, and that baptism is not an essential aspect of our salvation.
There are other particulars that could be cited but these are sufficient to show that these brethren are proposing changes that are foreign and contrary to the doctrine of Christ. We must not stand silent and allow them to impose these changes of the Lord's people. Where they are successful the church will be corrupted and destroyed. I do hope you will want to work with us in mounting an offensive to defeat them and drive them from our midst.
CAN WE RECEIVE MIRACULOUS GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT TODAY?
July 28 2004, 2:40 AM
CAN WE RECEIVE MIRACULOUS GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT TODAY?
Dear Allen:
The twelve apostles of Christ were baptized in the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost following the ascension of Christ. That brought to their remembrance the message of Christ (John 14:26) and it enabled them to speak that message in languages they had not previously known (Acts 2:4-11). Additionally it gave them the power to perform certain miraculous signs that confirmed their message as being from God (Mk. 16:20). Although everyone who confessed Christ, repented and was baptized received the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) that did not provide them those miraculous powers that the apostles enjoyed.
The people of Samaria heard and accepted the preaching of Philip. They were baptized (Acts 8:12), but it was necessary for an apostle to come and lay hands on them before they could receive the supernatural powers (Acts 8:15-17). That they did not lay hands on every one is seen in the case of Simon the Sorcerer who, although baptized, did not receive the laying on of hands (Acts 8:18-19). The apostles had laid their hands on Philip along with the other deacons at the time of their appointment (Acts 6:1-6). That enabled Philip to preach with the knowledge the Spirit provided and to confirm his message with signs, but he cold not pass this gift along to those whom he converted. That is why Peter and John, apostles, had to journey to Samaria to lay their hands on newly baptized converts to give them the miraculous gifts of the Spirit.
As to the cessation of the supernatural gifts: The apostles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which empowered them with the ability to do miraculous deeds. They laid their hands on selected disciples to empower them. The second generation, those upon whom hands were laid, could not pass the gift along; they had to call upon an apostle to do that. Thus when the last of the twelve apostles died, there was no one left who could lay hands on another to impart the Spirit's gifts.
When the last disciples died, upon whom the hands of an apostle had been laid, the supernatural gifts ceased to be exhibited among Christians.
True, we do not receive the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit today.
But, I do not agree with you, that the apostles received the ability "to cast out unclean spirits, heal all manners of sickness and all manners of disease on the day of Pentecost. They were given this "power" when Jesus sent them out "two by two" some three years before, noting Matthew 10.
Pentecost, according to Peter, was prophesied by Joel. Peter explains what happened. The question: "what does this mean," asked in verse 12 by inquiring minds, is answered in verse 33. Peter does not say: "Wow, what a blessing, we have just been baptized by the Holy Spirit." No, Peter is giving the funeral service for temple centered, national Israel, for the consummating sin of killing the prophets and the Son of God; note the words of Jesus in Matthew 21:33-45: Please pay particular attention to verse 45.
The inspired preacher said: "You men of Israel, delivered by determinate counsel (Jews) and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and by wicked hands (Romans) have crucified and slain Jesus of Nazareth."
"What shall we do?" cried those "three thousand souls, pricked in their hearts" by Peter's inspired words. "Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Peter also exhorted: "Save yourselves from this crooked generation."
This is the same "generation," that Jesus refers to in Matthew 23:23: "You serpents, you generation of vipers, how can you escape the damnation of hell?" Peter's answer is given to all men, of all nations, for all generations in Acts 2:38 how to "escape the damnation of hell."
To say that the twelve men at Pentecost "received the power of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost" to make them "super men" is to nullify the words of Jesus in Matthew 10 and John 20:21-23. "The Jews require a sign" (1 Cor. 1:22). Here was a "sign" that begged the question: "What does this mean?"
Why, we hear these Galilaens speaking in our own language where we were born." Nothing is asked by the throng about the "working of miracles." I believe we need to look at Pentecost through the eyes of a Jew being there, not as a Gentile looking back on that day. Keep in mind, the Jew believed that when God spoke, He would speak to them in Hebrew. Hear again the words of Luke: "We do hear them speak in our own tongues (Acts 1:8-11) the wonderful works of God."
Interesting subject, thank you for allowing me to respond.
SHOULD CONGREGATIONS COMMITTED TO THE CHANGE MOVEMENT BE IDENTIFIED AS SUCH?
August 13 2004, 2:32 AM
SHOULD CONGREGATIONS COMMITTED TO THE CHANGE MOVEMENT BE IDENTIFIED AS SUCH?
Dear Bro. Waddey:
You wrote that "Bro. J. W. Shepherd was appointed to contact the churches and determine which were committed to staying with the old paths of Bible Christianity." Do you think the following action should take place today? Mack
Dear Bro. Mack:
Before I answer your question let me first describe a situation for you. For 100 years folks in the northern and western states who were looking for a church of Christ have had to distinguish between two groups using that name. There are congregations associated with the Independent Christian Churches that still use the name Church of Christ. They have instrumental music, missionary organizations, fellowship denominational bodies and some congregations have women in places of public leadership. There are other congregations that are striving to be simple New Testament Christians, worshiping and serving God as did the ancient disciples of Jesus. In some towns, the congregations themselves made the distinctions. Signs or ads might read, Church of Christ (instrumental) or Church of Christ (a cappella). When lists of our churches were compiled and published in those states we did not list the instrumental groups as part of our fellowship. The same is true of other factions that had separated themselves from the mainstream. Even today, the Directory of Churches of Christ prepared by Mac Lynn and published by 21st Century Christian uses identifying symbols to identify the peculiar identity of congregations. The letters "NI" identifies a congregation as "non-institutional." "NC" tells us a congregation opposes Bible classes.
In my estimation it would be perfectly legitimate to identify those congregations that have embraced the change agenda so that everyone will know what their peculiar identity is. One need only read the many hateful criticisms the promoters of change lay against the brotherhood of churches that do not accept their call for change to see that they view themselves as different from and superior to us. One need only visit their assemblies to see that they worship in ways that are significantly different from other churches of Christ. One need only hear their sermons to understand that they preach a different gospel and plan of salvation than those of the "traditional" churches which they despise. Many of them are removing the name church of Christ from their congregations so they will not be confused with the rest of us. It seems to me that they would welcome the opportunity to be identified as a separate body of people.
I can see why some of the promoters of change would not want to be identified as a different kind of church. If they can continue to operate among us and pretend to be part of the fellowship of New Testament Christians, unsuspecting brethren will be drawn into their congregations not knowing the vast differences in faith and practice the change agents are promoting. They can take preaching jobs in unsuspecting congregations. Under the cover of being a faithful member of the church of Christ they can undermine the faith of the members, subvert the leadership and capture the church for their new movement.
As to Bro. Shepherd and the Federal Census Bureau, no we don't need the government to appoint a brother for the task. We just need discerning Christians to open their eyes, note the differences that are manifold and reject those who have forsaken the Bible way.
I am seeking your advice and biblical insight in the following. How do we recognize and determine a heretic or divisive person (Tit. 3:10), and how can we best show others that flaw? Randy
Dear Bro. Randy:
A factious man is one whose attitude, speech and conduct causes sinful division in the family of God. Problems within a church can be caused for various reasons:
Because of some false teaching that is being promoted.
Because of someone's opposition to the truth that is being taught and practiced.
Because of selfish personal interests; i.e., a determination to have one’s way in some or all situations.
Because of personal antagonisms with other brethren.
Because of ignorance. Even a good person can in ignorance and misguided zeal be guilty of causing conflict and division in the church.
A factious person can be recognized in several ways:
By their conduct. If they are actively trying to recruit a clique or party, if they are hostile and antagonist towards fellow-Christians. Factious people often are seen having private meetings with their sympathizers to plan their strategy, or secretly circulating petitions or letters to effect their agenda.
By their speech. Such people often express openly their intent to "drive out" those who oppose them or to "lead a group in starting a new congregation."
By their teaching. Often a factious person is a teacher or preacher. The manner, tone and content of the message he delivers can be designed to create unrest and unhappiness within the congregation. It can be critical of the elders and a challenge to their leadership and authority.
Factious preachers can sometimes by identified by the content of their sermons. They present lessons that are designed to undermine the doctrine of Christ. Sometimes they ridicule past Christians and those who are clinging to the Bible way. Often they float new controversial ideas and opinions that can only cause dissension within the body.
The person who gathers together a small group and begins to separate them from the rest of the congregation by his teaching and leadership is factious. This might be a campus worker. It might be a person who appeals to younger adults and families within the congregation. It might be the preacher. Slowly they indoctrinate their group with their faulty views and alienate them from the leadership of the church.
Factious people will often use smooth and fair speech to deceive the innocent (Rom. 16:18). Rarely will they admit what they are about.
Given all of the above, we must make a distinction between those who cause divisions "contrary to the doctrine ye learned" from God's book (Rom. 16:17) and those who stand up to and resist the false teacher who has disrupted a congregation. It sometimes happens that the false teacher is able to deceive and gain control of the majority of the congregation...even the elders. When such is the case what shall the faithful brother or sister do? We must mark or take note of them and turn away from them (Rom. 16:17). We must refuse them (Tit. 3:10). We must resist them (Eph. 5:11-12). We must contend against them (Jude 3). When the faithful do this they will often be accused of causing division by the very sinners who have invaded and corrupted the church. The fact is they are not the ones causing the trouble. It is the false teachers and their followers. When Elijah resisted the corruptions of Ahab and Jezebel, they called him "the troubler of Israel" (I Kings 18:16-18). In reality the corrupt rulers were causing the trouble.
As we face the juggernaut of change, may we never be guilty of promoting faction in God's church, but may we always be steadfast, and unmovable in our faith and convictions (I Cor. 15:58).
I just have a simple question to ask that I don't want to get drawn out on a huge rant. I consider myself interdenomination because I can worship bountifully in a CoC, a Baptist Church, Pentacostal, Methodist, etc... But for the sake of the point being made:
I am a Baptist.
I believed and was baptized and now follow the scripture, not because I am told I should, but because I want to and because I love God and wish to be acceptable to him.
You state that you are a believer who has been baptized, that you are truly trying to be acceptable to God, that you can worship well in any denomination, and that you are a Baptist. Then you ask if you are going to hell. Are you really worried that you just might belong to the "wrong" church and that your soul is in danger? If so, then it's time to take corrective action. Or are you merely asking a rhetorical question out of curiosity to see what kind of varied responses you receive from members of the Church of Christ?
Anyone who flatly states that you are going to hell just because you belong to a particular denomination is presuming judgment from God. Only God can determine your eternity, as you undoubtedly realize. But many denominations maintain beliefs and practices which the New Testament (NT) clearly does not authorize, and these should be of concern to anyone who is truly trying to be acceptable to God. Some of these unscriptural practices include, but are not limited to:
1. Communion not taken weekly; the disciples met and broke bread on the first day of each week (Acts 20:7, KJV).
2. Pratice of infant baptism--not authorized in NT.
3. Water baptism by any means other than immersion--"baptism" comes from the Greek "baptisma," meaning "immersion" or "submersion," not sprinkling or pouring.
4. Water baptism is only an outward sign of belief--Mark 16:16 and 1 Peter 3:21 both stipulate that baptism is required for salvation; Acts 2:38 stipulates that baptism is required for remission of sins.
5. Ordination of women priests and pastors--not authorized in NT.
6. Ordination of homosexual priests and pastors (men and women)--the NT condemns fornications, which include homosexuality (1 Cor. 6:9).
7. Employing a host of worldly, entertainment-oriented media in worship, such as instrumental music, praise teams, choirs, drama, skits--defies general principles outlined in Romans 12:2, Ephesians 5:19, and James 4:4.
8. The Bible is not relative to modern society, contains spurious passages, and is not the infallible Word of God--the philosophy of many liberal preachers and Bible scholars, who ignore 2 Timothy 3:16.
9. As times change, Bible doctrine must change to meet the needs of society--apostasy predicted in 2 Timothy 4:3-4.
10. Salvation by faith alone, nothing else--ignores requirements of repentance, confession, and baptism, as stipulated in Matt. 10:32-33, Mark 16:16, Luke 13:3, Acts 2:38, Romans 10:9, and 1 Peter 3:21.
11. As long as you have love and a "heart for Jesus," everying else is "disputable," including your beliefs and biblical doctrine--this is one facet of the "Purpose-Driven Church" philosophy, an apostasy predicted in 2 Timothy 4:3-4.
While Christianity gives us spiritual "freedom" from the Old Law of Moses, we are not completely free to do as we please. Christ intended for us to follow His commands, neither adding to nor subtracting anything from them. Unfortunately, the list above, and others like it, do just that. Many in the modern church refer to this strict adherence to the "law of Christ" as "legalism." No, it is simple OBEDIENCE. I would think that anyone who is truly trying to be acceptable to God would strive to deviate neither to the right hand nor to the left in their walk with Him. Follow the Bible's narrow guidelines to salvation, not popular opinion to destruction, and do not associate with any denomination which subscribes to anything which is not authorized in the New Testament.
I have complete faith that I am going written in the Lamb's book of life. I was simply trying to see if someone would tell me that because I am not a member of the CoC that I am going to hell. Is this truly the general consensus? I haven't a doctorate in theology, nor am I being backed by a minister or am I trying to throw the entire doctrine of the CoC down the gutter. I truly love the way that there is focus on the New Testament. But I see that the CoC is against many of my church's practices. My question is this: why would they concern themselves unless they believe it is directly related to my salvation?
1: I take communion, but not every week. I do it in remembrance of him because he commanded us to fulfill all righteousness. I am, in no way, going half-heartedly about my life as a Christian. Every aspect of my life should be directed by Christly ambitions.
2: I’m utterly against infant Baptism and sprinkling baptism.
3: I’ve been baptized and did so for Christ, it was for no man. However I disagree with the CoC’s standpoint on Water Baptism. We know each others’ standpoints on this issue and I can easily go to another page in these forums to read it so a lengthy description of this is not needed. (I know I sound brash, but I’m simply trying to get at the answer here.)
4: The pastor of my church is not a woman nor do I ever attend sermons where women preach. This is an issue I am currently praying over and am seeking answers too through a lot of reading.
5: Homosexuality is sin.
6: I have a difference in opinion over musical worship.
7: The Bible is perfect, uncontradictory and of Divine Origin.
8: Salvation by faith is my belief, but without faith you would not repent and confess and be baptized. I have done all of these to make myself pleasing to God. I didn’t do it for membership of a denomination or to satisfy anyone but God.
9: I love everyone, but that is not a call for me to throw aside his commandments and my service to him. However, that’s quite the contrary. If I have the love of Jesus, a godly love, then I’ll love my father in heaven and do his bidding.
10:Lastly, the only doctrine my church goes by is the Bible.
Those are my beliefs as a Baptist. I want to know if any of these things will send me to hell, in your opinion. I am doing this to get a better understanding of the CoC, not to put it down or judge it. My best friend goes to a Church of Christ and we study the bible together constantly. He is even going to a satellite school of Sunset Bible Institute (A Church of Christ School). I love each of you and I know you have nothing against me.
Feel free to e-mail me, I'm not hiding anything and I'm serious that I simply want to understand the CoC better. I've seen many people blast the Church of Christ and visa versa, but I am not one of those people. I have an open ear to you and I hope yours are open to me.
Dustin, thanks for your thoughts. If you are convinced that you are following all of the New Testament's commandments, then anyone's opinion, let alone those in the C of C, about whether you are going to hell is moot. Again, only God can determine your eternity.
You might want to review your church's position on any points of biblical doctrine and ask yourself: "Does my church's doctrine and do my beliefs completely coincide with those as stipulated in the New Testament?" If they do, and if there is not room for doubt, then there is nothing more to say. If there is still a question in your mind, perhaps you need to fine tune your beliefs until they are in total harmony with those of the New Testament.
I say this, because I was raised in the C of C but later in life became an organist for and joined a Southern Baptist church for a few years. Then that church began to incorporate worldly gimmicks (like those I mentioned in my earlier post) into worship services to attract more members. After further biblical study, I realized that these elements were completely unnecessary for acceptable worship, and in some instances, they actually hindered worship, because attention was centered on performers and performances rather than on pure worship of God. This same Baptist church only encouraged water baptism and would have never taught that Christ required it for salvation; hence, there were members who professed to be Christians but who had never been baptized because they felt "saved" without it, and it was inconvenient to go through with it.
Having seen "both sides," I left the Baptist church because I believe that such a denomination does not quite measure up to New Testament standards (it's close, but not on target). I say that not to be damning or hostile, but simply because it's my conviction when I review New Testament standards. We must be able to live with our consciences. I believe that the C of C comes the closest to following the New Testament as Christ commanded.
On the other hand, people from other denominations are often turned off by the C of C because of our desire to follow the New Testament very strictly: plain worship services without external, worldly gimmicks; no jokes, amusing anecdotes, entertainment, or instrumental music during services; a cappella hymn singing; weekly Communion and collections; expository preaching that includes messages of God's mercy for those who repent and God's judgment for the hardened sinner; steps to salvation include hearing the Word, believing the Word, repentance, confession, and baptism. Sermons present complete biblical truth, the sweet with the bitter, without concern for "political correctness." Worship is a time for complete devotion to God, with de-emphasis of self and personal preferences. "What can make worship fun?" or "What can I get out of worship?" are alien concepts to us (or should be). Instead, we believe, "How can I worship so that God, and God alone, is glorified?"
I WELCOME you into the Body of Christ. What we have in COMMON is Jesus and that is the most important thing to have in common. Really, nothing else matters. Despite what some may say here, you ARE a member of the BODY and NOTHING can change that.
You have probably solicited the WRONG people for approval in this matter as some here would say you need to be a member of the CofC to be a "Christian". that is SO sad. I am a member of a CofC, but consider myself a member of the BODY of Christ as a whole, which includes a variety of Christians from other churches.
Re: Salvation (Dustin B., October 4 2004, 5:33 PM)
October 5 2004, 3:30 AM
Dustin,
Much has already been covered since your initial post, although not in great detail. At least these topics have been mentioned—being interdenominational (what is that versus non-denominationalism); worship, the Communion, the role of women, pastors and elders, instrumental music, apostasy, the old covenant, the new covenant, the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, etc.
I would like to study only the subject of baptism at this moment. I believe we agree that neither sprinkling nor pouring qualifies as the scriptural way of baptism, which literally means an immersion. Discussions regarding baptism in itself can be lengthy, so, let me just briefly mention what it is designed for and when it occurs. Remember, that the life of an individual is not one continuum from his physical birth until death without regard for when his spiritual journey actually begins.
It is really important for the Bible student to rightly divide God’s word. The book of Acts speaks of the various conversions that took place at Pentecost during the establishment of the church of Christ in Jerusalem. In Matt. 16:18-20, it foretold the coming of the kingdom, when Christ told Peter He would build His church, gave to him the keys to the kingdom. Surely, Peter preached to the would-be Christians, and please note that those (cf. Acts 2:47) that gladly received the word were baptized and were ADDED unto the church about 3,000 souls. In other words, we DO NOT JOIN the church—we are ADDED TO the church and added ONLY AFTER baptism.
While we agree on the truth regarding the significance of faith in salvation, God’s abundant grace, the redeeming power in the blood of the Lamb or that works of righteousness are not requirements in order to receive redemption, it is very important to keep in mind that there is such a thing as “remission of sins that are past.”—not future or uncommitted sins a Christian has to deal with later on. Romans 3:25 clearly expresses this—“Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.”
There are numerous passages that deal with baptism. However, I would like to strongly emphasize Acts 2:38, because when understood correctly, the purpose of baptism is clearly in order to receive forgiveness—which does NOT occur before submitting to it. And look at the preceding verse first, Acts 2:37—Now when they HEARD this, they WERE PRICKED (BELIEVED) in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?” What were those that heard the gospel and believed supposed TO DO NEXT? The answer is in the following verse.
NONE of the following 16 translations uses “BECAUSE OF” in ACTS 2:38—and it could have been easily placed in the translated text. The GREEK preposition “EIS”—when translated as “FOR”—does NOT CONTRADICT the OTHER MEANINGS of “EIS” in THE 1ST CENTURY NEW TESTAMENT GREEK usage of the preposition; it also means: INTO, SO, SO THAT, IN ORDER TO, TOWARD, UNTO—all in “forward”, not “backward” direction.
VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE: The “interpretation” of “eis” to mean “because of” destroys the false tenet that the benefits of (1) receiving the forgiveness of sins and (2) receiving the Holy Spirit’s gift should PRECEDE both requirements of (1) repentance and (2) baptism [immersion in water]. Why? Why? Why? Consider another little Greek word, the conjunction “kai” (which, surprisingly, no one denies that it means “and”—joining two elements of equal import). The TRUTH in the passage is that BLESSINGS, BENEFITS OR RESULTS (forgiveness and the Spirit’s gift) simply CANNOT PRECEDE either of the requirements or conditions. The verse also says “REPENT” (one of the conditions) which CANNOT BE SUBSEQUENT TO being forgiven beforehand. Is this making sense? (To those who are Calvinists or Pentecostals, please do not interject your theory that the immersion here refers to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It is wrong, in the first place, as there are many passages in the rest of the book of Acts to support water baptism. Besides, we’re discussing the significance of the tiny word “eis”—however insignificant that is to you.)
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for [unto, to, toward] the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [New International Version (NIV)]
Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for [unto, to, toward] the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [New American Standard Bible (NASB)]
Peter said, "Change your life. Turn to God and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, so your sins are forgiven. Receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [The Message (MSG)]
And Peter answered them, Repent (change your views and purpose to accept the will of God in your inner selves instead of rejecting it) and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for [unto, to, toward] the forgiveness of and release from your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [Amplified Bible (AMP)]
Peter replied, "Each of you must turn from your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for [unto, to, toward] the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [New Living Translation (NLT)]
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for [unto, to, toward] the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. [King James Version (KJV)]
And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for [unto, to, toward] the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [English Standard Version (ESV)]
Peter said, "Turn back to God! Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will be given the Holy Spirit. [Contemporary English Version (CEV)]
Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for [unto, to, toward] the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [New King James Version (NKJV)]
Then Peter said unto them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for [unto, to, toward] the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. [21st Century King James Version (KJ21)]
And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [American Standard Version (ASV)]
Stop your wrong ways and turn back to God,' answered Peter. `And then everyone of you can be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ. Your wrong ways will be forgiven you, and you will receive the Holy Spirit. [Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE)]
and Peter said unto them, `Reform, and be baptized each of you on the name of Jesus Christ, to remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, [Young's Literal Translation (YLT)]
And Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptised, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for [unto, to, toward] remission of sins, and ye will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [Darby Translation (DARBY)]
And Peter said to them, Do ye penance [Penance, he said, do ye], and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, into remission of your sins; and ye shall take the gift of the Holy Ghost. [Wycliffe New Testament (WYC)]
Peter replied, Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for [unto, to, toward] the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [New International Version - UK (NIV-UK)]
Both the remission of sins and the receiving of the Spirit’s gift do not precede repentance, do they? Baptism does not precede repentance, does it? Repentance does not precede belief or faith, does it? Belief or faith does not precede hearing the gospel does it?
Think of baptism as being immersed with Christ into His death. Think of baptism as putting on Christ
Col. 2:12—“BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM, wherein also ye are RISEN WITH HIM through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.”
Rom. 6:4—“Therefore we are BURIED WITH HIM BY BAPTISM INTO DEATH: that LIKE AS CHRIST WAS RAISED UP from the dead by the glory of the Father, EVEN SO WE ALSO SHOULD WALK IN NEWNESS OF LIFE.
I Peter 3:20-21—“Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of NOAH, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were SAVED BY WATER. The LIKE FIGURE whereunto even BAPTISM doth also now SAVE us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Gal. 3:27—“For as many of you as have been BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST have PUT ON CHRIST.”
Dustin, yours is undoubtedly an honest question. Are you “going to hell” because of your belief and practice regarding redemption in the blood of the Lamb PRIOR to baptism? Let’s be realistic here. No one on earth should make that call. Since we have the Holy Scripture that explains how the first century folks became Christians, let it make that judgment. In light of what the scripture tells me, there’s not a single example or instance in which one is a Christian first (or SAVED already) before submitting to baptism. For this reason, I believe it’s OK to rethink one’s position with a really open mind. And the big question is: What if I had thought all along that I was saved (or became a Christian) prior to baptism—when in reality I wasn’t? Again, paraphrasing Acts 2:38—the unbeliever (sinner) is to: (1) Repent AND (2) be baptized in order to receive WHAT? … (3) to receive the forgiveness of sins and (4) to receive God’s Spirit’s gift.
One final reminder, a parallel passage to Acts 2:38 is Acts 3:19—(1) Repent ye therefore, and (2) be converted, (3) that your sins may be blotted out, (4) when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
Donnie, thanks for your review of baptism. I recall that when I resigned as organist from the Southern Baptist church, I cited a host of reasons for leaving, one of which was their erroneous take on baptism. That kindled the ire of the pastor, who shot a rather hot email message to me, claiming that there was not one single passage in the Bible which required baptism for salvation, that no passage ever stated that baptism was efficacious or regenerative. This denominational pastor operated, as do many, under the misconception that the C of C uses baptism solely as a physical means of purging sin and gaining salvation. Somehow, they just cannot get it straight that because Christ linked baptism with faith for salvation (Mark 16:16), it is not the physical water which does the saving, it is the submission, the OBEDIENCE through baptism. After fulfilling the New Testament's requirements of hearing the Word, believing the Word, repenting of and turning from a past life of sin, confessing publicly that Jesus is the Son of God, and being baptized, THEN, Christ adds us to His church. But many refuse to accept the New Testament's requirements for salvation.
My Church does not have a Doctrine, but the Bible is my church’s Doctrine. I study my bible daily and I have found 1 John to be an extremely helpful book. I like to call it the “Acid Test of Faith”. In this Book, John tells us how to know whether or not we are Saved.
1Jo 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
We are commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ to get baptized in order to fulfill all righteousness. Therefore if anyone teaches that we are not to be baptized, they are not teaching the Gospel. This is why I consider myself interdenominational, because if a preacher of any church came to me and told me otherwise I can show him my Bible and say he is wrong, not my church doctrine. I agree with you one hundred percent that Baptism is a commandment, and by what John tell us, you aren’t in Truth (Saved) if you do not follow his commandments. In other words, if they don’t want to be baptized they walk not in the light and never knew him in the first place.
1Jo 2:11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.
Therefore I love every member of Christ’s family, be they CoC members, Baptists or any denomination. Not only that, but I love every thief, murderer, drunkard, homosexual, terrorist and baby killer out there. Are we not commanded to love these people? Christ died for us while we were still sinners, therefore he loved us. It is by love that I spread the gospel, not for my merit. Every one of those people have a soul that god prizes, I should love and pray for them every chance I get.
1Jo 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
I cannot wait until I can leave this world, but while I am here I am going to follow his word to a “T” and do my best to please him.
1Jo 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
I most DEFINITELY do not deny the Son. I’ve made my point on this already.
1Jo 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.
1Jo 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
1Jo 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
That speaks to me so much because there he tells us a major point. We’ll know we’re saved because WE KNOW. God’s spirit dwells in us so that we feel him. This is, above all, how I KNOW that I am saved. Because he said that I will know!
1Jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
He sums it up right there, doesn’t he? I may not have a PhD and I might just now be on my road to a Post-secondary education, but I am capable of picking up God’s word and seeing what it is he wants. Thank God that we all are! Thank you for your replies and I appreciate your care for souls, it is obvious you are ready to help anyone that needs it. Thank you JD for your words! I love hearing that phrase, Body of Christ! It is true that every denomination and church name means little when we get down to it. If we are truly washed in the blood of the lamb then we are ALL brothers! I also thank Dr. Crump and Donnie Cruz who obviously have been endowed with a deep knowledge of the scripture. If I ever have a question that I ask, then I know people like you guys are out there to help me.
Re: Salvation (Dustin B., October 5 2004, 4:41 PM)
October 7 2004, 4:05 AM
Dustin,
Thanks for your kind response. I agree with you on the faith issue especially in the life of a Christian. Since it is possible for a Christian to “fall from grace” with Christ becoming ineffective in his life (Gal. 5:4) or to be diverted from the straight, narrow path, he is constantly admonished to live a life of love and service to his Master. And there are numerous passages that remind us to be fervent, to persevere and to remain faithful to the end so that the faithful ones will receive the crown, the promised eternal life in the end. As one has clearly stated, “It is a long road between the cross and the crown.” One key reference is for the Christian to “take heed lest he fall” (I Cor. 10:12).
My personal feeling is that interdenominationalism does not paint the true and real picture of what the church, the body of Christ, really is. If the body of Christ is comprised of denominations, how is that possible when each denomination is a religious body in itself? The church or body of Christ is not a conglomerate of different religious bodies. If denominations comprise the one body of Christ, what gives a person the right to make exceptions or to accept some denominations and reject others as being members of that body? My understanding is that the body of Christ is comprised of INDIVIDUAL CHRISTIANS or DISCIPLES wherever they may be … … … … NOT RELIGIOUS BODIES with varying and contradicting sets of doctrines, beliefs and practices. [That’s just a side note, since it was brought up.]
The discussion of salvation can really get very confusing without a thorough understanding of God’s scheme of redemption. [Remember the two little Greek words “eis” and “kai” to which I alluded in my earlier post?] I say “thorough” because Christians are responsible for making it clear to the lost as to what God’s plan of redemption really is. Otherwise, the repercussion is that if we “professed” Christians tell others [the would-be converts] the wrong plan, then, we will be held accountable for teaching error.
All the wonderful references you quoted pertain to Christian living. This is the period in which our faith is to produce good works or works of righteousness, since the life of a Christian is that of service—he is a disciple and SERVANT of his Lord. I’m afraid, though, that often we fail to delineate a sinner’s previous life from the point at which that sinner becomes a Christian, who strives to remain faithful to the end of life on earth.
Here’s my point, e.g.: Mr. John Sin, who was born in 1965, had lived a sinful life [robbery, immorality, atheism, etc.] until he became Mr. John Christian in 1990, 25 years later. By contrast, another individual, Mr. Peter Moral, who had done what appeared to be “works of righteousness” prior to his conversion, became Mr. Peter Christian 22 years later. In either case, regardless of how sinful or how good a person is, he is outside of Christ until by God’s grace he is redeemed from his past sins by the blood of the Lamb (please read Romans 3:25).
The question is not about the cleansing power in the blood of the Lamb or the great suffering and sacrifice that our Savior made. The question is not about God’s abundant grace. The question is not about faith—which is obviously necessary before a sinner becomes a Christian. The BIG question in the CONVERSION PROCESS is—WHEN DOES THE REMISSION OF SINS TAKE PLACE? Does it occur BEFORE or AFTER repentance and baptism?
It is not necessary for the unconverted to know the importance of the Greek words “eis” and “kai” in Acts 2:37,38. However, I have already stressed the point in my earlier post that it is really important in the evangelism effort to explain to the unconverted that Acts 2:38 truly means what it says.
Romans 10:9-17 explains for the most part the steps in the conversion process;
The gospel is PREACHED
One HEARS the word of God
Hearer BELIEVES [HAS FAITH] in him of whom he has just heard
One who has faith CONFESSES the Lord Jesus toward salvation
Acts 2:37,38; Acts 3:19 explain what the early disciples of Christ experienced during their conversion at Pentecost:
Peter PREACHED (Matt. 16:18-19; Acts 2:14)
They HEARD the risen Christ preached (2:30-31,37)
They were PRICKED [BELIEVED] in their heart (v. 37)
Must do what then? REPENT (2:38; 3:19)
Must do ALSO what? AND [kai] BE BAPTIZED or [BE CONVERTED]
Why? SO THAT [eis] YOUR SINS WILL BE REMITTED
And also Why? AND [kai] RECEIVE the Spirit’s gift [refreshing, clear conscience]
The above passages clearly specify the design and purpose of immersion—that the remission of sins in the precious blood of Jesus DOES NOT OCCUR prior to immersion. There is no power in the water. Baptism by immersion is a physical act that symbolizes being BURIED WITH Christ, burying the past sinful life. And it also symbolizes being RESURRECTED WITH Christ in order to begin newness of life—the beginning of a new Christian life. There is not a single scripture that points to the notion that baptism is a “test of obedience” after-the-fact. Indeed, it is a condition, a step or a requirement that the unbeliever must follow IN ORDER TO have sins remitted or become a Christian.
Baptism is described as “putting on Christ.” When one puts on Christ in baptism, he is then entitled to wear the name of Christ, thus, “Christian.” But NOT BEFORE baptism! Can this be any clearer picture: burying sins in baptism or putting on Christ in baptism? Therefore, the key solution to the key question of WHEN the unbeliever receives forgiveness and becomes a Christian is found in Acts 2:38. “Repent and [“kai”] be baptized for [“eis” or so that, to, toward, unto] the remission of sins and [“kai”] the receiving of God’s Spirit’s gift (or refreshing, clear conscience).”
Re: Salvation—When Does It Begin, Continue and End?
October 8 2004, 3:36 AM
The conversion process—God’s scheme of redemption—has been discussed for centuries. No consensus has been established, the main reason being that students of the Bible have varying views on whether or not the process is a one-time “done deal”—meaning: from here on to eternity … or something else. Whether salvation occurs prior to or after baptism is a colossal issue that has not been settled and will not be settled unless we honestly rely on the Holy Scripture for the answer. It is a major issue—and we should never undermine doctrines that are “salvation issues” [ah, you’ve heard that phrase before]. After all, “how to receive salvation” is the crux of the gospel—the good news of God’s grace and love made available to the entire humankind, including the “predestinated” selected few (as claimed, i.e.). The Holy Scripture has it settled, though, but man’s opinions have not. The open-minded reader will just have to make that judgment as to which interpretation is correct—one Bible … but varying, opposing, and confusing interpretations, all claiming to be correct.
The initial salvation received after following God’s requirements, including baptism, has been discussed in preceding posts. The forgiven sinner becomes a Christian at that point. To reiterate: there is a “starting point” from which the just-converted sinner begins his new Christian life. What must a Christian do from here on? The first of 3 segments below summarizes the conversion process discussed earlier. The other segments deal with the Christian journey and expectations in the end—the receiving of the reward.
TO THE UNCONVERTED: RECEIVING GOD’S GRACE THROUGH FAITH IN CHRIST—REDEMPTION FROM PAST SINS (Rom. 3:25)—A FREE GIFT.
Acts 22: [16] And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Romans 6:[3] Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? [4] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. [5] For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: [6] Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. … [18] Being then made free from sin [AFTER BAPTISM], ye became the servants of righteousness.
Ephesians 2:[8] For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: [9] Not of works, lest any man should boast.
TO THE CHRISTIAN: BEGINS NEWNESS OF LIFE AFTER BAPTISM—MUST REMAIN FAITHFUL TO THE END—IT IS A LONG JOURNEY.
Once the individual has changed his status (converted from) “SINNER” to “CHRISTIAN,” the Bible strongly suggests that the Christian is to maintain good works—that he must persevere to the end, maintaining that strong relationship with his Lord and Master that he is to serve. This truth does not negate the constant that we are still under God’s grace as Christians, and that we’re not being pessimistic, either, as we strive to fulfill our responsibilities as SERVANTS to obey His commands.
Ephesians 2:[10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
I John 2:[3,4] And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
Matt. 7:[21] Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
I John 2:[17] And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
James 2:[14] What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? [17] Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. [20] But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? [24] Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. [26] For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Titus 3:[8] This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.
Luke 13:[24] Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.
Phil. 2:[12] Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
Hebrews 5:[8,9] Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.
Matt. 10:[22] And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
Matt. 24:[13] But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Mark 13:[13] And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Hebrews 12:[1] Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, [2] Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith….
TO THE FAITHFUL CHRISTIAN: WILL RECEIVE THE CROWN OF LIFE, EVERLASTING LIFE AS PROMISED.
Romans 2—“[5] … against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; [6] Who will render to every man according to his deeds: [7] To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life.”
I Timothy 6:[12] Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses. … [19] Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
Titus 1:[2] In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
Titus 3:[7] That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
I John 2:[25] And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.
Jude 1:[21] Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
John 6:[27] Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
James 1:[12] Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
Hebrews 9:[15] And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Heb. 10:[23,36] Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) … For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
Hebrews 4:[1] Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. … [9] There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. [10] For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. [11] Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
Rev. 2:[10] … Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.
“BE THOU FAITHFUL UNTO DEATH, AND I WILL GIVE THEE A CROWN OF LIFE.”
I don't see how anyone could make it any clearer or wrapped up so that one must INTEND to "reject the counsel of God" to reject it.
"Legalism" would try to find LOOPHOLES. That which MIGHT hinder the eunuch from being baptized was NOT believing that Jesus was the Christ the Son of God.
A Cornelius would glorify God as a confession in the "tongue" of the Jews and Peter said, in effect, that no one could REFUSE baptism to them. Peter was sent to tell him what he must do: what he did was to baptize Cornelius. God's election is God's invitation: one who "rejects the counsel of God by rejecting baptism" will be shut out of the wedding because they have no OIL for their LAMPS.
You have PREACHED THE GOSPEL and that preaching has only one possible response. A person who has not had their sins remitted is still a sinner. BELIEVING never remits sins.
For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? 1 Pet 4:17
And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? 1Pe.4:18
Can one that is not "Saved" receive the holy spirit/ghost? Because when you have the Holy Ghost, you know for a fact of your salvation (as stated earlier in 1 John).
For most of church history there was never any concept that the "holy spirit" was a PERSON separated from the Godhead. Even trinitarians explain God as Father (thought), Son (Word) and Spirit (breath or the interchange of truth from the UNKNOWABLE Spirit world to us).
Jesus speaking as the SON or WORD set up a relationship with the FATHER. As God Incarnate the man Jesus contained FULL DEITY: He said that both the Father and Spirit were within Him. In John 6:63 He discounted the FLESH body and said "My WORDS are spirit and life."
As "Son" or word He spoke only what He heard from the Father within. He defined the clergy as sons of the Devil because "they speak on their own."
The concept of MEASURES of spirit I think means this as John wrote:
Jn 3:31 He that COMETH from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is ABOVE all
Jn 3:32 And what he hath SEEN and HEARD, that he TESTIFIETH; and no man receiveth his testimony.
John 1: He was WITH God because He WAS God. He is Beginning and Ending but not two people. He is Alpha and Omega meaning that His Godhead is continuous even though vested in the body.
When the Christ "laid aside" His majesty and glory HE personally came to dwell "in a body prepared for me." This is why the FATHER sent the SON or the THOUGHT OR MIND sent His Word.
In Isaial 11 the SPIRIT which will rest on the BRANCH is like seven spirits or LIGHTS which rest on the candlestick as Menorah in the Holy Place. ALL of these "spirits" relate to forms of DIVINE KNOWLEDGE. That is why Jesus died to build a SCHOOL and not a pagan worship center.
This is why Paul and others MINISTER THE SPIRIT by preaching. That body of Divine Intellegence is called SPIRIT just as the stuff or disposition of our MIND is SPIRIT but not a little person
This was the heritage of the Campbell Restoration Movement derived from the RESTORATION MOVEMENT begun by John Calvin. Only in my lifetime has anyone dared to call God THREE PERSONS meaning three PEOPLE. There is no misreading of men like Rubel Shelly who sees this Family of Gods actually holding a conference
Jn 3:33 He that hath received his TESTIMONY hath set to his seal that God is true.
And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Rev 19:10
The Invisible Deity is imaged forth as Father, Son and Spirit. This defines the transfer of information from Father to Son. That information is SPIRIT. "Son" means the "protector and promoter of the Father's Name."
Jn.3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the WORDS of God:
for God GIVETH NOT the SPIRIT by MEASURE unto him.
In Romans 15 Paul commands "that which is written" as the only way to glorify God. In Ephesians 5 it is SPIRIT and in Colossians the "singing" is the WORD OF CHRIST. Singing silly love songs to God has NO CONNECTION TO THE SPIRIT of God and in fact says "we are NOT OF God."
I don't know how to say it any clearer: the WORDS which the Son Spoke were the Words of the GOD. Therefore, these spirit words are exhaustive as far as we can know God through words:
Jn 3:35 The FATHER loveth the SON, and hath given ALL THINGS into his hand.
Jesus said that THE WORDS which He spoke will judge us. God WASHES us by WATER and the WORD. When we RECEIVE the Words of Christ as Spirit and Life we WILL NOT HESITATE to request baptism. That is the time and place where we REQUEST a good conscience or consiousness or A holy spirit. When our bodies are WASHED God sprinkles our HEART or SPIRIT with His own blood. I wonder if anti-baptismal people are not mortally afraid of the BLOOD of Christ?
Jn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
As Donnie has pointed out, the term BELIEVER or BELIEVETH is always retrospective. Of those baptized for the remission of sins it is said that THE BELIEVERS had all things in common.
Historical scholars have always been aware that what we substitute as MUSICAL SINGING was commanded by God through Paul to be SPEAKING the inspired Bible text. The purpose was not PLEASURING but of TEACHING and ADMONISHING one another. When the Jews lifted up their hands it was lifting up the WORD of God: when they READ it as Paul commands they were RECEIVING the Words of God because we are NOW IN the Son just as surely as if God was speaking to us. Jesus said he would be there when we "come learn of me." When people speak SERMONIC STUFF it is God making fun of the and sending them STRONG DELUSIONS because they tell God in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS: "I cannot receive that of Spirit to spirit or worship in the new PLACE of my own spirit in my own closet."
I cannot put into words the revulsion I have alway felt to some extent when I read SERMONS or think about SANGING by those who claim that THEIR words are more important than the Words of Christ which ARE Spirit and Life. I simply DO NOT GO THERE ANYMORE because the pain is beyond endurance. For the musical legalists THERE IS NO LAW OF GIVING so quit letting them FLEECE you and then "craunching your bones."
Here is one thing I did which shows that SPIRIT and MIND and HEART are identical. Paul equated the Holy Spirit to the Mind of Christ.
Sorry about the color but I thin this is the best way to hammer into heads that SPIRIT is never a person unless it is speaking of God Who is Holy or Wholly Spirit without body parts. The next is a series on Romans. The following is the one I have colorized to drive you as crazy as listening to a pompous sermon.
There is no separate entity, there is one God and he consists of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I know that the spirit isn't some sort of little guy that hops into your body. But what I was wondering was if the Holy Spirit can be received by those that are not Saved. Since then I've looked into it and here's what I've found:
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
And if the Holy Spirit is in the Saved and not those that aren't Saved, then why did Peter baptize AFTER the Holy Ghost was received?
Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Jesus discounted the flesh and said MY WORDS are SPIRIT and they are LIFE. The Words of Christ the Spirit simply will not "stick" or reside in A human spirit which is not HOLY or undefiled. In the Old Testament God promised to give US a NEW, HOLY SPIRIT and the purpose was so that we would keep His commands.
"Again--Some will say, What does the expression Holy Spirit mean? Well, in scripture it stands first for God the Holy Spirit, and secondly for the holy mind or spirit of a believer-- for illustration, take Peter's words to Ananias, "Why has Satan tempted you to lie to the Holy Spirit; you have not lied to men, but to God," (the Holy Spirit.) And the Saviour says, How much more will your heavenly Father give A holy spirit (as it should be translated) to those that ask him. Again--Praying in A holy spirit. Again--Paul says he approved himself God's servant "by knowledge, by long sufferings, by kindness, by a holy spirit'" by a mind innocent of the love of gain, or commerce, or sensuality. Walter Scott
"But an old Hubris tends to bring forth in evil men, sooner or later, at the fated hour of birth, a young Hubris and that irresistible, unconquerable, unholy spirit, Recklessness, and for the household black Curses, which resemble their parents. - John M. Allegro, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross.
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the GIFT of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38
The purpose for remission of sins is that God can WASH our HUMAN spirit so that it becomes A holy spirit. It is OUR spirits which hold the SINS and it is OUR spirit which needs to be purged to make IT holy:
Hagios (g40) hag'-ee-os; from hagos , (an awful thing) [comp. 53, 2282]; sacred (phys. pure, mor. blameless or religious, cer. CONSECRATED): - (most) holy (one, thing), saint
Hagnos (g53) hag-nos'; from the same as 40; prop. CLEAN, i.e. (fig.) innocent, modest, perfect: - chaste, clean, pure.
The same Paul wrote:
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for A clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1 Peter 3:21
The word "conscience" also means CONSIOUSNESS. Only by having OUR conscience MADE HOLY or cleared can we have A CLEAR CONSIOUSNESS of God and His Word. This word means A co-perception. You don't let God in until HE has swept out the 'demons.'
Let us draw near with a TRUE HEART in full assurance of faith, having our HEARTS sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Heb.10:22
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are SANCTIFIED, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and BY the Spirit of our God. 1Co.6:11
Sanctified is:
Hagiazo (g37) hag-ee-ad'-zo; from 40; to make holy, i.e. (cer.) purify or consecrate; (MENTALLY) to venerate: - hallow, be holy, sanctify.
Now, take a look at First Corinthians and grasp that the word "spirit" is never capitalized for us and SPIRIT in both Hebrew and Greek speaks of either God Who is Holy or WHOLLY Spirit without body parts.
But he that is joined unto the Lord is ONE SPIRIT. 1 Cor 6:17
That CANNOT mean that we are the SAME Spirit Being but that we have one MENTAL DISPOSITION which is what SPIRIT means unless it applies to God Who does not have a SEPARATED Spirit.
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against HIS OWN BODY 1 Cor 6:18
What? know ye not that your body is the TEMPLE of the HOLY SPIRIT which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 1 Cor 6:19
For ye are BOUGHT with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in YOUR SPIRIT, which are Gods. 1 Cor 6:20
THE holy spirit is YOUR SPIRIT which has been MADE holy only at the time and place of baptism.
One of the clearest opinions in scholarly history is that Paul NEVER speaks of the Holy Spirit as a "person" separated from the one God. Spirit is the spirit OF Christ where SPIRIT in both Hebrew and Greek speaks of the spirit OF or the mental disposition OF someone:
And be renewed in the spirit OF your mind; Ep.4:23
Our spirit is our heart or OUR MIND. Spirit seaks of the MENTAL DISPOSITION of our MIND.
Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in ONE spirit, with ONE MIND striving together for the faith of the gospel; Ph.1:27
For God hath not given us the spirit OF fear; but of power, and of love, and of a SOUND MIND. 2Ti.1:7
ALL speaking in tongues was to VALIDATE the Apostles and not to SAVE an individual. "These signs SHALL FOLLOW THEM." Therefore, we never hear a MALE speaking in tongues outside of the presence of an apostle: Cornelius had been LIFTED UP by Peter. There is no example of any FEMALE speaking in tongues other than in Corinth and this was speaking DIALECTS or languages and Paul told them to stop it.
If one claims that THE HOLY SPIRIT literally lives in their carnal body then they claim that God would live in a polluted TEMPLE. It would also claim to be EQUAL to the Incarnation in Jesus Christ. And so many do.
I'm back! I didn't think I would be, but I have some things to lay down on the table or I'll feel like I didn't do my duty as a Christian.
Jesus discounted the flesh and said MY WORDS are SPIRIT and they are LIFE. The Words of Christ the Spirit simply will not "stick" or reside in A human spirit which is not HOLY or undefiled. In the Old Testament God promised to give US a NEW, HOLY SPIRIT and the purpose was so that we would keep His commands.
Joh 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
Joh 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
If a divine being cannot reside in Flesh, then the two above statements are stating that Jesus himself is not Divine since he said he will reside in us. He said he will reside in us through the Use of the Holy Spirit:
Joh 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Joh 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
Joh 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
The purpose for remission of sins is that God can WASH our HUMAN spirit so that it becomes A holy spirit. It is OUR spirits which hold the SINS and it is OUR spirit which needs to be purged to make IT holy:
Rom 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
In all of these, Spirit and Holy Ghost are capitalized.
I would like to finish with a couple other verses:
Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
Spirit is Capitalized and it is "of God", not "of us".
1Co 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
Notice that it states that it is a he not an it. It also says it has a will. Spirit is capitalized.
1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
The same spirit spoke of in Acts which reveals things to us is spoken of here, and it is referred to as "his Spirit" and also it is "the Spirit" that searcheth all things, the deep things of God. It is God's spirit, the Holy Spirit, not ours.
1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
It doesn't get any clearer there. THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD DWELLS IN US. In our dirty temple.
Act 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
Act 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
Lie to the Holy Ghost is a lie to God. Not to our spirit, not to us.
Matt. 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"
There are three things we are to baptize people in the name of: The Father, the son, AND the Holy Spirit.
2 Cor. 13:14, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all."
Again, the Holy Spirit is mentioned. How can the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with us all if the "holy spirit" is only our own spirits cleansed?
Rom. 8:9, "However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him." See also Gen. 1:2
The Spirit of God dwells in YOU. The Spirit is a divine spirit, not our own cleansed spirit.
Matt. 10:10, "For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you."
The Spirit of the Father IN US.
Rom. 8:11, "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you."
John 6:63, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."
1 John 5:7, "And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth."
There ARE instances where we are told "spirit" and not "THE SPIRIT". Above, you have an example of both "spirit" and "THE SPIRIT".
Rom. 8:27, "and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God."
The Holy Spirit is stated to having a mind. It is also referred to as "He".
1 Cor. 2:11, "For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God."
Here is mentioned both the spirit of man, our spirit, and the spirit of God. They are clearly two different entities.
Acts 2:4, "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance."
It says THE Spirit, not their spirits.
However, make no mistake. There is only ONE God. He exists in three persons mentioned through the entirity of the holy scriptures. A good analagy I've heard used is Time. Time is made up of past, present and future but there are not three times, only one.
The Holy Spirit “OF” God (In Response to Dustin’s Post: Oct. 24 2004, 12:25 AM)
October 26 2004, 2:48 AM
Dustin,
Welcome back! LOL, too, except that I don’t know where to begin. The discussion of “the Spirit of the Lord” can go on endlessly.
To start with, if a divine being or something spiritual in nature resides in the flesh, why would you think of the “heart” or the “temple” in the literal sense? What do you think of Job 27:3—“All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils.” In regard to the “indwelling,” how do you account for the following residences “in the flesh”?
God dwells in the believer, His temple (2 Cor. 6:16; I John 4:12,13,15)
God’s holy spirit dwells in the believer (I John 4:12; Rom. 8:9,11; I Cor. 3:16; II Tim. 1:14)
Christ dwells in the heart of the believer (Eph. 3:17)
The spirit of Christ dwells in the believer (Rom. 8:9)
The truth dwells in the believer (2 John 1:2)
The spirit is truth (I John 5:6)—and the truth dwells in the believer (2 John 1:2)
The spirit of truth dwells in the believer (John 14:17)
The word of Christ dwells in the believer richly (Col. 3:16)
You quoted several passages from the book of John. That’s good. We all need to study what John says about the Spirit of truth, the Comforter. And more importantly, we need to study chapters 14-17 in context. So, I would like to ask you a favor so that we can discuss this portion of the Holy Scripture more thoroughly, perhaps, next time. One important question to consider is this—is the Comforter, the Spirit of truth, referring to Jesus Christ himself in his divine nature?
What does Jesus the truth (John 14:6) and the Spirit of truth (John 16:13) have in common as expressed in the following passages: (John 14:17-18; 16:16 and 22)? In I John 5:6, we read—“… it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
John 14: [6] Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
John 16: [13] Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
John 14: [17] Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. [18] I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
John 16: [16] A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.
John 16: [22] And ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you.
Finally, in this discussion, I would like to respond to your references to the “person” [and more specifically the “gender”] of the Lord’s Spirit and the capitalization of the “Holy Spirit” or the “Holy Ghost.” There’s much to be said about the designation of gender [masculine or feminine] to a neuter form in the original NT Greek—perhaps, we can discuss that sometime later on. Meanwhile, do you realize that in comparison, there are MORE references to the word “it” or “which” or “whereby” than to the word “he” or “who” or “whom” or “by whom” in regard to the “holy Spirit OF the Lord”?
What is the “gender” of the holy Spirit of God? Let us examine the usage of the word “who” or “whom” versus “which” in the following passages from the KJV—these words [WHO, WHOM, WHICH] are capitalized in the following verses only for emphasis:
John 14:26—“But the Comforter, WHICH is the Holy Ghost, WHOM the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”
Acts 5:32—“And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, WHOM God hath given to them that obey him.”
John 7:39—“(But this spake he of the Spirit, WHICH they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)”
Romans 5:5—“And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost WHICH is given unto us.”
I Corinthians 2:12—“Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit WHICH is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.”
I Corinthians 6:19—“What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost WHICH is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?”
II Corinthians 11:4—“For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, WHICH ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.”
Ephesians 1:13—“In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, [14] WHICH is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.”
Ephesians 6:17—“And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, WHICH is the word of God”
II Timothy 1:14—“That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost WHICH dwelleth in us.”
I John 3:24—“And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit WHICH he hath given us.”
Ephesians 4:30—“And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, WHEREBY ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.”
Well thank you all for not exploding on me when I asked, I've seen some heated debates in here and have read up on a lot of your opinions. Since I've done so, I can see many repetitions in the arguments presented and I can pretty much predict what will be said next, so I'll be leaving now. I really should have just read on instead of wasting space in here, and I apologize for that. I'm glad to see your congregation is so large, over 1,000! Wow, I've never been part of a congregation of more than 80. The regular church attendance in my church is about 40-50 on Sundays, and I consider that quite a bit!
I probably won't be coming back to this site, so e-mail me any comments if you see that it's prudent. I think from what I read that my ways are seen as a hell-bound way from your standpoint, but I can't hold it against you. I also cannot change my viewpoint because I don't worship for you or myself or anyone, for that matter, but I do it for God and I do what I read in the Bible. If I read that something has to be done, I do it. If his word says not to do something, I won't. Earlier I said I was interdenominational because I lacked a better term. The fact is, I believe denominations do not mean a thing. When we are facing Judgement, Christ isn't going to separate the Baptists from the Methodists from the Catholics so on and so forth, but we'll ALL be judged accordingly. Until that day, no one knows for sure who EXACTLY is going to hell. It's simply not our call. I doubt I could hold up against the Dr. Crump or Mr. Cruz in a debate/discussion about the subjects because I'm only 18 and I've been in Christ for only 5 years. I hope I've managed to discuss these matters calmly with you all and make my points well enough. I could have used some fancy HTML, but I just wanted to ask a few quick questions. Like the Brother above said, whether or not you believe I am going to heaven is moot. But I sure hope to see you guys when we all get there. Dr. Crump, Mr. Cruz and I will sit down and talk with Jesus about all a whole bunch of things. Wouldn't that be just awesome? I, myself, can't wait. Please e-mail me if you want to talk, I'd be glad to hear from you.
Could you please enlighten me on the term "generic Bible authority?" I have heard that term used before and I am not sure that I have a full understanding of what it means! Martin
Dear Bro. Martin:
The word generic derives from our word general. It is the opposite of specific. Thus, generic authority is general authority without specific details being given.
For example: Christ said, "Go preach the gospel" (Mk. 16:15). No instructions are given about how we are to go. So we conclude we are authorized to go by car or bus, plane or train, by foot or bicycle ... on the basis of this generic authority. But when Christ said preach "the gospel," that specifies what we are to preach. I have specific authority to preach the gospel of Christ and that excludes the doctrines and commandments of men, human philosophy, psychology, etc.
A specific command excludes all others. For example, Christ said "Go make disciples...baptizing them" (Matt. 28:19). The word baptize is a verb with specific meaning. It means to immerse. Thus this specific command necessarily excludes sprinkling, pouring, or any other type of actions.
The command to "work that which is good to all men" (Gal. 6:10) is generic or general. It sets forth an obligation without specifying any particular means for fulfilling it. Thus we are free to use many methods in ministering to our neighbors and yet do so by the generic authority Christ has given us.
These concepts are especially important when we come to the question of praising God. The Scripture says "speaking to one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord" (Eph. 5:19). Since there are three possible ways to make music: vocal music, instrumental music and a combination of the two kinds, when God specified one of them, it excludes the others. To sing is very specific, thus we are limited to that way of expressing our praise.
These points will be useful to you a thousand times as you study and seek a correct application of the words of the Savior. I hope this brief study has been helpful.
RE: Generic and Specific Authority—Explained Further
February 8 2005, 2:26 AM
GENERIC AND SPECIFIC AUTHORITY
We can know God has prohibited a thing if he tells us in his word, "Thou shalt not do this." Thus we are told, thou shalt not steal, kill, commit adultery, etc. We can know a thing is forbidden if its opposite is required of us. If I am to love my neighbor as myself, then for me to despise my neighbor is automatically wrong. If a thing is condemned in some Bible example I can know it is wrong, even if I have no direct prohibition. For example, when David ordered Uriah put in a precarious position in the battle that he might die. Although there is no specific prohibition that spells out such conduct, the way God responded shows us his displeasure.
When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited. For example when he said, "Go make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them..." (Matt. 28:19), that excludes making disciples by having them sign a contract or by having them make a financial commitment. The exclusive and only way to make disciples is to baptize them. Likewise when he said "baptize" them, that verb is very specific, it means immerse. Hence by authorizing immersion, he excluded sprinkling, pouring, etc.
God can and does give us general or generic commands that order us to do something without providing the details. When he does so we are left to our own discretion as to how we will implement that command. He said "Go make disciples" but he did not specify any mode of travel. Hence the command authorizes us to use any honest and honorable mode of travel in fulfilling that command. The things necessary to fulfilling a command we call expediencies. For example if we are to baptize we will need suitable clothing, and a suitable place. Thus a church is authorized to provide a baptistery, clothing and towels for baptisms.
We are commanded to sing and make melody with our hearts (Eph. 5:19). The command to sing is specific. Thus it excludes playing instruments. However, to sing together we need to have some way to see the words of the hymn. Hence the command authorizes us to provide a book for singing, a pitch pipe for the song leader and lights for the assembly.
All that we do must be by Christ's authority (Matt. 28:18, 20). That authority may be expressed in a specific command or in one that is generic. Rather than say, "He does not forbid this," the faithful disciple asks, "What did Christ tell us to do?" This distinguishes the faithful Christian from the worldly disciple who wants a religion that pleases him. This has been a marked distinction between churches of Christ and our religious neighbors.
Re: RE: Generic and Specific Authority—Explained Further
February 8 2005, 3:31 PM
“When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.”
There is no more specific commandments than those that lay out the worship at the temple. It is spelled out in great detail. Who, How, When, Where and more.
Jesus lived under the Old Testament law. Nothing else was authorized. If “When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.” Then did Jesus sin by taking part in the Synagogue worship?
Luke 4:20-22 (King James Version)
15And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.
16And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
17And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
22And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?
First, it is important to grasp that God DID NOT connect the sacrificial system to the people's "worship." This was a NATIONAL ritual common to all of the NATIONS whom Israel imitated by God's permissive will when they rejected His Word.
The word SABBATH simple means REST and it was not given as a day of WORSHIP in the sense of the Law of Moses. The Israelites at Mount Sinai rose up in musical idolatry and thereby POLLUTED God's Sabbath BEFORE the Law of Moses replaced The Book of the Covenant. POLLUTED is a musical word:
Chalal (h2490) to wound, to dissolve... take inheritance, pipe, player on instruments, pollute, (cast as) profane (self), prostitute, slay (slain), sorrow, stain, wound.
Using the same word, Lucifer was CAST OUT of heaven.
Rest means rest and does not speak of ceremonial worship. The REST was given on the Sabbath because the Babylonians and others truly WORSHIPPED In the Sabbath: the god's AGENTS rested while the people LABORED in food, drink, singing, musical instruments and prostitutes. God's REST reversed this: by outlawing travel God quarantined the people from the pagan WORSHIP SERVICES.
The First and Seventh days were to hold a HOLY CONVOCATION. This was not worship in our terms but means to READ or REHEARSE whatever they had to read or whatever a teacher could recite orally. This is the meaning of Paul when he commanded TEACHING the inspired text.
The Synagogue existed as the Qahal or church in the wilderness. This assembly of the common people was only for receiving instructions. This is why Numbers 10:7 OUTLAWS the ALARM or TRIUMPH which means to "play loud instruments and 'make a joyful noise before the Lord'" which was the Warrior's Panic "music."
Therefore, the commanded and common sense need to TEACH God's Word existed throughout history even though it was more institutionalized during the Captivity. The SYNAGOGUE as obedience to God's original intention was carried out by the Hassidim who became the Pharisees. This was in total opposition to the Temple sacrificial system which had been "added because of transgression" that being the musical idolatry of a trinity.
The music during sacrifices was called NOISE and was intended to remove ALL but the CIVIL-RELIGIOUS institution which was quite idential to that of surrounding nations. IF they 'woshipped' it means that they FELL on their faces OUTSIDE the gates to the "church yard" where the noise and slaughter took place.
Synagoge simply means an "appointed time." Therefore, how could think that an assembled time and place to READ (only and not preach) the Word of God would be in any connected to the Law of Moses?
And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was,
he went into the synagogue
on the sabbath day,
and stood up for to READ. Lu.4:16
Here is how you Preach and this is what Paul commanded TIMOTHY as a form of "worship":
For Moses of OLD TIME hath in every city them
that PREACH him,
being READ
in the synagogues every sabbath day. Ac.15:21
You will remember that Moses was in the wilderness. There are two documents called "songs." Moses RECITED the songs with the intention that they be LEARNED and taken back to the tribes. Miriam led the women OUT with singing, dancing and instruments. You remember that God slapped her with a dose of leprosy for claiming to be an INSPIRED prophet rather than a musical "prophesier."
The true FAST specificially OUTLAWED self-speak just as the Qahal or synagogue or church in the wildernes outlawed LOUD MUSIC. Pretty common sense, if you ask me, unless you INTEND to keep the Word from the people.
If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him,
not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own
pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: Isaiah 58:13
There is a lot of evidence that TEACHING the Word of God was AUTHORIZED at any time and place. If the command is to TEACH (why else would God give it?), and God gives lots of SPECIFICS: walking, siting, lying, there is no need for a DIRECT COMMAND to set a TIME and PLACE which is the only meaning of SYNAGOGUE.
Jesus never said: I will build my church. He said, I will build my EKKLESIA. Both ekklesia and synagogue are Greek words for an ASSEMBLY to hear evidence and reach a conclusion. Therefore, the Synagogue was ALWAYS an assembly to hear God's Word READ or RECITED with "allegorizing sermons outlawed by the Rabbi." There was NO MUSIC in the synagogue and NO extraneous tasks other than TEACHING the children which existed at the time of Jesus. WHY would he make a point of telling the Jews that they TAUGHT under the Law of Moses but needed a NEW COMMAND after Pentecost?
Ekklesia means both the CHURCH HOUSE and the ASSEMBLY. When Paul used words like GATHERED or ASSEMBLE he used a form of the Greek SYNAGOGUE. Therefore, the SYNAGOGUE was always the only RITUAL imposed by God by which we worship Him by Paul's almost-unique word TO GIVE HEED.
In James,
For if there come unto your assembly [SYNAGOGUE]a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; James 2:2
We are fatally flawed and are paying the price because we REPUDIATE the PURPOSE for Christ to allow us to SYNAGOGUE to "come learn of Me." This provided the DAY OF REST from "ceremonial legalism."
The Christian assembly continued to meet in existing synagogue houses until they were kicked out. If Jesus commands us to TEACH then we can teach standing up, sitting down, walking in the way, upon our bed or even--heaven help us-in "church." However, we CANNOT obey the direct command and approved examples of the Eternal God to TEACH so that people can HEAR and LEARN "that which is written" by ADDING a "vocal band" making vulgar sounds and looking too, too cute. Some people rejecting the Commands and Examples idea taught by the Bible and all of church history before OUR TIME, charge to tell people that Jesus VIOLATED the Law of Moses and that gives us authority to VIOLATE commands because we are GRACE-CENTERED. Their GRACE is a brown-eyed Greek prostitute meaning CHARISMATIC.
“Then did Jesus sin by taking part in the Synagogue worship?”
February 9 2005, 3:58 AM
David,
I’m failing to understand your point in bringing up the Old Testament law or covenant and even in asking if Jesus sinned…. Since we know that Jesus our Savior lived a sinless, perfect life, perhaps, “Jesus … taking part in the Synagogue worship” is a bit misleading.
The passage you quoted begins with “he taught in their synagogues … he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day … to read.” If he took part in worship, whom did he worship? Or, did he take the opportunity to teach in the synagogue?
Still, how do we relate your comments to distinguishing the difference between generic and specific authority? Please explain.
The question does to the hart of the topic. “When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.” This quote is not in scripture. It is from a man. It should be tested. I have given an example of Jesus doing something in addition to what was specifically commanded.
Only Temple Worship is commanded in the Old Law. The principle of “Generic and Specific Authority” would have applied then as well. Jesus while living under that law, by participating in worship to God the Father in a Synagogue did other than what was specifically commanded. The word ”Synagogue” does not appear in the Old Law. Jesus was a regular at these meetings. Event reading and teaching at these “unauthorized” events. We know Jesus did not sin. So it stands to reason that the man made rule, (“When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.”) does not always apply. There is even a possibility of worshiping God in ways not specifically commanded without sin.
While the man made rules of “Generic and Specific Authority” are helpful in Biblical interpretation they are not God’s word. The Authority is in His Word. It is a trap to add to His word in an attempt to help people understand His word.
If ALL of the examples of the ASSEMBLY use commands and examples to MAKE IT CLEAR that the REVEALED Word is, as Paul demanded of the elders and the ONLY authorized pastor-teachers,
to be "taught as it HAS BEEN taught"----
Then we claim that WE have the right to INFER that the 100% evidence can be CHANGED to mean "SING to one another" and "Make melody on a harp" --especially, giggle, giggle, if it makes the old owners squirm!
Then DENY others the right to INFER (a meaning inherent in SYNAGOGUE)
Does that make us a Hypocrite which was the PERFORMANCE SECT of "Scribes, Pharisees and Hypocrites" meaning ACTORS?
It is only CHANGE AGENTS who have any need of INFERENCES because a DISCIPLE will look for even hints of God's will. However, a Greek word meaning SYLLOGISM is included in the meaning of to SYNAGOGUE. You CANNOT listen to any truth without INFERING something about it--unless the singy-clappy-twangy-clangys are ACTING UP. In many of the church history writings the idea of COMMANDS, EXAMPLES and even INFERENCES is used. We give ourselves the right to exercise AUTHORITY in these well-documented ways: why do we REFUSE these ways of "communicating" His will to God?
THEY are also the same GUILTY PARTY which use the LAW OF SILENCE when they whine: "But, God DID NOT say DON'T make music during CLASS TIME when Jesus is speaking through His Words." Bible believers who have accepted the sacrifice of Christ and been WASHED by Him can HEAR the Word in the Most Holy Place under the Mercy Seat and therefore can recognize DIRECT COMMANDS about "music" when we read them. When you are in the Most Holy Place you are sufficiently REMOVED from the musical Gentiles trampling the COURT where the "musical noise" was for animal sacrifices which WAS NOT for God Who already OWNED the cattle. How about this one:
To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. Is.8:20
And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Rev 19:10
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. John 8:44
Well-uh! Jesus often uses Isaiah to warn about the musical prophesiers or "lord, lord sayers" and about those BLIND as a bat and DEAF as a stone. Therefore, it was STILL VALID that there was an APPROVED source of SPEAK OR TEACH. If the Devil CAUSES liars to SPEAK ON THEIR OWN--defining almost all songs and sermons--then WHAT OTHER SOURCE of speaking and teaching IS THERE? Shelly claims to be "working out his salvation" like the olden ones to get a NEW SET OF SCRIPTURES working in PARTNERSHIP with God: can you imagine an amoeba critter YOKED to God!
The Bible and ALL of church scholars--even early Catholic ones--demanded that ONLY the Word can be used for Faith and Practice. Therefore, only latter day "prophets" from Kansas City or Abilene actually BOAST about speaking ON THEIR OWN. The Synagogue Fallacy is probably their PRIME AUTHORITY.
Synagogue is a GREEK word and we might not expect to find it too often in the Old Testament which is not ALL OLD LAW. If you cannot find the SYNAGOGUE for the PEOPLE who were EXCLUDED from the Temple sacrifices for the nation then maybe you should look for words like ASSEMBLE or GATHER. Preachers have a hard time finding the command for the CHURCH to congregate when the word CHURCH does not appear in any texts. The INFERERS even claim that there is NO COMMAND for the church to assemble. But, Paul--as Peter warned --is HARD TO UNDERSTAND especially when he did not use CHURCH but ASSEMBLE and GATHER. isn't that truly SLICK hiding the truth in plain sight?
They said in their hearts, Let us destroy them together: they have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land. Ps.74:8
Temple is SINGULAR: synagogue is PLURAL any place where you had those who KNEW the Word or had documents and those NEEDING to be instructed could be a set time and place to hold a HOLY CONVOCATION by reading or rehearsing. Paul said that the way to GLORIFY God would be to speak with ONE MIND and ONE MOUTH "that which is written." Now, a Doctorate of the Law will surely "take away THAT key to knowledge."
One HEBREW is mowed which is EQUATED to Qahal depending on whether it is the ASSEMBLY or the ASSEMBLY:
Mowed (h4150) mo-aw-daw'; from 3259; prop. an appointment, i. e. a fixed time or season; spec. a festival; conventionally a year; by implication, an assembly (as convened for a definite purpose); technically the congregation; by extension, the place of meeting; also a signal (as appointed beforehand): - appointed (sign, time), (place of, solemn) assembly, congregation, (set, solemn) feast, (appointed, due) season, solemn (-ity), synagogue, (set) time (appointed)
This word frequently appears of the two silver trumpets which is ALL God ever commandeed:
And when they shall blow with them, all the assembly shall assemble themselves to thee at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. Nu.10:3
These instruments could be used to CALL ASSEMBLY but NOT make music. If you need a command for a BUZZER in church then this is it but don't PLAY the buzzer when Christ is speaking through His WORDS. Paul said that we ARE NOT assembled to the SOUND of the TRUMPET because that always meant fear and trembling:
BUT when the congregation is to be gathered together, ye shall blow, but ye shall not sound an ALARM [meaning instruments and loud singing]. Num 10:7
Of the church #1577 ekklesia - assembly, called out ones, set apart ones, congregation; in Hebrew this word is #6951 qahal (kahal) - a "synagogue" (E. W. Bullinger, Commentary on Revelation, p. 165-166), an assemblage, congregation, company from the root #6950 qahal meaning specifically a coming together, an assembling, a convocation, congregation; this word is used mostly for religious purposes (see William Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies, p. 92)
There are MANY words which mean to assemble for some stated purpose: The Holy Convocation was to READ or REHEARSE. This was the "synagoguing" during the major festivals where animals were sacrificed on the other days of the week. On the first and seventh day the assembly was:
Miqra (h4744) mik-raw'; from 7121; something called out, i. e. a public meeting (the act, the persons, or the place); also a rehearsal: - assembly, calling, convocation, reading.
This NEVER CEASED in a prescribed meeting even in the wilderness even though they were apparently not observed. The same practice continued for the SABBATH which was for ekklesia or synagogue or SCHOOL OF THE BIBLE and to hear prayers which were often Biblical passages.
This is used of the ASSEMBLY for reading the Word of God: AFTER the move back to the land, the MIQRA or holy convocation to READ or REHEARSE was practiced:
So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading {miqra]. Ne.8:8
This distinct reading was cantillation often called "singing" but it was MUSICAL only in the sense that an articulate public speaker uses the normal inflections of the language and SPEAKS sing-song to keep the words from getting jumbled in the air.
The example I quoted above EQUATES the meaning of SYNAGOGUE [where Jesus went to READ but not to WORSHIP] to the SYNAGOGUES OF MOSES:
And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to READ. Lu.4:16
For Moses of old time hath in every city them that PREACH him, being READ in the synagogues every sabbath day. Ac.15:21
When God spoke at Mount Sinai it was the Book of the Covenant of Grace. The people were not able to ENDURE the simple statement of God's WORD so they IMPOSED moses between themselves and God's Word
And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 2 Cor 3:13
But their minds were BLINDED: for UNTIL this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the READING of the OLD TESTAMENT; which vail is done away in Christ. 2 Cor 3:14
The DID NOT hear the Old Testament read in the temple! Therefore, from Mount Sinai onward they HEARD but could not UNDERSTAND the Word of God,
Obviously, the SYNAGOGUE continued and MUSIC was outlawed until 1815 in a liberal, German synagogue which ALSO sowed discord and caused a legal dispute. The Restoration Stoneite wing was really IMITATING the lead of the Jews just as modern MUSIC TEAMS appeal to David and the SACRIFICING of innocent animals.
But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. 2Co.3:15
Nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. 2 Cor 3:16
Now the Lord IS THAT SPIRIT: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 2 Cor 3:17
The LAW was added because of TRANSGRESSION and not as a system of WORSHIP: worship was as in all of Paul's example GIVING HEED to the Words of God. Animal sacrifices was a FUTILE activity God permitted to see whether they could PAY FOR THEIR FORGIVENESS OF SINS by virtually stripping their livlihood and giving it to the KING where TITHING was one of the CURSES God promised the King would enact.
The King, kingdom and Temple were CIVIL and LIKE THE PAGAN nations because that was their prayer. Therefore, TRUE WORSHIP was falling on the FACE OUTSIDE of the gates which were closed on the "musical" signal. The singing, playing and sacrifices are SEPARATED from WORSHIP in Hezekiah's reform.
The God-despising and Word-despising Israelites DID NOT hear the Word BEGINNING at Mount Sinai and CONTINUING well past the time of CHRIST. The HEARING of the Word was NOT in the temple but ALWAYS in the synagogues defined by perhaps a dozen or more words all meaning an appointed time and place to MIRQA or REHEARSE or READ the Words of Qod.
The word EKKLESIA means the same as the SYNAGOGUE. The CHURCH in the wilderness is defined by Stephen's recorded speech as EKKLESIA. Therefore, the church in the Wilderness was the EKKLESIA or SYNAGOGUE.
This is he, that was in the CHURCH in the wilderness ith the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: Ac.7:38
The ASSEMBLY at the foot of Mount Sinai was the ekklesia or synagogue or CHURCH IN THE WILDERNESS. Because the LAW was "because of transgression" and ONLY to cleanse the FLESH, the TRUE worship which DID NOT CHANGE ever, never, was to GIVE HEED to God by giving heed to His Word. Because there is no COMMAND or INFERENCE that God as the Spirit of Christ OUTLAWED the synagogue then we can probably INFER that Jesus the Christ of God was NOT doing something which gives the Anti-christs the authority to ADD "whut seemeth good in our own eyes."
Ekklesia (g1577) ek-klay-see'-ah; from a comp. of 1537 and a der. of 2564; a calling out, i.e. (concr.) a popular meeting, espec. a religious congregation (Jewish SYNAGOGUE, or Chr. community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly, church.
The LORD or SPIRIT at Mount Sinai was THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST (1 Pe 1:11, Rev 19:10). He was the ANGEL, the Rock, the Water, the Manna, the Pillar. Therefore, the FIRST rejection of Christ the Holy Spirit was refusing to let Him be the Teacher in this FIRST SYNAGOUGE. This FATAL SIN was focused on the ELDERS and not 3 million people. God REMOVED he MASSES from the sacrificial system by identifying them as STRANGERS so that they could never go INTO the tabernacle court or any Holy precincts where the HORRORS of animal sacrifices took place. This WAS also the "trampling of the courts" because it was a LIKE THE NATIONS punishment and not an "approved patternism." Jesus DENIED that the clergy Jews were the children of promise even though He agreed that they were the children of Abraham. He spoke in PARABLES specificially to keep them OUT OF the gospel system (Matt 13). Any where there is an ACTOR acting out WORSHIP for others for a CUT of the sacrifice you know that their DESCENDANTS are still in total control.
If it was REMOTELY true what MOST of the ANTI-instrumental types falsely PREACH AND PREACH AND PREACH that there was NO COMMAND for the Synagogue in the Old Testament (which is not ALL the Law of Moses) it is still a fact that GOD WAS IN CHRIST reconciling us to Him. THAT would not give any of these anti-Christs the authority to make their OWN CHANGES to the "LAW." The Christian church, so-called HIGH CHURCH authority to GO WITH THE FLOW was NEVER approved in spirit or letter by any church council. And there is almost NO pre 19th century theologian who would not SPEW THEM OUT OF THEIR MOUTHS.
However, it is FALSE PROPHSYING to claim the SYNAGOGUE as the most popular examples of Christ VIOLATING the Law and therefore giving THEM the right to go and do likewise.
Because the synagogue, ekklesia or church in the wilderness existed at least at Mount Sinai and was practiced throughout the Old Testament and more organized in Babylon and NEVER OUTLAWED I am gonna INFER that Jesus did not ADD. Therefore, since the TOTAL FOUNDATION of the CHANGLINGS is based on this FALSE PREMISE I am going to INFER that they have been playing God by adding things like PROFESSIONAL CLERGY and MUSICIANS which ANYONE can prove was universally condemned throughout the Bible and all of church history until the Stonites STUMBLED on the word PSALLO as late as the year 1878 AFTER they had already became the LEGALISTIC SECTARIANS. Ok?
The so-called church is really the Ekklesia or Synagogue of Christ. Jesus approved the concept but not the hypocracy (acting prayers and sermons), there was NEVER any praise service in the synagogue nor in the ASSEMBLY or Synagogue of Paul's writings. Even if Jesus had approved an ADDED thingy called the synagogue He would have by AFFIRMATION utterly condemned the "praise services" added by the AUTHORITY of the synagogue. See the tangled tale they weave?
From the previous post... '“When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.” This quote is not in scripture. It is from a man. It should be tested.'; I must agree. We must test everything against God's word and while this quote is not found in scripture, the principle it conveys certainly is.
Leviticus 10:1-2 - "And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put fire therein, and laid incense thereon, and offered strange fire before Jehovah, which he had not commanded them. And there came forth fire from before Jehovah, and devoured them, and they died before Jehovah." Note the language that closes verse 1 - "which he had not commanded them." In plain English, they practiced something that God hadn't told them to do - they added to God's command. They didn't violate a "thou shalt not". Doesn't this convey the thought that all alternatives/additions to God's specific commands are prohibited?
I Corinthians 4:6 - "Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other." This is probably as close as one will come to finding a direct quote concerning prohibiting that which is not specifically authorized. Notice the reason Paul gives for this command - "that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other." Simply put, if one does "progress" or "go beyond" what God has authorized, they become arrogant. Isn't this very point being illustrated by the "elitists" today?
Jesus has "all authority" (Matthew 28:18). We have limited authority, only that which He has delegated to us. Delegation must be specific; otherwise, there will be chaos. We practice this principle every day of our lives. A wise man once said that if God's word must specifically prohibit a doctrine or practice, then there would be no end to what would be authorized. While the terminology of "generic" and "specific" authority may not be explicity found in scripture, we do find many examples of how authority is to be practiced and those examples convey a binding principle.
Please deal with the example I brought up. I am truly trying to learn here! All our teachings(“When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.”) should stand the test of scripture. Where is the authority for Synagogue worship? It does not appear in the old law as the Jews of Jesus’ day were practicing it. He took part in those assemblies. He regularly attended. He taught and read. These are not even in question. It seems to be a truly unauthorized assembly. It was not what was specifically commanded. In Synagogue worship they sang, prayed, read scripture and there was a lesion. At some time the must have given money to support the synagogue. This sounds like a worship service. But it was not authorized. The way they worshiped was not authorized. They did not follow the authorized way, time, date, form or place.
If “When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.” Why did Jesus not cry out against this unauthorized assembly?
David, I will not be put off by your refusing to listen to that which CANNOT BE REFUTED and trying to STEER the response. I am hard of hearing and have no pride about being ignored because I can SENSE that you are in trouble because the LAST GASP of trying to become more powerful than Christ (as they claim) is to try to implicate Jesus with either VIOLATING the LAW of Moses or giving a PATTERNISM which says that WE TOO are so Spirit filled that WE can also ADD new things. This literal LUST is so overwhelming that people will INVENT this to try to prove to the WIDOWS that God INTENDED for them to wear a SADDLE.
David Hardin Where is the authority for Synagogue worship? It does not appear in the old law as the Jews of Jesus' day were practicing it. He took part in those assemblies. He regularly attended. He taught and read. These are not even in question. It seems to be a truly unauthorized assembly. It was not what was specifically commanded. In Synagogue worship they sang, prayed, read scripture and there was a lesion. At some time the must have given money to support the synagogue. This sounds like a worship service. But it was not authorized. The way they worshiped was not authorized. They did not follow the authorized way, time, date, form or place.
David, wake up! I just told you that the SYNAGOGUE WAS COMMANDED directly. Furthermore, it is INFERRED in the command to teach. Thirdly, there are dozens of EXAMPLES defining the role as to READ or REHEARSE. They DID NOT preach in the synagogue and the Rabbi outlawed "allegorizing" or applicating. They DID NOT sing as you use the word: the word commanded by Paul was to SPEAK or READ "that which is written." Their song was not your song service. They were commanded to look out for their poor and who needs a COMMANDED time and place to give the money?
The TEMPLE SERVICE, I repeat, was NOT worship in an approved sense: this was ADDED because of the musical idolatry at Mount Sinai and the demand for a king and kingdom by the elders. This was clearly by God's PERMISSIVE will because the kings would lead the nation into captivity and death. The ONLY worship word was to fall on your face. The people could not ENTER the holy precincts so how could they engage in WORSHIP. The synagogue was worship because giving heed or holding God's thoughts in the mind IS the meaning of worship.
It is clear that as a LEADERSHIP most did not HEAR Moses at any time or any place. God did not promise a NEW WORSHIP SCHEME of rituals but that they would HEAR messiah. The sinful woman at the well was smart enough to catch on to THAT ONE: she said, "when Messiah comes He will TELL us all things." Jesus told her a NEW truth which was ALREADY in effect and had always been in effect: True worship was in the NEW PLACE of the human spirit and the PROFESSIONAL God handlers CANNOT help.
If I haven't missed something, the EXAMPLE of Jesus was to go out PREACHING but TEACHING in the synagogue. He rejected the stand-up PERFORMANCE prayers and told people to pray in their CLOSETS which meant in private and in their own SPIRIT. Set prayers were normally READ SCRIPTURE. He authorized ALMS (ONLY) and personally paid the temple tax. Paul agreed in both direct command and examples. Then, He said that the LEFT HAND (you) know what the RIGHT HAND (me) does with my ALMS. We are to LAY BY IN STORE so that we have money to give ALMS. He preached OUTSIDE of the synagogue. So, there goes preaching, giving and praying. That leaves LISTENING to the Word of God and PERSONAL prayers. Paul confirmed that our money is OUR MONEY and if we want to build a house to get in out of the rain then we DON'T NEED a direct command.
And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont [legal or traditional place] to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither. Acts 16:13
Sunerchomai isa synagogue word meaning: (to convene, associate, assemble, come together.
God promised that in contending for the faith in the time of Jesus:
For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto OBSERVERS of times, and unto DIVINERS: but as for thee, the Lord thy God hath not suffered thee so to do. Deut 18:14
I pointed out that God's plan for the sabbath or REST was to quarantine the people from the Observers of Times, Diviners and Soothsayers and Wizards. An OBSERVER is the word ANAN who was a preacher person or a sanger person who could ENCHANT (i.e. CHANT) a soothsayer, sorcerer or magician. God through Isaiah and Ezekiel defines many of the prophets "who stole enchantments from one another) as PROFESSIONAL The priests were LOCKED DOWN in Jerusalem and in the temple. The PEOPLE were locked down in their own homes or to the house where SYNAGOGUE was held in every city.
The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; Deut 18:15
Hearken means to call together to "hear intelligently" often implying obedience. Remember the Samaritan woman: "He will TELL us all things." Well, when God in Christ TELLS us something we LISTEN or HEARKEN. We do not have a command, example, inference or early scholarly record that this meant WORSHIP in the sense of performing rituals NOT RELATED to teaching the Word where the SINGING passages clearly DEMAND "that which is written, the Spirit or the Word of Christ."
According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the DAY of the ASSEMBLY,
We have proven to you that this assembly or QAHAL is the same as MOWED or synagogue which Stephen defined as the Ekklesia at Mount Sinai.
Stephen called that an EKKLESIA. Therefore, the ekklesia is the same as the Qahal. God CALLED this synagogue so please don't keep claiming that Jesus TOOK LIBERTIES which now belong to you.
Therefore, the FIRST assembly of the synagogue was to HEARKEN to the Words of Christ the Spirit.
saying, Let me not HEAR again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. Deut 18:16
And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. Deut 18:17
The SECULAR TEMPLE was given BECAUSE the elders refused to hear the Word of God through the Judges and Samuel who was also a prophet. We showed you 2 Cor 3 to prove that the Jews who depended on the Law as opposed to their own personal faithful obedience were struck dumb and blind and that continued UNTIL they might turn to Christ. Therefore, the Monarchy was a period of REPUDIATING the Word and engaging in Babylonian, Egyptian or Canaanite Baalism--right there in the temple.
I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put MY words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. Deut 18:18
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. Deut 18:19
I am VERY TROUBLED by anyone not WANTING to worship God by GIVING HEED to His Words. The DIRECT COMMAND is that all who are acceptable WILL do so. Those who REFUSE to hearken or THINK that their words are SUPERIOR or more UP TO DAY have the promise stretching from the Wilderness to NOW that "I will REQUIRE it of Him."
It is fruitless to try to TRAP Jesus into violating the Law of Moses or by TAKING AUTHORITY which He did not have.
Now, the meaning of WORSHIP and the mark of a DISCIPLE is that when God speaks they listen. They do not have any LUST to add something exciting: this was the FATAL, TERMINAL sin at Mount Sinai and it involved the Musical idolatry of a trinity.
BUT the prophet, which shall PRESUME to speak a word in my name,
which I have NOT commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. Deut 18:20
Jesus honored the Law of Silence. The term "Son" is defined as the faithful WORDS of the "Father." Jesus identified a son of the Devil as a liar because "he speaks on his own."
For I have NOT spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. Jn.12:49
And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. Jn.12:50
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63
Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends;
for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. Jn.15:15
If the revelation of Jesus even to the prophets (1 Pet 1:11; Rev 19:10) is not AN APPROVED EXAMPLE to speak only what has been revealed then a different Jesus is being spoken. Jesus identified the Devil as a SON of his father because "he speaks on his own."
Rejecting the Word is like a TOGGLE switch: when you push the truth away from you God PULLS it all the way and you will never get it back. (Heb 6 and ALL of the "musical" examples."
For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Matt 13:12
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. Matt 13:13
That means that if you ever had any truth and love for the truth and reject it then God simply withdraws His Gracious Spirit from our spirit and TRUTH simply has no holy personal spirit to dwell in. That is spooky when you grasp that ALMOST ALL so-called Christians paid and paid and paid last Sunday to hear some person who has CAST out God's Spirit and are too lazy to get "work so that they have to GIVE" as opposed ot get, get, get. It is like welfare societies: the more you subsidize the MORE you get. As LONG as fools pay to be fooled don't think that anyone who would STEAL your happy church life is going to give it up: NO ONE ever gives up power voluntarily. Don't EVER expect the inmates of Jonestown or Waco to catch on.
Frankly, I am more troubled with all of the PROFESSIONALS who have kicked the traces and are out there teaching preachers to be Prophets, Chanellers and Facilitators. And the UNLAWFUL synagogue as school of the Bible is about the best they can do. Using Paul's example, it is a fact that fools love to be fooled.
If the meaning of CHURCH is really ekklesia, synagogue or school of the Bible then by definition we can take the word of Jesus to "come learn of Me" as opposed to The Purpose Driven Life If Paul's assembly or gathering words are forms of SYNAGOGUE, and the activity labeled 'singing' means speaking THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN then we can gather in a house or under a tree. However, you CANNOT get any authority to REPLACE the Word of Christ as Spirit and Life with sentimental, erotic praise songs without REFUSING to hearken to God in Christ. If instead of reading and explaining the Word of God you preach 'rhetorical simple Simon philosophy' you REFUSE to hearken to the Word of God "as it has been taught." That means that GOD WILL REQUIRE IT OF YOU.
Whatever LIBERTY we have it is NEVER the clergy's liberty to IMPOSE some silly new MUSICAL WORSHIP trafficked as the power to LEAD YOU INTO THE PRESENCE OF GOD. "Let him take himself off to himself or he will hear from God."
RE: Generic and Specific Authority Tested (Mark Waggoner)
February 11 2005, 11:19 AM
The discussion centers around what has been termed the Law of Exclusion, or more recently, the Law of Silence. While such a term is not mentioned specifically in the New Testament, as Mark said, the principle certainly is. We should remember that, for anything to be scriptural, it must meet at least one of three criteria:
1. It must be directly commanded by God or Christ.
2. It must be by apostolic example.
3. It must be by necessary inference from Scripture.
The Law of Silence fits the third criteria, for the Scriptures contain a number of examples. Mark mentioned some above. Other specific examples include the exclusion of musical instruments in worship by the phrase "sing and make melody in the heart" (Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16) and the exclusion of anything other than bread and fruit of the vine as emblems of the Lord's Supper. (For a detailed discussion of music, see the thread "Boswell-Hardeman Discussion on Instrumental Music in the Worship" at Sunday School in Exile.) A generic example is found in the Great Commission when Jesus said "Go." By that, we have the liberty to use whatever means of transportation are at our disposal, because He did not specify by what means we are to "Go."
Unfortunately, the Change Movement repudiates the Law of Silence as heresy, because it does not meet their man-contrived criteria of "liberty in Christ." Paul uses the term in Gal. 5:1, which the Change Movement takes out of context to mean, "We have 'liberty' to incorporate into worship whatever pleasing and entertaining innovations we wish." Paul's use of "liberty in Christ" in Gal. 5:1 applies only to freedom from the shackles and rituals of the Law of Moses; a close examination of the remaining verses of Gal. 5 bears this out. Nowhere does Paul give license to incorporate man's fancies into worship. Also remember that the Christian has the "liberty" either to worship God exactly as He directs in the New Testament, or he has the "liberty" to rebel against God. When it comes to worshiping Him, God leaves nothing to man's carnal fancies.
Ken Sublett has given an extensive review of the subject of Jewish synagogues, yet you seem not to have read his posts about it. He quoted Psalm 74:8 (KJV), which definitely mentions "synagogue." Although some believe that synagogues arose during the Babylonian exile when the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, Acts 15:21 (KJV) implies that synagogues existed even in the time of Moses, before the first Temple was ever constructed: "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."
Synagogues were in every Jewish community in Old Testament times as places for religious instruction and weekly worship. The purpose of the Temple in Jerusalem was for the offering of the sacrifices as required by the Mosaic Law and for public assembly at the several feasts that were required throughout the year. These sacrifices and feasts would not have been observed in the local synagogues. And it would not have made sense for Jews living on the far boundaries of the Holy Land at the time to travel every sabbath day to Jerusalem to the Temple for worship. But they were required to make the journey for the mandatory sacrifices and feasts.
Were synagogues authorized or scriptural? They fit the criterion of "necessary inference from Scripture" as posted earlier. Since we know that Jesus was sinless, it is pure heresy to believe that He could have defied His Father and participated in anything that His Father had not authorized. Since synagogues are mentioned in Scripture and neither the prophets nor Jesus condemned them, why would anyone believe that they would not be authorized?
RE: Authority for Jewish Synagogues (David Hardin)
February 14 2005, 9:33 PM
David,
It's quite clear that you are determined to believe that Jesus engaged in something that God allegedly did not command; if God commands something, He authorizes it and approves of it. Very well, you are quite free to believe that. Permit me to exercise a bit of logic before returning to the law of exclusion. If Jesus truly engaged in something that God had not commanded, authorized, or approved of, then we would have to conclude that Jesus defied or disobeyed God and sinned. To defy or to disobey God is to sin. Therefore, all of Christendom is wrong about Jesus being sinless; He was no better than the rest of us. Now don't change tracks and say that Jesus was sinless but at the same time did that which God had not commanded. Jesus (unless He was a liar) said that we cannot serve two masters, God and mammon, at the same time. Jesus could not serve God and still engage in synagogue worship, if God did not authorize synagogues. That reasoning would not be sound at all. Jesus was either all-divine and all-obedient to His Father, or He was a rebellious sinner.
From your reasoning of synagogues, you imply that all biblical commands must come directly from God, or they are not binding. You would seemingly deny apostolic example and direct biblical inference. If that is true, then our worship on the first day of the week is not authorized by God; hence, we sin every week. God directly commanded worship on the seventh day in the Ten Commandments. Where did God ever say, "Thou shalt worship Me on the first day of the week"? Nowhere in the New Testament will anyone ever find a direct command from God (or even from Christ) to worship on the first day. But remember that seventh-day worship pertained to the Mosaic Law, which Jesus fulfilled; it is no longer binding in the Gospel age. Yet we have apostolic example and biblical inference that early Christians met on the first day to break bread. Does this mean that the apostles engaged in that which God didn't authorize or approve of? Whom do you think authorized the apostolic example and the direct biblical inference? In addition to God’s direct commands, aren’t apostolic example and direct biblical inference sufficient to prove that something is scriptural, divinely authorized, and without sin?
Now to the law of exclusion and synagogues. Yes, God authorized Temple worship. However, that does not prove that He did not also authorize synagogues at some point for religious instruction. Does the law of exclusion even apply here? The law of exclusion applies, unless direct inference from Scripture elsewhere overrides it. That should be quite evident. But if you fixate only on Temple worship and deliberately ignore what the Scriptures elsewhere infer about synagogues, then you abuse the law of exclusion to satisfy your own personal prejudices.
We have biblical inference in passages like Exodus 18:20, Deut. 6:4-9, Jeremiah 36:12-15, and others, which indicate that God commanded for His people to have instruction in His Law. No, synagogues as such are not specifically mentioned, only vaguely implied. But the real clincher is Acts 15:21, which states that synagogues long predated the apostolic age. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that if God had not authorized or approved of synagogues at some point in Old Testament history, His prophets would have openly condemned them (for they were very good at condemning disobedience to God), and Jesus would not have set foot in them.
The biblical inference is clear that synagogues were authorized. Believe it or not.
We have not left the man made law of exclusion. We are dealing with a biblical test of it. Your argument is circular. “Permit me to exercise a bit of logic before returning to the law of exclusion. If Jesus truly engaged in something that God had not commanded, authorized, or approved of, then we would have to conclude that Jesus defied or disobeyed God and sinned. To defy or to disobey God is to sin.”
Why can you not at least consider the possibility that the premise is faulty? There remains no command for Synagogue Worship. There is no book chapter and verse out of all you and the others have quoted that give authority for Synagogue Worship. You have reasoned your way all around it. Jesus did not defy or disobey God. Jesus did something other than what was specifically authorized. Your man made law defines that as sin.
“When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.” At least in this case the alternative was not prohibited by God and not sinful.
The subject at the top of this thread is “Who is dividing the church, and why do some leave the faith?” It may be we teach for doctrine the commandments of men.
Jesus remains sinless despite the man made command! God did approve of the actions of Jesus even though they were not commanded or authorized!
In my American Standard Version of the Bible (1901) the word synagogue is found in Ps. 74:8. There the writer laments the fact that "They have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land..." The footnote renders this "places of assembly." It is conceded by all that synagogues came into existence during the Babylonian exile. When it was impossible for the people to assemble for worship at Jerusalem, they did the best they could and assembled for prayer, praise and study of the Law of God. Upon their return to Palestine they brought their practice with them. Prior to the captivity, sacrifice and designated holy days were observed in Jerusalem at the temple. However, God had made provision for teaching in their local communities and other places as needed (Jer. 36:12-15). The people could consult the prophets in other places as needed (II King 4:38). The people were instructed to teach the law to their children (Deut. 6:7-9). When the Hebrews entered their land, specific territories were allotted to all the tribes save the Levites. They were scattered in cities throughout the other tribal states. That made them available to instruct the people as needed. (Josh. 21:20-42). James said, "Moses, from generations of old, hath them that preach him...in the synagogues..." (Acts 15:21). So those who seek to prove there was no provision for such teaching are making large assumptions. Me thinks this is but a dodge to avoid the clear teaching of the Bible that we are not to add to or take from the things God has authorized for us to do. You fail to consider:
That Jesus himself is the Creator of all things (John 1:3; Col. 1:16) and the I AM (John 8:58). He is the Lord of the temple and its worship. He demonstrated this by driving the moneychangers from the temple (John 2:14-16) and by declaring his new message to be a superior way than that of old times (Matt. 5:21-47). If he went to the synagogue for worship, it was not in any way wrong to do so.
He who spoke to Moses in the bush (John 8:58) had the right to do as he willed. He did no wrong (I Pet. 2:22) and his way was that of truth (John 14:6). He did not violate his own law.
They seek to justify their disobedience by appealing to something they don't know, i.e., that God did not authorize the synagogues. For example we have no example of Jesus offering sacrifices in the temple. Does that prove he did not? We have no example that he gave tithes of his income in the years prior to his ministry. But we would assume that he did so. Because he came not to destroy the law and the prophets but to fulfill them (Matt. 5:17).
That Jesus went to the synagogue implies certain things: (1) That it was the right thing to do in that day and age. (2) That he found it an opportunity to teach those who were seeking God's will.
They fail to see that it is always right for God-fearing people to assemble for prayer and study of God's will.
The relation of the synagogue to the temple was similar to the relationship between the Lord's Day worship with communion and a midweek Bible Class. We have no specific authority for the Class but we do have generic authority since we are told to read and teach God's Word and to grow in the knowledge thereof (Acts 17:11; II Pet. 3:18).
They forget that in the ancient synagogue the Jews never used instruments of music. They were used only in temple worship where they were specifically authorized (II Chron. 29:25).
They cannot deny that the Holy Spirit guided the biblical writers to show us that God indeed expects his people to do that which he instructs them to do and the danger of presuming to do something merely because he did not forbid that act (Deut. 4:2). For example Nadab and Abihu, Naaman, and Uzzah in the Old Testament and in the case of the Judaizing teachers (Acts 15:24 and the priesthood of Christ (Heb. 7:14).
I marvel at the ingenuity of rebellious sinners who are so determined to have their own way that they try to involve the Savior himself in their presumptuous behavior.
I agree with you. I say again that Jesus promised to build HIS ekklesia which means synagogue but is not related to CHURCH which adds on extras as did the synagogue which was ORGANIZED but not originated in Babylon.
A synagogue is an ekklesia and they both simply mean ASSEMBLY. The word SYNAGOGUE is A GREEK WORD and we do not find it often in the HEBREW text. Make sense? However, in the Greek version the word is EKKLESIA. Jesus said to COME LEARN OF ME. When they assembled or synagogued in Acts 20:7 paul DID NOT preach but DIALOGED. The proper synagogue involved READING the word "as it has been taught" says Paul to the elders--not to the preachers. People prayed their own prayers except the formal READING of a prayer hymn.
The meaning of RESTORATION has T. Campbell defining CHURCH as a school of Christ and WORSHIP as reading and dialoging the WORD. Singing was PSALMS until A. Campbell and others published SONG BOOKS which was about like publishing a self-composed bible.
The word for synagogue in Psalm 74 would NOT be alone if all of the Old Testament was in GREEK.
Mowed (h4150) mo-ade'; ormoed, mo-ade'; or (fem.) mowadah (2 Chron. 8:13), mo-aw-daw'; from 3259; prop. an appointment, i. e. a fixed time or season; spec. a festival; conventionally a year; by implication, an assembly (as convened for a definite purpose); technically the congregation; by extension, the place of meeting; also a signal (as appointed beforehand): - appointed (sign, time), (place of, solemn) assembly, congregation, (set, solemn) feast, (appointed, due) season, solemn (-ity), synagogue, (set) time (appointed)
The silver trumpets were to CALL ASSEMBLY but not for MUSIC or ALARM.
Num 10:3 And when they shall blow with them, all the assembly shall assemble themselves to thee at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
To assembly is:
Edah (h5712) ay-daw'; fem. of 5707 in the orig. sense of fixture; a stated assemblage (spec. a concourse, or gen. a family or crowd: - assembly, company, congregation, multitude, people, swarm.
The assembly is:
Mowed (h4150) which is translated SYNAGOGUE in Psalm 74.
Deut 31:10 And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles,
Solemnity is:
Mowed (h4150)
Deut 31:11 When ALL Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.
And throughout the land forever:
Deut 31:12 Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within THY gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words of this law:
GATHER IS: Qahal (h6950) kaw-hal'; a prim. root; to convoke: - assemble (selves) (together), gather (selves) together).
This was the GATHERING in the wilderness where the ALARM or playing the trumpets and making a joyful noise was OUTLAWED because the assembly or synagogue was always for INSTRUCTION.
Deut 31:13 And that their children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and learn to fear the Lord your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it.
This DEFINES the meaning of worship and BURNING ANIMALS was never defined as the SUNDAY SERVICE worship while the synagogue was like WEDNESDAY night. The SYNAGOGUE was always in UTTER OPPOSITION to the temple rituals which were LIKE THE NATIONS and not spiritual worship.
When "scholars" claim that the synagogue was invented in Babylon they have reference to the GREAT SYNAGOGUE convened in Babylon as well as to the more organized INSTITUTIONALIZED system of building houses for reading the Word, public prayer, higher education where the scholars could be found at the "building," the function of a bank and as a LAW COURT. By the time of Christ this included compulsory education beginning at about aged 5.
Paul never used the word CHURCH: he used the word ekklesia. When people GATHER or ASSEMBLY it was for GIVING HEED TO THE WORD and individual prayers. Singing UTTERLY FAILED if it did not mean to TEACH the inspired Biblical text. Even the Lord's Supper was to show forth or TEACH the death of Christ.
ANYTHING you add to that diminishes the role of the gathering (synagogue or ekklesia and NEVER church).
Isaiah 58 explains modern CHURCH and why it rarely works. To those DAILY SEEKING to know God's Ways, here was part of the DIRECT COMMAND:
Isa 58:13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking THINE OWN words:
Re: Re: “Generic and Specific Authority” tested (David Hardin)
February 12 2005, 10:22 PM
David,
I think we pretty much agree on what occurred in the “synagogue” assembly: reading and teaching of God’s Word (from the OT scrolls prior to New Testament writings); praying; very uncomplicated singing (without musical instruments; without “the worship leader” leading the entire congregation into God’s holy presence; and without “Praise Team” mediation, intervention and co-leading); giving to help the poor and needy. Church history reveals that the early New Testament Christians patterned their “gathering of the saints” or assembly after the “synagogue” assembly, with the exception of the observance of the Lord’s Supper—and understandably so! And so should we, 21st century Christians.
I’m not able to add anymore to Ken’s very detailed explanation of what occurred during that period in biblical history known as the intertestament period. My understanding is that this period covers about 400 years—a period between the close of the Old Testament and the events of the New Testament. Whether or not we are to categorize all the biblical events and occurrences prior to the establishment of the church on Pentecost as belonging to this period, it is undeniable that events such as the baptism of Christ and John the Baptist’s ministry, etc., had occurred prior to the founding of the NT church, including all other events and happenings in Jesus’ life on earth which point to the fulfillment of the establishment of his kingdom or the church (Matt. 16:16-19; Acts 2).
Mention of or reference to the word “synagogue” in the Old Testament is practically nil, with the exception of Ps. 74:8. The KJV renders, “They said in their hearts, Let us destroy them together: they have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land.” The NIV renders: “They said in their hearts, "We will crush them completely!" They burned every place where God was worshiped in the land.” But the implication from both versions has significance only in terms of the building or gathering place—not what occurred in the gathering.
“Synagogue” assembly, from historical perspectives and as our point of reference here, is the kind of assembly in the Jewish community during the intertestament period—from/after which, again, we can infer that the NT assembly of the first century Christians was patterned. And during this period, we need to consider important events, such as the dispersion of the Jews in the Persian era—one reason for the frequent references to the “synagogue” in the New Testament, either as a gathering place or what occurred in the gathering.
Within the New Testament, practically all references to the “synagogue” occur in the four gospels—again, pre-NT church events—and in the book of Acts, a history of Christ’s church of the first century—a period reflecting apparent “synagogue” influences among the early Christians of Jewish background. The passages point to the fact that Jesus’ ministry involved teaching in their synagogues (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; etc.); preaching in their synagogues (Mark 1:39; etc.); healing in the synagogues (Luke 6:6; etc.) even on the sabbath day (Luke 13:10; etc.)—a clear violation of the OT sabbath law, yet Jesus did so. My main point in bringing all the above events is to bring to our attention that we should not bring Jesus Christ down to our level. He is our Savior and lived a sinless life; and although we are followers of Christ, and with/because of all our human limitations, we simply cannot do some of the things he did or had, such as possession of the miraculous healing power. Therefore, to associate what Jesus did, specifically teaching, preaching and healing in the synagogue (a gathering place) or to use Jesus’ participation in synagogue “worship” as an example to unjustify the principle of “where there is a specific command, the unspecified or assumed command is ruled out”—such association is irrelevant and incongruent to the stated principle.
David, we agree with you in stating that John Waddey’s statement regarding “specific commands” is not found in the Scriptures. But neither are other statements or mottos expressed by men of the Restoration Movement and others:
"In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; and in all things charity."
“We speak where the Bible speaks, and are silent where the Bible is silent.”
“Touch not, taste not, handle not … intoxicating drinks.” (he-he-he)
“As there is, in our day, an abundance of material and diversity of opinion to choose from, insofar as the question of whose insights should be used, let the Scriptures be our guide.”
“We establish the authority of Christ by direct command, by apostolic or approved example, or by necessary inference.”
“When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.”
These are not exactly or directly stated in the Bible. However, these are excellent principles to live by and to keep us from perverting biblical truths. By the way, in the last stated principle above, the KEY word is “specifically”—NOT “generically.” The specific command to “love God” (even without the word “only”) excludes the command to “love other gods.”
Re: Re: “Generic and Specific Authority” tested (David Hardin)
February 14 2005, 12:11 PM
Donnie,
Thanks for the response. “Specifically” was Synagogue worship wrong because it was not specifically commanded?
It would not seem to mater if this happened time wise between the old and new laws. The old had not yet been nailed to the tree and would still be in effect. We live after the last book of the new law has been written and it still applies to us.
You know I am not so interested in the Synagogue as I am in the principle of interpretation. Is it a consistent principle?
The principle at question goes to the heart of the law of the silence of the scripture. “When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.”
Does it test true?
Temple worship was specifically commanded.
Synagogue worship was not commanded but was practiced even by Jesus.
We know Jesus did not sin.
Therefore Synagogue worship was not wrong even though it was other than what was specifically commanded. Likewise, Silence of the scripture here is not a law/ authoritative.
RE: Generic and Specific Authority Tested (David Hardin, Feb. 14)
February 15 2005, 10:47 AM
David,
I applaud your honesty in your ultimately confessing that the whole bit about synagogues was just an attempt to discredit the law of exclusion or silence. Your words: "Likewise, Silence of the scripture here is not a law/authoritative." I was wondering why someone would be so concerned about synagogues, which are not a part of Christian worship. Were you also being completely honest in your statement from Feb. 11, "I am truly trying to learn here"?
You fail to realize that the law of exclusion is a built-in safeguard against our adding anything to Scripture that otherwise does not appear in Scripture, or taking anything away from Scripture that is already a part of Scripture, for purposes of justifying our own personal preferences and prejudices. By attempting to discredit the law of exclusion in claiming that Temple worship automatically excluded synagogues, you take away and deny the biblical inference which clearly shows that synagogues were also authorized by God and accepted by the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles, as we have previously shown. Thus you violate the very command that God made in both Deut. 4:2 and in Rev. 22:18-19: do not add to or diminish from His Word.
Now I do not expect you to accept this, for you have already made up your mind, and I would imagine that further arguments about this would be completely futile. But to any others who read this, please take care not to tamper in any way whatsoever with the Word of God.
No one likes to be "marked" for presenting false doctrine, and those who are called to task for it always claim to be under "personal attack." No, this is in obedience to biblical command (Romans 16:17). David abused the law of exclusion in an attempt to justify his own personal prejudice against the law of exclusion. How can someone expect to debunk a law or principle by using that very law or principle against itself? Nothing divided against itself can ever stand. Find that principle in Matt. 12:25. Using synagogues was a decidedly bad choice, for biblical inference shows that they were authorized. We can hardly be expected to "encourage" an example like this.
The LAW OF MOSES had no redeeming power: all who are justified before, during and after the Law of Moses are justified by FAITH. Galatians 3 connects FAITH with BAPTISM as that which was promised to the children of Abraham. Abraham was justified by faith. Justified means to gain God's approval: if we believe the words of Jesus we are justified on that point. However, that does not remit sins.
Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
The same Paul said that we are not justified by a LAW OF FAITH and not a LAW OF WORKS (such as singing, clapping, preaching, tithing).
BOASTING (singing, clapping, ranting) is gone by the LAW OF EXCLUSION based on Paul's CONCLUSION that we are justified by FAITH or what we BELIEVE and hold in our hearts:
Romans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is EXCLUDED. By what law? of works? Nay; but by the law of faith.
Romans 3:28 Therefore we CONCLUDE that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
The word is EKKLEIO and means SHUT OUT. If believers are JUSTIFIED by faith then there is a LAW OF EXCLUSION which SHUTS OUT everything I read about your WORSHIP with the works of your hands in a house built by human hands.
PAUL REACHED HIS CONCLUSION BASED ON THE LAW OF EXCLUSION AND HE JUST TOLD US SO.
The Levitical Warrior "musicians" or noise makers were part of the LAW of animal sacrifices or the LAW of war. Therefore, we can CONCLUDE that they are EXCLUDED as the Jews CONCLUDED when animal sacrifices ceased.
Jesus commanded and PATTERNED praying in private: while we have noted that PRAYING was added to the SYNAGOGUE in Babylon, it was NOT part of the commands of God. Therefore, Jesus has just told YOU that prayer is private and you cannot PRAY for me with silly, erotic praise songs any more than you can make love for me. It is just silly, legalistic patternism. The danger of praying in public is that it is ARTIFICIAL and tempts to performance and hypocrisy.
Mt.6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Yes, yes, yes! I know that if YOU pray out loud then YOU should not gibberish but PRAY DISTINCTLY.
Jesus said that the doctors of the LAW "take away the key to knowledge." Will He be offended if I CONCLUDE that a doctor of the law who claims superiority to the ELDERS is a scam artist? Do I have permission for my ACTIONS to use the LAW OF EXCLUSION and quit feeding them?
If performance singers and MUSICIANS claimed the role of SORCERY and were recognized by those AWAKE with their clothes with them as PARASITES, may I CONCLUDE and use the LAW OF EXCLUSION to toss them out of the "Holy Place" where they claim to lead you into the presence of God?
EVERONE gives themselves the right to precise language so that when they INCLUDE and SPECIFY a certain thing then the LAW OF EXCLUSION does not give you the right to be terminally stupid and say: "But, yall didn say 'don't buy me a rattle snake instead of a loaf of bread.'"
I believe that it is terminal madness to PRETEND that when Christ prescribed the unleavened bread from the Passover and SPECIFIED the "fruit of the vine" He DIDN'T say "don't bring us menstrual fluids from the pagan Agape."
When Jesus PATTERNED and Paul commanded "that which is written, the spirit or the Word of Christ" in the inspired Biblical text he DID NOT say '"don't sing the Dionysus triumph song and dance" they EXCLUDED self-"Inspired" ditties the ENCOMIAST is rubbing on. If not then the church scholars for 2,000 years found no exception by EXCLUDING junk. AND, in keeping with Rubel Shelly's use of the UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE all truth has been shot away by evolved eyes.
If YOU need a DIRECT COMMAND then I have given you one. If that is not good enough then REQUIRING a law makes YOU a LEGALIST. Normal people don't NEED laws to NOT deliberately HURT and discord people so they can ACT UP and ACT OUT.
If you must have "exact language," that is, the exact words "law of exclusion" or "law of silence" (for they are one and the same) from the Bible before you will accept this principle, then you will be delighted to know that those exact words do not exist! At this point, you may choose to close your eyes and ears, and say, "Ah ha, the law of exclusion is pure fiction" and go your way. But if you are truly willing to open your eyes and ears and learn that this principle is not man-contrived, that it is genuine, scriptural, and that it can be easily applied to examples throught the Bible, then I bid you to see the thread "Is the Law of Exclusion Scriptural?" at Sunday School in Exile on this site.
Speak where the Bible is Silent (no login) 130.127.121.217
Re: RE: What a Spirit (Eddie)
October 29 2008, 3:43 PM
How can Bill Crump say in one breath....
"If you must have "exact language," that is, the exact words "law of exclusion" or "law of silence" (for they are one and the same) from the Bible before you will accept this principle, then you will be delighted to know that those exact words do not exist!"
.....then say with the next breath.....
"But if you are truly willing to open your eyes and ears and learn that this principle is not man-contrived, that it is genuine, scriptural, and that it can be easily applied to examples throught the Bible, then I bid you to see the thread "Is the Law of Exclusion Scriptural?" at Sunday School in Exile on this site."
The law of exclusion or silence is not within the confines of the Word, but yet....genuuine and Scriptural???
This, indeed, from a regular member here at concernedmembers.com.
Luke 6
43"No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.
Tell you what, Chuck, why don't you let David defend himself about the question I raised? He stated that he was "truly trying to learn." From his discussion, I didn't get that impression. It is my opinion that he already had his mind made up and was not about to change it, regardless of what we presented to him about the law of exclusion. And in a message to Donnie Cruz, he did later confess in so many words that he was not really interested in synagogues after all, but only used them (and Jesus) as examples in an attempt to discredit the law of exclusion. To me, this did not sound like someone who ever had any intentions of "truly trying to learn." Now I'm not about to call someone a liar outright if there is some question in the air, and that's why I raised the question. So let David defend himself. I doubt that he needs you for a mouthpiece.
I wouldn't want to pass over your observation, "Your discussions of preferences do not impress me as you attempt to make them principles."
I can easily make a monstrous argument about lying over this. In other discussions, I have proved through biblical example that the law of exclusion is not man-made, so it could not be based on personal preferences. I say that we do not make principles of our own to satisfy any preferences about Scripture. But you stand there with your eyes and ears closed and smugly say that we do, without any proof to the contrary. Therefore, you are calling me an outright LIAR! I AM GRIEVOUSLY INSULTED! HOW DARE YOU CALL ME, A PERFECTLY HONEST, UPSTANDING CHRISTIAN, A LIAR!
I'll be generous and let you call me a liar. I'll let you call me a big, fat liar. I'll even let you call me a big, fat, liar with expletives if that would REALLY make your day. Even the Pharisees branded Jesus as possessed of a devil; that is, they completely rejected His message, as you have rejected a most scriptural law of exclusion. What did Jesus do? He forgave those who railed at and verbally persecuted Him, because their eyes and ears, like yours, were closed (Matt. 12:24-32).
Therefore, Chuck, I will forgive your accusation that I am a liar. I also earnestly hope that you will not only grow in maturity (are you not beyond puerile expressions like "liar, liar, pants on fire"?), but that you will also grow in biblical knowledge, which at this point appears to be frighteningly abysmal.
Re: Re: “Generic and Specific Authority” tested (David Hardin)
February 15 2005, 1:38 PM
David Hardin Does it test true?
Temple worship was specifically commanded.
Again, David, you are correct: the only PROBLEM is that you are mixed up on the chronology. The fact is that the SYNAGOGUE was commanded and MODELLED by God at Mount Sinai as part of Stephen's CHURCH (ekklesia, synagogue) in the wilderness. There was no command for SACRIFICES until the people SACRIFICED to the Egyptian trinity MUSICALLY. As a result God gave THE BOOK OF THE LAW but not a word about a TEMPLE. When israel's elders FIRED God and demanded a human king (preacher to rule) God PERMITTED the temple as a CONCESSION to David. This became the CIVIL SEAT of a secular monarchy identical to all other monarchies with their KING'S temple.
There is NO scholar who denies that the temple--at a Jebusite High Place--was given for ADDITIONAL sacrifices after David sinned and was afraid of God and could not return to Gibeon which was STILL the place Solomon sought God. The temple then became the SEAT of animal sacrifices as a CURSE and therefore Jerusalem was another SODOM. Here is one example and there is NO contradiction in the Bible or scholarly history: even the Jews admit it AFTER they lost it.
Editor's Note 7: dia gar touto epishmainetai. The meaning is: Stephen was accused of speaking against "the customs,"-sacrifices, temple, feasts, etc. Therefore he significantly points to that critical conjuncture. from which these "customs" date their introduction: namely, the Provocation at Horeb.
Prior to that, he tells of "living oracles," life-giving precepts:
after it, and as its consequence, sacrifices, etc.,
those statutes which were not good, and ordinances by which a man shall not live, as God says by Ezekiel.
Not a word of sacrifice till then: and the first mention is, of the sacrifices offered to the calf. In like manner, "they rejoiced," "the people ate and drank, and rose up to play:" and in consequence of this, the feasts were prescribed: kai eufrainonto, fhsin: dia touto kai eortai.-'Epishmainetai might be rendered, "he marks," "puts a MARK upon it" (so the innovator, who substitutes, touto kai Dauid epishmainomenoj legei): we take it passively, "there is a mark set over it-it is emphatically denoted." In the active, the verb taken intransitively means
"to betoken or announce itself," "make its first appearance."-
In the Treatise adv. Judaeos, iv. §6. tom. i. 624. C. St. Chrysostom gives this account of the legal sacrifices: "To what purpose unto Me is the multitude of your sacrifices? etc. (Isaiah i., 11, ff.)
Do ye hear how it is most plainly declared, that God did not from the first require these at your hands?
Had He required them, He would have obliged those famous saints who were before the Law to observe this practice.
`Then wherefore has He permitted it now?
In condescension to your infirmity. As a physician in his treatment of a delirious patient, etc.:
thus did God likewise. For seeing them so frantic in their lust for sacrifices, that they were ready, unless they got them, to desert to idols:
nay not only ready, but that they had already deserted, thereupon He permitted sacrifices. And that this is the reason, is clear from the order of events.
After the feast which they made to the demons, then it was that He permitted sacrifices: all but saying: `Ye are mad, and will needs sacrifice: well then, at any rate sacrifice to Me. 0'"-(What follows may serve to illustrate the brief remark a little further on, Kai h aixmalwsia kathgoria thj kakiaj.)
"But even this, He did not permit to continue to the end, but by a most wise method, withdrew them from it ...
For He did not permit it to be done in any place of the whole world,
but in Jerusalem only. Anon, when for a short time
they had sacrificed, he destroyed the city.
Had He openly said, Desist, they, such was their insane passion for sacrificing, would not readily have complied. But now perforce, the place being taken away, He secretly withdrew them from their frenzy." So here: "Even the CAPTIVITY IMPEACHES the wickedness (which was the cause of the permission of sacrifice.")
We can throw you chapter after chapter after chapter God say that he DID NOT COMMAND sacrifices when they came out of EGYPT. Voluntary sacrifices were always practiced but God said: Now IF you sacrifice you MUST do it on an EARTHEN place of burning. But IF you want to make an alter you MUST not use CARVED STONES and you MUST not have steps going up. The temple violated ALL of these because it was a LIKE THE NATION'S TEMPLE added BECAUSE OF TRANSGRESSION and God's turning them over to worship the STARRY HOST: that is why David did not listen to a PROPHET but Gad was the KING'S SEER which means A STAR GAZER.
Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched. Jeremiah 7:20
Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel;
Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh. Jeremiah 7:21
It is a fact that MUSICAL IDOLATERS use the LAW OF SILENCE because DISCIPLES know that music AS worship was alaways connected with ignoring the Word of God. What they do is use THE LAW OF TOTAL CONTEMPT for God who--with all of His power--simply did not CONCEIVE of an evil people who could INVENT slaughtering innocent animals believing that to FILL THEIR BELLYS meant that God was appeased and well fed.
Pseudo "conservative preachers" keep trying to SELL the notion that God wanted people to worship Him by slaughtering innocent animals. And even Amos' condemnation of instrumental sacrifices with a father and son using the same temple whore was OK: they just had a bad mental attitude. However, they blaspheme by saying that God CHANGED HIS MIND and REJECTED temple worship. You cannot dig any deeper into trying to RESCUE the sacrificial system and MUSIC by refusing to confess that this was a LEGALISTIC PATTERNISM of people being led into captivity and death BECAUSE the "because of transgression" was BECAUSE of musical idoltry. This was a TERMINAL SIN and God, according to Stephen and some of the prophets, TURNED THEM OVER TO WORSHIP THE STARRY HOST. That is why God used Gad the STARGAZER to tell David how to build a LIKE THE NATIONS' temple. By the way, we get the word GOD from GAD who was the tribe hostile to God and the GOD OF FORTUNE.
David Hardin Synagogue worship was not commanded but was practiced even by Jesus.
Therefore Synagogue worship was not wrong even though it was other than what was specifically commanded.
We know Jesus did not sin.
For the word ASSEMBLE there are 42 separate Greek words: about half of these are SUN or SYNAGOGUE related. The word GATHER has 152 separate Greek words. Then you have the word EKKLESIA meaning CALLED OUT, come together, and on and on.
Now, not A SINGLE one of these words is remotely related to the word CHURCH which is derived from Circe or Kirke the "holy whore" of John's revelation. Does THAT mean that God in Christ did not COMMAND the church to "come learn of me" if we call it the CALLED OUT?
We have pointed out that the DIRECT COMMAND of God that they ASSEMBLE nationally and within their own walls to TEACH the Word after they ASSEMBLED the peole. There are many Hebrew words which mean to ASSEMBLE: if they assemble to TEACH as God SYNAGOGUED the people at Mount Sinai to TEACH then it is a SYNAGOGUE. We still call CHURCHES CHURCHES when we know that they DON'T assemble to teach the Word as it has been taught.
David Hardin Likewise, Silence of the scripture here is not a law authoritative.
Well, lost soul, Mom never made a LAW OF SILENCE about lots of things. However, when she discussed the universal EVILS of drinking alcohol, anytime I ever tried it I HEARD her loud and clear even from the grave. That is call RESPECT and only a LEGALISTS needs for God to say "Thou shalt not burn animals, play with temple whores or play instruments" when you ASSEMBLE. Maybe, there IS such a law for those WITH EARS:
For I spake NOT unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt,
concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: Jeremiah 7:22
But this thing commanded I them, saying,
Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people:
and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you,
that it may be well unto you. Jeremiah 7:23
But they HEARKENED NOT, nor inclined their ear,
but walked in the counsels and in the IMAGINATION of their evil heart,
and went backward, and not forward. Jeremiah 7:24
And they have built the high places of Tophet,
which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom,
to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. Jeremiah 7:31
I told you that Stephen spoke of the EKKLESIA or synagogue or church in the wilderness where God called an assembly of the people. Because they WOULD NOT harken to "synagoguing" with God as their Teacher, God TURNED THEM over to worship the Astrial dieties:
This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us : Acts 7:38
to whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt Acts 7:39
Church is ekklesia which defines a calling out, meetig, Jewish synagogue or Christian community.
This HIGH PLACE was Tophet at the High Place of the Jebusites: Tophet was once the King's Music Grove. It was named after the TAMBOURINE and defines the place we call HELL where the kings, their harps and harpists go to burn and ROT on a bed of maggots.
I might tell you that God DID NOT command the assembly for PRAYER: people could pray any time or place, in groups or all alone. However, you had to assemble to COME LEARN OF ME as Jesus more invited than commanded. The prayer, like the fermented wine for Passover, was a part of the ORGANIZED synagogue which came out of Babylon. Jesus TAUGHT in the synagogue and invited US to come meet Him in the closet or Most Holy Place made into A holy spirit at baptism. That is the HUMAN SPIRIT which PUTS TO SILENCE the singy-clappy, sangy-twanging, whiney-pineys who HALLUCINATE that IN THE SPIRIT means like nine-dollar bill (inflation, you know).
Greetings Brethen
I obeyed the gospel a couple of months ago,and was added to the Martinsville Church of Christ,here in Martinsville,Va.
I can only say to all who wish to listen, to hold fast your sound doctrine,and continue in the "Word".
My prayers are with you.
Donald Carter
We rejoice in the great news that you are now a member of the Lord’s body. We appreciate your prayers and your admonition to “hold fast … sound doctrine….” That’s exactly our message here at CM. Certain congregations have already been subverted and acquired—thanks to the despondent, irresponsible and uncaring elders. And there are congregations under siege or being taken over right now—I am witnessing one before my eyes.
We take seriously the apostle’s warning—“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth…” (2 Tim. 4:3-4). Qualified elders are supposed to be “… holding fast the faithful word…” (Titus 1:9). And to speak “the things which become sound doctrine…” (Titus 2:1).
I am a frequent visitor to your message board and enjoy reading the many comments or would not return. I travel this great country that we live in and have visited many churches of Christ in the South and North. I would like to respond to Mr. Meador's comment: "error and weakness are the cause of division."
I will get straight to my point. We have men in our pulpits who could no more exegesis Peter's sermon at Pentecost than they could fly a lunar space ship. Yes, they can recite Acts 2:38 frontward and backward, but most, could not begin to explain the question: "What does this mean?" asked by those "devout men out of every nation" who had heard "a sound," and seen the "cloven tongues as like of fire and it set upon each of them."
Mr. Meador, as "director of Southwest School of Bible Study" I am sure you can exegess John 20:21-23 and correlate the Lord's words with Acts 1:1-2. As a Director of a school of Bible Study you must ask yourself: would my students be able to express their mind in an intellectual, rational dialogue on this manifestation of the Holy Spirit? I have asked many of our young and older brothers who fill the pulpit in various towns and city's this question. You want to hear an assortment of answers? Punch "Duh."
Ask our preachers about the baptism "with the Holy Spirit and with fire" that John prophesied (Matthew 3:10-12 and when this phenomenom took place), and you would think that you were on stage with Jimmy Swaggart. Ask your young man in the pulpit by expository preaching, exeggis John 2:1-11. Why the Lord's "first miracle" at Cana of Galilee? Do they believe this could be a Messianic prophesy recorded in Psalms 69? if not why not? Inquiring minds in the pews would like to know!
My list could go on and on, but by now you have caught my drift.
Who is going to emulate the teaching of our young men, or elder, in the pulpit? Why of course, the brothers and sisters who fill the pews! They, in turn will teach their children and friends. As you know, this is the command of the Lord. Christianity is taught, not caught. This gets me back to your statement: "error and weakness are the cause of division."
In my opinion, the churches of Christ in the "South and North" are so caught up in what is going on over at the instrumental churches that we are becoming "Biblically illiterate" in the pew. We have become "week," because many of our disciples think as Simon of Samaria and become as Demas.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
John Rebman
I am not a preacher and have not exegeted (a word associated with musica or magica) or "further expounded" outlawed by "private interpretation."
However, if you grasp that Spirit and Breath in both Hebrew and Greek speaks of the wind or mental dispositon or the mind of a Being or person, then when Jesus is said to have BREATHED on the apostles it is easy to "take a right turn" and see that He did this by teaching just as Paul MINISTERED the Spirit by preaching.
I have addressed this in more than a dozen papers on the internet but I cannot prove to you that any preacher in my 74 years has ever read, thought or preached in a "straight row" long enough to get from John to Acts. That is why they increasingly believe that the Spirit is a junior member of the tribe of gods.
So, we probably agree on that but I have been active in the church for 62 of my 74 years and I can't remember ANY sermon in the last 30 years other than to condemn US for preaching against instruments. I think that you will find that the ANTI music DEFENSE has been mounted ONLY BECAUSE the instrumentalists think that POSTMODERN gives them the right to lie, cheat and steal peacable churches of Christ to turn them into "theaters for holy entertainment." I know of NO real push which has NOT been associated with aggressive movements such as ACU bonding at the hip with the Disciples with the plan to train "prophets, chanellers and facilitators" to deliberately force a shot-gun wedding with the Christian church which has ALWAYS been a Stoneite movement not really related to the churches of Christ.
As far as I know, all of those MOTIVATED to vocally teach their views -over and over and over- have had their churches TURNED into a circus, have had their "investment" stolen (better have giving a thousand bucks to a tele-evangelist and got 5,000 back) and typically up to ONE HALF of the old peacable church driven out into the COLD while the women and children ACT UP and even yearn for the oldsters to leave or die
I believe that you will also find that any literate OUTING of those who lie through sermons or papers are NOT preachers but LAY people who can refuse to be COWARDS without losing their jobs.
Furthermore, once you quit being a RELIGIONISTS and become a disciple--which means quit letting preachers beat your knees with a baseball bat to keep down the cheap seats--you find that you CAN walk and chew gum at the same time. You can utterly repudiate the SOLE INVENTION of latter day churches of Christ that God is a FAMILY or standing COMMITTEE of three SEPARATED "persons" because--logically--God needs FRIENDS and a FAMILY or He would not be perfect. At the same time you can repudiate MUSIC as their mind control weapon.
Well, I think that you need to EXEGETE these passages and EXPOSE yourself to having a cross nailed on your back so others can respond properly. However, I would dare suggest that ANY preacher who has POSTED has probably been posted by OTHERS and will not join the debate--and I can understand why. I would enjoy your discussion.
Re: Biblical Illiterate Men In The Pulpit (John Rebman)
February 21 2005, 5:55 AM
John,
I think you have covered all the bases for biblical illiteracy in the pew—unqualified elders, seminary-trained preachers, inept Bible class teachers. One of the qualifications for office of an elder, besides being blameless, husband of one wife, etc., is one “holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine … to exhort” (Titus 1:9) and is “apt to teach” (I Tim. 3:2). How can members be expected to hold fast “the faithful word” when elders themselves do not? When elders succumb to unbiblical or secular programs in the name of numerical church growth, then, church problems are inevitable.
Evident are the influences of teachings in the pulpit by those who received training from seminaries and liberal Christian schools. A generation of faithful Bible teachers and evangelists—G. K. Wallace, Thomas B. Warren, Batsell Barrett Baxter, etc., has passed. The current generation of prominent change agents operating in the brotherhood—Rubel Shelly, Max Lucado, Rick Atchley, etc., who have aligned themselves with Rick Warren’s and others’ philosophies regarding church growth, community church and charismatic movements, is in our midst.
Bible school programs have freely used class resources and materials written by those in denominational churches. Youth ministers have copied their systems, methodologies and activities from denominational churches.
Overall, facts pertaining to the Restoration Movement are now being distorted by those who have apostatized from the church they so despise but who still claim to be members of it. Indeed, it’s a sad story when a principle—and simply a common-sense principle—is being questioned, such as the following:
“We establish the authority of Christ by direct command, by apostolic or approved example, or by necessary inference.”
The literate RM people along with the Bible and ALL of historical theologians defend the Commands, Examples and Necessary Inferences: now, you want to make it
CENIS and add SLOGANS as authority? I would appreciate some Doctor of the Law who quote this to please direct me to an original document. Please!
The way to lie about the Campbells is to lie about the Lunenberg letters. Campbell said that there MUST be "Christians among the sects" because he had been among the sects.
However, he used the word "Christian" in two ways. When someone lives and acts like a Christian we say, "that was a real Christian thing to do." However, in a true sense he recognized only BAPTIZED BELIEVERS as Christians. One who has not been baptized has failed in the ENTRY command to become a Disciple. If they are SINGING and making music DURING CLASS TIME they assuredly are NOT disciples.
Furthermore, to those who considered themselves Christians "among the sects" he said that they should COME OUT OF BABYLON. Campbell in effect says that they call him an FOOL if he believes that they are believers when he has been so active preaching.
And NO ONE can be sincere in blindly assigning this to the ANTI-instrumental churches of Christ as long as THEIR "bretheren and sistern" are so actively engaged in confiscating universities and BUYING UP professors to teach that we are legalistic, sectarian heretics, brother killers and muggers of ladies wearing furs. From the Lunenberg letter AFTER people misunderstood where THAT MISUNDERSTANDING is still used as the big lie:
1. Let me ask, in the first place, what could mean all that we have written upon the union of Christians on apostolic grounds,
had we taught that all Christians in the world were already united in our own community?
2. And in the second place,
why should we so often have quoted and applied to apostate Christendom what the Spirit saith to saints in Babylon--
"Come out of her, my people, that you partake not of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues"--
had we imagined that the Lord had no people beyond the pale of our communion!
Jesus said to MAKE disciples by preaching the gospel, baptizing believers and FURTHER TEACHING which AIN'T preaching. DISCIPLES were called CHRISTIANS. Therefore, syllogisms are still in effect because that is ONE function of SYNAGOGUING, and THAT proves that only baptized believers are CHRISTIANS. If you are defending and PAYING people to minimize baptism you are minimizing Jesus Christ and that means ANTI-Christ.
It really depends on the forum settings. The CM forums are set up for a response to be shown immediately below the preceding post, etc., etc. Other forums are set up so that the latest response in date and time would be the last one to display regardless of which post is being responded to.
Each format has advantages and disadvantages.
By the way, your slogan (“Speak where the Bible is silent”) is different and worthy of consideration. While I agree that one has the freedom to “speak,” whatever is “spoken” should be considered an opinion or a viewpoint until proven that it is in accordance with biblical specifications.
Speaking where the Bible is silent should not give permission to creating a new doctrine or “more traditions(s).” I believe that in New Testament Christianity, in Christian living, the New Testament is replete with what’s needed in order for one outside of Christ to become God’s child. The NT is also replete with instructions for Christians living.
Speak where the Bible is Silent (no login) 130.127.121.217
Re: Not in chronological order
November 5 2008, 1:18 PM
ConcernedMembers said..."While I agree that one has the freedom to speak, whatever is spoken should be considered an opinion or a viewpoint until proven that it is in accordance with biblical specifications.
If you are using the Holy Word as the Standard (hopefully you are)
then what if two people who are studying together interpret the Standard differently?
Whose interpretation do you go by? You can't say God's interpretation, now can you?
Reminder.....I have already said that both parties are using the Holy Word (KJV) as the standard for which to prove/disprove any matter of conflict.
Then and still, it comes down to biblical specifications. And the keyword is specificity.
Whose interpretation do you go by? Good question. But it depends on the specifics. I think that such a question can be answered by providing an example or examples that relate the particular subject matter.
Let me mention, e.g., a very important issue related to how one should interpret baptism as God has designed it:
(a) Is one outside of Christ to be baptized IN ORDER TO receive remission of sins in His blood?
-------------------- or -------------------
(b) Is one who is already considered a Christian to be baptized BECAUSE OF his sins having been forgiven in His blood [prior to baptism]?
While one side interprets and strongly believes in (a) and the other side in (b), then, references to other related passages and the correct translation of certain prepositions and conjunctions in NT Greek would be ways to further determine the accuracy of an interpretation.
BTW, would you provide examples of issues that you think might be interpreted differently by either side but yet relate to your question, Whose interpretation do you go by?
Speak where the Bible is Silent (no login) 130.127.121.217
Re: "Whose interpretation do you go by?"
November 5 2008, 3:50 PM
Concernedmembers asked..."BTW, would you provide examples of issues that you think might be interpreted differently by either side but yet relate to your question, Whose interpretation do you go by?"
I know that you will say all issues are definitive within the scope of the Scriptures, but you know that is not the case....do you really believe that people want to be different when it comes to understanding what the Lord will have us all do?
Baptism is not much of an issue with the church of Christ, but instrumental music is.
You will, of course, give me your INTERPRETATION and tell me that you would not give me man's interpretation but what God would have you do. That is what the other sides says also.
You would ask me does God autorize instrumental music in our worship to Him today.....and on and on. Instrumental music is a clear example of two people taking the same Bible, the same translation of the Bible, and coming up with two separate interpretations. You would tell me that you can prove to me that if I were to use instrumental music, as used by David in the OT, then I would have to give animal sacrifices and offere incense for worship to God.....which is now only about proving a point and not trying to truly understand the Word of God......using/abusing the Word of God to prove a point.
You would tell me that since 'God doesnt say not to' use instrumental music then God also doesn't not to use cocaine (I Cor 3:16 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?), or ketchup and popcorn for the Lord's Supper (we have a clear example of wine or fruit of the vine--not ketchup). Like I have heard it said....God didn't say not to use cocaine......oh yes he did as quoted in 1 Cor 3:16.
Do you see how far unbalanced that the a cappela side is getting, just to hang it's hat on a tradition of a capella?
You get the picture.
If two people have two completely different interpretations for a passage or passages in the Standard (the Holy Bible), can both interpretations be correct? No, they cannot. Either one interpretation is correct and the other is not, or BOTH interpretations are incorrect.
If one person believes that 2 + 2 = 4 and another person believes that 2 + 2 = 100, only the first person is correct. The second person may think that he is correct, but he is "right" only in his misguided mind; his "right" exists only in his imagination, not in reality. If one person believes that coal is purple and another person believes that coal is orange, then BOTH people are incorrect.
The problem that people have with "interpreting" Scripture correctly is that they refuse to read and accept exactly what is written therein, especially in matters concerning the New Testament. People tend to twist, add to, take from, and bend Scripture to make it say what they want it to say instead of following exactly what the New Testament says to begin with.
Speak where the Bible is Silent (no login) 64.234.87.48
Re: Not in chronological order
November 5 2008, 10:55 PM
Bill, you said...."If two people have two completely different interpretations for a passage or passages in the Standard (the Holy Bible), can both interpretations be correct? No, they cannot. Either one interpretation is correct and the other is not, or BOTH interpretations are incorrect."
Explain logically why both interpretations can't be right? I believe that if you can truthfully answer that question, then you will drop your cannons and grenades for a few minutes.
You see Bill, your thinking is flawed. First and foremost, if both parties use the KJV Holy Word as the Standard, the how do you know which party is right or wrong? You don't. The one side will always say that he/she is right, but how do you know. Get a consensus? Have 5 people tell you that your interpretation is right.....so the other side can get five more people to say that their interpretation is actually the right one?
It also isn't a matter of mathematics. If it were, it would be all to simple. We know that 2 + 2 = 4 and we know that 2 + 2 will never equal 100. We are speaking of an interpretation of life itself and how God tells us to go about livng our lifes. Can you relate mathematics to spirituality? Well, I guess you can, but at best it would be laughable. My name SPEAKS and tells the tale. God doesn't tell us how to do every single detail in life, nor does He tell us that we should have 2 songs, a prayer, two more songs, another prayer, the Lord's Supper, a few more songs, preaching, an invitation, and a closing prayer.....but that is the way WE have decided to do it. It is orderly. Is it orderly if we play a piano as we sing? Many here would not think so. They say we need authority to have that piano within a worship setting on Sunday. The order of service isn't authoritative, neither is the PA system, but it is still orderly. A PA system isn't adding to God's Word, but a piano is. One's a tool/aid while the other is an addition. Which is which is all interpreted by the interpreter.
Yes Bill, I have heard it all.
Bill, you said...."The problem that people have with "interpreting" Scripture correctly is that they refuse to read and accept exactly what is written therein, especially in matters concerning the New Testament. People tend to twist, add to, take from, and bend Scripture to make it say what they want it to say instead of following exactly what the New Testament says to begin with."
So Bill, which side refuses to read and accept exactly what is written therein.....?
Your side certainly would not do that....
This web site is not part of or approved by any Church!
...........................THE BOOK
What Happened At the Madison Church of Christ?
There are thousands of churches being taken over across America.
This book is only about one of those churches. It's about the Madison
Church Of Christ. By studying the methods used here along with the resource
references you might be able to inoculate your church. At the very least
you will recognize the signs early on.
Many of the current members of the Madison Church of Christ still don't
know what happened.
Some never will know! This book is for them as well.
Madison Church of Christ was a 60 year old church. At one time it was
one of the largest churches in the US, and the largest Church of Christ.
It thrived for many years on the vision of it's elders and those of
it's ministers. Those visions undoubtably came from the the inspired word
of Jesus Christ.
At sometime in the last 10 years there was a deliberate plan by a majority
of the elders to take the Madison Church of Christ into a more worldly
realm.
They used secrecy, covert planning, and outside sources to scheme and
to change the format and direction of the Madison Church of Christ.
The Elders knew that the membership would never approve such a plan.
Using the tools of the "Community Church Movement"(consultants, books,
seminars, meetings,planters,seeders) they slowly started initiating change
so it was never noticed by the members until it was too late.....
At the heart of the plan was the fact that old members were going to
be driven off so new techniques could be used to go out and reach the unchurched
through new "Contemporary Holy Entertainment" methods developed by the
"Community Church Movement"
Old members had to be kept on board long enough to get their plans ready,
or the funds would not be there to pay for the new building. So by the
plans very nature, it had to be secret.
The church had no plan in effect to renew or approve elders. There was
never any need. The elders had always been "as approved by God". 10 of the last
15 elders would begin to shed some doubt on that.
The Elders did not even need a majority at first, because some of the
elders went along unwittingly.
This edition starts shortly after some of the members begin to smell
something strange in January 2001. Later editions may go back and fill
in some of the timeline.
To even start to understand whats happening here, you must read the
background materials in the first of the book.
This is only the first edition, and not the end. New editions will be
printed as needed. To keep abreast of current changes, please visit our
web site; http://www.concernedmembers.com/madison
Here is the list of players;
5 Godly Elders
10 Not so Godly Elders
120 "Deacons" (allegiance unknown)
2,800 - 4,000 church "members"
2 "teners" (people who have publicly confessed to have broken all ten
commandments)
Unknown number of "sinners" (This is what the 10 elders call us.)
Unknown number of "demons" (Flying everywhere, to many to count)
