Place your banner ad here.          See all banner ads

|| || About || Links Library || Help Warn Others ||
|| Madison Church of Christ || Richland Hills Church of Christ || Hillcrest Church of Christ || More Churches || Sunday School in Exile ||

Where is my NewThisWeek Email subscription?Click Here

Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

efforts better served ...

June 5 2006 at 7:30 AM
wordkeeper  (Login wordkeeper)
from IP address

I have been reading a lot of the threads on this board
and I have a few comments that I hope will be considered.
From my understanding the Madison Church of Christ went
through some changes some years back that have upset many
of the existing members. Most of the changes have to do with
style of worship while maintaining the acapella heritage.
First, I want to say I think that how they went about it is
wrong and un Christ-like. But it appears that the church has
reached a point of no return. Since we are stewards of the
resources that God supplies I believe that it would be better
served to let loose of the Madison congregation and start
afresh with a new congregation and I hope that many people
will come to know the lord through the efforts of the people
who are dissatisfied with the current Madison church. As much
as it hurts emotionally I believe that it would be better for
everyone involved. I do not see any value in putting other
christians down simply because they worship different than
how you prefer to worship. Your's is not the first to suffer
a church split and you are not the only church that has
experienced a church split. I say get on with life and start
a new congregation and hopefully it will be better that the old
The second thing I want to address is the accusation of the
"change-agents" being false teachers. Just because there is
a difference of opinions on worship style doesn't mean they
are false teachers. In my view, the most important thing
to believe is that salvation is through a personal relationship
with God through his Son, Jesus Christ. I can find no reference
in the Bible where salvation is determined by the correctness
of the church doctrine of your congregation. I believe that
some people on this board believe that. "As long as I attend
a church of Christ I'll get to heaven" many people will
be in for a rude awakening with that type of thinking."
Here is another shocker- "There will be people outside of
the churches of Christ who do have a personal realtionship
with God and will be in heaven and many members of the churches
of Christ will not enter in because God will say ' I never
KNEW you'". Who made the people on this board the doctine
police ? Have you all considered thAt you may be totally
mistaken in how you interpret the scriptures. Maybe a little
of humility will make you all better christians.
In closing, I believe that your efforts will be better served
in starting a new congregation and just let go of the Madison
Church of Christ abd let God be the judge in their actions.

Thank you,

 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(no login)

Efforts Better Served Than …

June 8 2006, 3:31 AM 

We appreciate your taking the time to read many of the threads on this board and your interest in trying to understand the circumstances surrounding the upheaval that occurred at the Madison church in 2001.

I tend to agree with you that the congregation has reached a point of no return unless, I believe, there is a drastic change in leadership “personnel” or unless the current leadership is BOTH: (a) willing to accept the error of its ways and (b) ready to rectify its mistakes or restore that which made the congregation great in the past and a light on the hill.

It is a real misunderstanding on anyone’s part to think and believe that this website has been in existence only because of changes that have to do with worship style. The change advocates are hard at work on “transforming” the church into something other than what’s laid out in the New Testament for the sake of “church growth.” This attempt at “church transformation” obviously and intentionally involves and affects our adherence to the doctrine and teachings found in the New Testament for the New Testament church. Therefore, it is very misleading to have the perception that the conflict is all about worship style. NO! It’s not all about the style of worship. YES! Changing worship style is the primary methodology used in the “church growth” scam.

While, perhaps later on, I may be able to address a number of the other issues [personal relationships, the only saved ones, etc.] you brought up, let me just briefly say that this website will remain to meet its objective—i.e., to warn other congregations of a strong possibility that: “The Change Agents Are Coming! The Change Agents Are Coming.” We maintain that the change agents should start their own from scratch—not interfere, intrude, pervert, divert, subvert and divide peaceable congregations. This way you wouldn’t have to suggest that this website should start a new congregation.


 Respond to this message   
(Login wordkeeper)

Re: Efforts Better Served Than …

June 8 2006, 12:58 PM 

I think I a am starting to "get it". While I
read many posts commenting on worship style
your primary objection is that change is
occuring in the church from what the churches
of Christ have tradionally held. My response is
that I have read Rick Warren's book and many others
from christian writters and for the life of me I
don't see anything controversial. If they espoused
doctrines that question the diety of Christ or that
he truely came in the flesh or other bedrock doctrines
that lay the foundation of christianity I would join
your bandwagon. Could someone please tell me just one
single reference in any of the writtings or preached
from these "change-agents' that contradict the fundamental
teachings of christianity ?? The authors may not come
from the camp called 'churches of Christ' but unless
they make specific references of something contrary
to traditional church doctrine (not church of Christ
doctrine) then I say you really do not have a case against
the changes that are taking place.

I do agree that the community churches should not overtake
existing churches but, instead start their own churches
and let people decide by their own free-will what suits
them in the free market place of ideologies in religion;
and let each person be held accountable for the choices they

Meanwhile, I hope that many people read my first post on
this thread and use some wisdom that God has given us and
evangelize people who have not heard the gospel message
even once; rather than trying to change existing christians
on something that I consider secondary as how to worship God.
Remember that Satan is the enemy not the 'change agents' at
Madison Church of Christ. They are our christian brothers and

Thank you,


 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)

Fallacies of the PDC Paradigm Reviewed

June 9 2006, 10:32 AM 

For those interested in learning about and understanding just how fallacious and unscriptural the Warren PDC paradigm is, Kjos Ministries has an excellent, multi-part series that addresses this topic, titled Spirit-Led or Purpose-Driven? The link is: Scroll down, click on "Part 1," and go from there.

 Respond to this message   
(Login wordkeeper)

Re: Fallacies of the PDC Paradigm Reviewed

June 12 2006, 7:20 AM 

If Rick Warren and others are trying to lead
people astray by intoduction idols to worship,
or by condoning homosexuality, or anything that
would dishonor Christ, I would join your bandwagon.
Rick Warren is about as middle of the road christianity
as you can get. I have seen him in a video series and I
have read his book. Look at his heart. He has the heart
for serving God bringing others to Christ also. The
priciples that he espouses is nothing more that making
Christ and the church as attractive to the unchurhed
as possible. Tell me don't the churches of Christ do
the same ? Does your church have climate-controlled
air conditioning ? Padded pews ? Attractive architecture?
When visitors come in do you go out of your way to welcome
them ? Basically, what Rick Warren is doing is really no
different than what the churches of Christ have done for
many years.
Can anyone point out explicitely any teachings or doctrines
that are contrary to traditional church doctrines by Rick
Warren ?

Thank you,


 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)

Re: Fallacies of the PDC Paradigm Reviewed

June 12 2006, 4:27 PM 

Wordkeeper has seen Warren's videos, has read his book(s), and believes that Warren has a "heart" for Jesus. I also have read the PDC and PDL books and have drawn a different conclusion. Wordkeeper wants to know of any of Warren's teachings that conflict with those of the New Testament. The link I gave to the series Spirit-Led or Purpose-Driven? is designed to educate those with such questions in mind. Yet it is apparent that Wordkeeper either has not read that series, or he has chosen to ignore the information presented. The series really is quite revealing.

Very well, Warren's first fallacy was to conduct a neighborhood survey to find out what would attract people to church. The entire Saddleback Church was built around the desires and preferences of people and culture, not necessarily on the New Testament's outline for worship. Even the type of people Warren "ministered" to was based on his preference. Instead of inviting all people of all walks of life to come hear the message of the Gospel, Warren suggested that each church select a "target" audience and minister to that specific crowd. In Warren's case, it was primarily white, affluent, 30-something yuppies, who are now the congregants of Saddleback.

Stunts like this do not mirror New Testament example. Christ did not first seek public approval about the content of the Gospel or how He should present the Gospel to make it more attractive. Christ simply brought the pure Word of God and ministered to the poor and rich, the sick and the well, the educated and the ignorant. The Gospel was first carried to the Jews, who by and large rejected it, then it went to the Gentiles. Today, all people of all cultures are targets for the Gospel, not a preferred audience as Warren would have it, for the Gospel transcends all cultures.

The series discusses many more of Warren's fallacies, if Wordkeeper would care to study it. I need not repeat them here.

 Respond to this message   
Darryl Scott
(Login Darryl.Scott)

For you consideration

June 9 2006, 11:56 AM 

Dear Wordkeeper,

It is obvious you are interested in solutions and that your posts are heart-felt and honest. You have stated that you see nothing controversial and nothing that contradicts fundamental teaching from the change agents. Consider this.

Controversy is in the eye of the beholder. I know a man that sees no controversy in playing a game of football on Sunday morning as an act of worship to God. Even as a substitute to singing, praying, reading God’s word, and even the Lords Supper. I know because I used it in what I thought was an absurd example to make a point that not every thing can be worship to God. The man that I was having the discussion with said he thought we should go for it. What is controversial is always filtered thorough the conscience of the individual. The Corinthians did not think it was controversial that one of their number was living with his father’s wife. I Cor 5. They were even proud of their tolerance and that nobody was upset. Fortunately the standard was not what was controversial, but instead what was right before God. We should discuss what is Scriptural and right before God in worship, but if we allowed the standard to be what is accepted by us we have shifted the purpose of worship to pleasing ourselves and others, not worshipping God.

The purpose of worship is to praise God. At no point should the worship become anything that removes God from the object of our praise. The change agents have stated their goal in worship is to “entertain” and to be “hip”. Who are they trying to entertain? God? For who should the music be “hip?” God again? No the stated goal for worship is to attract those that are un-churched. If their goal is entertainment for the un-churched who has become the object for that hip entertainment? That contradicts fundamental teaching in the Bible.

I hope that many people read my first post on
this thread and use some wisdom that God has given us and
evangelize people who have not heard the gospel message
even once; rather than trying to change existing christians
on something that I consider secondary as how to worship God.

This may be your point, but just to be clear who is trying to change existing Christians? The ones that are changing things or the ones that want to be left alone?

Do you really want your ideas to be the standard for what is secondary or primary in regard to worship of God?



 Respond to this message   
Palm Beach Lakes church of Christ

5 years ago. Time to move one

July 8 2006, 3:32 PM 


It is now the year 2006, That was 5 years ago. It is time to move on down the road.

Palm Beach Lakes Church of Christ
West Palm Beach, Florida


Reminder from Poster:

“My name is Tom, I do not represent Palm Beach Lakes Church of Christ and the elders and preachers at Palm Beach Lakes Church of Christ are not in agreement with me. I am sorry about the screen name. ... To let you know where I am coming from. I am coming from the other side of the Church of Christ. ... I am concerned about the legalistic patternism in PBLCOC." [April 30 2006, 1:35 AM]

This message has been edited by Donnie.Cruz from IP address on Jul 12, 2006 2:37 AM

 Respond to this message   
Darryl Scott
(no login)

Church of Christ

June 8 2006, 11:19 AM 

”As long as I attend a church of Christ I'll get to heaven" many people will be in for a rude awakening with that type of thinking." Here is another shocker- "There will be people outside of the churches of Christ who do have a personal realtionship with God and will be in heaven and many members of the churches of Christ will not enter in because God will say ' I never KNEW you'".

Please substitute “the church that belongs to Christ” ever where you have used “church of Christ” to help you understand, 1) the correct meaning of “church of Christ”, and the meaning of “church of Christ” to us , and 2) given that meaning, how senseless is the statement, “There will be people outside of the ‘church that belongs to Christ’ who do have a personal relationship with God and will be in heaven and many members of ‘the church that belongs to Christ’ will not enter in because God will say ‘I never KNEW you’”.

I recognize that you have a different understanding of the meaning of “church of Christ” but the actual meaning is “the church that belongs to Christ”. Jesus said “I will build MY church”, any other will not do. I hope this help you to understand our position and defense of the church of Christ.


 Respond to this message   
(Login wordkeeper)

Re: Church of Christ

June 9 2006, 11:14 AM 

I understand hat you are trying to convey about
the churches of Christ of Christ being the body
of Christ. While at the beginning of the Campbell-
Stone movement the intentions were to change how
how people view the church and how scripture should
be interpreted. The intentions were good but somewhere
along the way the wheels came off. In the attempts to
make churches of Christ non-denominational or better
un-denominational, they have set up separate rules and
guidelines that have made themselves exactly what they
didn't want to become. Oliver Wendel Holmes, famous
Supreme Court judge once said "if it waddles like a
duck and quacks like a duck, then, this court is going
to call it a duck. The churches of Christ
by it's actions have made itself a denomination by separating
itself with distinct marks which if not followed, then, such
people and groups are 'lost' and called 'false teachers'

My point, I guess, is that Madison Church of Christ has gone
through some changes albeit through some un-Christ behavior
just let it go and start afresh with a congregation that
better meets your spiritual needs. If the Madison Church
of Christ was established in the early 1930s and have had
several generations of church of Christ teachings then, the
people are very well informed as to whether these changes
are for them or if not find another church. Certainly, the
people are not ignorant, and do not need for someone to
point the errors of the changes. After all, I do have to say
that members of the churches of Christ are some of the most
informed students of the bible of all of Christianity.

Thank you,


 Respond to this message   
(no login)

Re: Church of Christ

June 10 2006, 7:43 PM 


I understand that you are trying to find a middle ground to make everyone happy. I wish such a position was possible. However, your comments really bother me.

First, your history of the church and the Campbell-Stone movement is limited and erroneous. This type of worship was not "new" in 1810 nor was the name 'Church of Christ'. History shows us that this type of worship was carried out for centuries in France and Scotland, much less Italy. That the Campbell-Stone movement was trying to change American worship to that occurring in Scotland is a well known fact. Therefore, your premise is invalid.

2nd, separate and apart is what God commanded, not Campbell. He was merely trying to obey the Bible, which the Catholics had ignored for over a thousand years (much less their break-offs). We are to turn away from the "world" and "cultural things". We are commanded by Jesus to be separate and warned that we will be condemned for it.

Here's were you have failed to follow the scriptures - which tell us to be different, to stand firm in the teachings, to not change in our teachings or let others change it, to admonish those that do, to turn from those who continue. Yet, you condemn the Church for doing the VERY thing we are ordered to do. We are NOT to be a part of the world or popular or hip. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then it probably is a duck. You bet. If its wrong then, its wrong now. If it was a sin then, its a sin now. If God condemned it then, he condemns it now.

If it talks like satan, walks like satan, and speaks softly like satan - then it probably is satan.

As for Christians knowing what they should do or when the church is being led down the wrong road - WHAT??? Have you ever dealt with psychopaths or good manipulators? Yes, they were ignorant and had become weak and wordly. They wanted to "fit in" and be "popular" with the world. And they were led to the slaughter like stupid sheep.

Did you know.......? Jesus told us to save the lost sheep. He taught us to leave the safe fold and go out to find just one lost sheep. But if I listened to your "logical and rational" thinking, I would forgo what Jesus taught and let them stay lost.

My question to you is this - do I listen to your sweet but false words or do I listen to Jesus? If I turn away from you, am I now separating myself from the "popular, easy" crowd and going against them? Am I now the "bad guy" as the Change Agents are teaching?

By the way, the reason this is happening is because our youth are NOT the most knowledgeable Christians. Our churches became lax in teaching the deep stuff and taught the fluff. Our colleges have professors that even an untrained historian can tear apart in seconds. We failed our youth for the last 30 years. I know, I'm one of them that almost stayed lost.

 Respond to this message   
(Login wordkeeper)

Re: Church of Christ

June 10 2006, 11:35 AM 

I would like to propose a particular scenario
and see how you would respond. Let us suppose
that a new congregation has formed at a Holiday
Inn meeting room every Saturaday evening after
the sun goes down. They disdain titles and denomination
affiliations and just want to be called christians.
Their church has no name only by word of mouth do
people find out about this congregation and it has
been growing over the past few months. They have
instumental music during song service, a man who pastors
the congregational needs, and they have weekly
communion on Saturaday evenings. Now they have asked
you if there could be fellowship and common recognition
of being christian, would you gladly receive them ??
I am curious because if churches of Christ have no
formal standard of beliefs there would be no trouble
in accepting these people. If you do not accept them
then aren't you by your actions admitting that there
is a standard set of doctrines distinct amoung churches
of Christ and isn't that one of the attributes that define
denominational guidelines ??

Thank you,


I am intrested in your response.

 Respond to this message   
(no login)

Re: Church of Christ

June 11 2006, 10:35 AM 

Where would you ever get that the c of C has no formal beliefs? How more formal can you get than the BIBLE? God determined our belief - not any man-made religious group. No, we don't have a "formal list" made by up by a poor theologist like Calvin or some other poor scholar. It's not a list of 10 things to do or not do. It's a lifestyle and it is to set you APART from the world. It's ONLY in the scriptures and ONLY God commands what is to be believed/acted upon or not. Do you not understand that? Your analogy doesn't work because you are giving man the control of their doctrine.

So, Wordkeepr, does this congregation follow God's Commands?

Hmmmm... Christ/Apostles clearly taught that the "assembly" with LS was to be held on the 1st day of the week. Historical documents clearly verifiy that the 1st century church had their "assembly" and LS on Sunday. (Though they can meet at any time of the week for additional study and get togethers.)

You tell me - if I am to obey God and ONLY worship with those who follow ALL of his commands and to turn away from those who do not - can I scripturally accept this group who can't even get the day correct? Are they dividing God's church by setting THEIR own day of worship instead of the day God commanded? Are they not divisionist and false teachers as defined by Christ and the Apostles?

The answer to your question is for you to determine - either you follow all of the scriptures or you let them go. You can't pick and chose which scriptures to obey.

Here's some scriptures that the Change Agents hate to acknowledge and have tried to find ridiculous ways to redefine - they will answer you questions. Can you read all of them through to the end or will you just glance at them and go back to your question?

Mat 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. 12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. 13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Mat 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. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

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.

2Pe 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. 4 For if God spared NOT the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5 And spared NOT the old world, but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned [them] with an overthrow, making [them] an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

Hbr 2:1 Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let [them] slip. 2 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; 3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard [him];

Tts 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. 10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.

Tts 2:7 In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine [shewing] uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, 8 Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.

Tts 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

Tts 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. 15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

Rev 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Rev 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

 Respond to this message   
Mark F.
(no login)

Technically Sunset to Sunset

June 11 2006, 11:13 PM 



Technically, in Jesus' time, the first day of the week would have begun on what we call Saturday night after the sunset and ended with sunset the next night.

So, when we read that the church met on the first day of the week, it could have been any time from about 7-8 pm on Saturday night to 7-8 pm on Sunday night.

According to historians, the Lord's Supper was served in the evening. In fact, it wasn't until the second century that the Lord's supper was added to a formal A.M. worship.

In fact, if we suppose that the first century christians in Rome met on the first day of the week as it appears that they did, we have to understand that Roman slaves did not have Saturday and Sunday off. So, they probably met after the day's work was done on Saturday night (after sunset). These slaves would not have been aforded the opportunity (unless thier owners were understanding christians) to meet on Sunday morning to partake of the Lord's Supper.

The Jews could not have broken thier Sabath rest until sunset, meaning they had a full day's work to catch up from on the first day of the week. Markets would have been open, trade would have been occuring, business would have had to been conducted. First century Jewish christian could not have met until the work day was done or they could have met the night before.

This lends understanding to the I Corinthians passage in which Paul asks the Corithian Church to, "wait for one another." (I Cor 11:33).


So, a church that meets after sunset on Saturday night IS following the example of the first century church and technically, if we follow the definition of a day from the New Testament time, when we offer communion on Sunday nights after sunset, it is no longer the first day of the week.

In Christ,

Mark F.

 Respond to this message   
(Login wordkeeper)

Re: Technically Sunset to Sunset

June 12 2006, 6:57 AM 

My point exactly. One time I told an elder that
I met with some fellow christians on a youth
retreat and on Saturaday evening we had communion.
He told me I was wrong and that I should have
waited until the next day to share communion
with the church. You are correct. The first day
of the week during the time of Christ is from
Saturaday evening at sunset until the next day.
It seems that the churches of Christ who are so
adamant about what day of the week to have communion,
are actually taking it on the second day of the week
during the winter months and they come forward after
evening service for LS having missed it earlier in
the day for whatever reason.

Thank you

 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)

Re: Technically Sunset to Sunset

June 12 2006, 5:04 PM 

Well, it looks like we're resorting to clock watching. Since the NT doesn't specify a certain "time" on the first day of the week to take the LS, then to avoid any controversey about Saturday nights, let congregants take the LS in the Sunday AM service as they usually do. For those who cannot be present at that time, in the winter, let the church offer the LS on Sunday afternoon, making sure that it is completed prior to sunset. Of course, the church would need a copy of an almanac or the weather report to track the time of sunset. And I gather that perhaps some would not be opposed if the church should set up a period for LS on Saturday PM as well, for those who can't make it on Sunday at all. But for those who can't make it on either day, what then? Wait until next week?

Maybe we should follow a principle similar to that for missed doses of medicine: if you miss a dose (in this case the LS) at the scheduled time, take the dose (LS) as soon as you remember it. But if it's too close to the next scheduled dose (say within a few minutes up to an hour), do not double the dose. Just skip that previous dose and take the next dose on schedule. Any takers?

 Respond to this message   
Mark F
(Login markfl)

Missed Point

June 12 2006, 11:08 PM 


I have grown up attending the and hold fast to to the ideal that we try to imitate the N.T. church.

My point is this, on the issue of WHEN to partake of the Lord's Supper, one could discern from scripture and historical context that the Lord's Supper was initially taken by the christians in Acts on a Saturday night after sundown. This would have been consisent with those christians observing a Jewish calendar.

For a congregation to say that they want to follow that same pattern spelled out in scripture can not be wrong.

We, in the church of Christ, base many beliefs on the examples in scripture and often use historical context to support those beliefs. This would be one example.

In Christ,

Mark F.

 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)

Point Hardly Missed

June 13 2006, 10:19 AM 

We both made our points, now discerning readers can decide for themselves.

 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(no login)


June 12 2006, 8:21 PM 

It all depends on where you live. Technically, I don't rightly remember whether Troas observed Jewish Standard Time Or Greek Time. I think they met after Sunset so Paul could travel on SUNDAY which was not a day of Rest. I don't think that they met for preaching at 9:30 in the morning.

If you meet in another time zone you might meet on the Sabbath when the Elders are meeting on Sunday.

However, methinks that when you need to trump the agreed upon setting of times you may just be teaching "there are no standards?"

Technically, if you are correct, ONLY those who take the Lord's Supper Sunday night AFTER sunset are observing it on MONDAY. But, that would not deliberately sow discord as you do when you do it on Saturday. If you feel the need to DO the supper on Saturday night which ends are MIDNIGHT are you sure that you are not seeing it in a LEGALISTIC way? After all, you are not a 2,000 year old Jew.

We know that Jesus raised on the FIRST day of the week and that has to be based on the local time zone. For EVERYONE that begins at Midnight.

 Respond to this message   
(no login)

Re: Technically Sunset to Sunset

June 16 2006, 10:57 PM 

Mark F.

Technically, you are incorrect.


Though the Jews held that the First day of the week could start at sunset on Saturday, it is common knowledge that the early church defined Sunday as the "Lord's Day". As some of the elders of these congregations actually learned directly from the Apostles, it leaves us with little argument over what the early church considered the "assembly day". Didache, Cyprian, Aristides, Justin Martyr, all discuss this very issue. There are also Roman letters and pamphlets that describe how and when the early Christians met, which again validates Sunday.

The Epistle of Barnabas (c. A.D. 120), discusses how the Lord "abolished" such things as incense, new moons, and sabbaths, because of the "new law of our Lord Jesus Christ" (ANF.I.138). Later, it is affirmed: “Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead” (I.147).

Justin Martyr (A.D. 140) declared that “on the day called Sunday” the primitive Christians met for worship. He further stated that this was the day on which Christ was raised from the dead (I.186).

The disciples at Troas “were gathered together” upon “the first day of the week” to break bread, i.e., to worship, (Acts 20:7). The specific day of meeting was no accident. Though Paul was anxious to get to Jerusalem (20:16), he waited seven days for the opportunity to assemble with the church.

The saints in Corinth were assembling, and contributing into the church treasury, “every first day of the week” (1 Cor. 16:2 – Greek text; cf. NASB).


The Hebrews actually observed fifty-nine sabbaths each year. In addition, every seventh year was a sabbatical year (Lev. 25:1-4), and each fiftieth year was sabbatical as well (Lev. 25:8-13). The land was to lie uncultivated during these times, and debts were to be cancelled (Dt. 15:2).
In a fifty-year span, the faithful Hebrew, to one degree or another – depending upon the specific requirement of the law, would observe 5,830 sabbaths.


As to the Lord's Supper - scholars and historians clearly note that NO ONE knows what time of the day the LS was given during the first two centuries. We know that the group only met once that day, but met for an extended length of time as many members journeyed from the outer countryside. We know they partook of the LS - but not whether it was after breakfast, lunch or dinner. In fact, all we really know is that they shared a "regular" meal afterwards. It wasn't until Tertullian that there is any mention of the LS before "daybreak".

Were you aware that in the first few centuries, the LS was carried to those who were unable to attend? We actually do that today with those that are house bound. Also, some held services on Sunday morning BEFORE daybreak - would this be to aid those who did have to work?


First Century Jewish Christians were admonished by Jews for NOT observing the Sabbath and for breaking the "law". In fact, many of the early church writings address this issue at some point. They were also admonished by the chruch elders if they treid to abide by such "superstitions" as resting on the Sabbath. It was under the old law and was not to be followed any longer. Ignatius, Justin Martyr and others preached on this very issue. Sunday was to be the Lord's Day. The "old world and old law" was to be put away. As such, they were to "break" the Sabbath.

(I Cor 11:33). Ummm...I don't really think this verse is about the DAY - it has to do with the time of the day they met. No day would have fit everyone's schedule...


Meeting on Saturday night is NOT what was demanded in the Bible nor was it EVER followed by any of the 1st or 2nd century churches for which we have evidences. As for the concerns me that you keep referring back to it as if it was a law they were to abide by. Jesus specifically told them the old law was no longer. The Sabbath/day of rest was wiped away and was NOT to be a determination in when or how they met.


Most importantly, what day was the Church actually started on? We know that day because of the following:

The kingdom of Christ was established on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1), which always fell on “the morrow after the sabbath” (Lev. 23:15-16) - OTHERWISE KNOWN AS SUNDAY. So the church started out meeting for worship on the first day of the week (cf. Acts 2:42).

 Respond to this message   
< Previous Page 1 2 3 Next >
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

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;

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)

Click Here......The Book is Available Now FREE

Place your banner ad here.           See all banner ads ...About ...Links Library ...Sunday School in Exile ...Help Warn Others

FastCounter by bCentral

CM Visit Counter as of 6/25/2015

Site Visits Since 6/30/2015
page counter