My favorite conservative preacher — and the newly minted editor of the Gospel Advocate — G. A. Tidwell posted this comment:
The best position on this issue [inclusion of instrumental congregations in the Churches of Christ] was well stated by my predecessor, H. Leo Boles in 1939.
The link takes the reader to a 1939 speech given by H. Leo Boles to a unity meeting between the instrumental and non-instrumental churches in the Restoration Movement. Boles was editor of the Gospel Advocate and a grandson of frontier Restoration preacher “Raccoon” John Smith.” The Movement had, of course, split over the issue, beginning with the “Sand Creek Address and Declaration” in 1889, with the split growing so wide that by 1906 David Lipscomb, then editor of the Gospel Advocate, advised the U.S. Census to count the a cappella Churches of Christ as a different denomination from the instrumental churches.
Despite that division, many efforts were made to recover unity, including a series of annual unity meetings designed to foster continued fellowship and perhaps even re-unification.
Today, when the issue of unity between the instrumental and non-instrumental churches is broached, many in the Churches of Christ insist that their position remains the one stated by Boles. Therefore, it seems appropriate to consider what Boles said in light of scripture and history. After all, he relied on both scripture and history to make his case. We should therefore check to see how good a theologian and historian Boles was.
The same argument was made by David R. Kenny at the Christian Chronicle website, regarding the inclusion of instrumental Churches of Christ in the Churches of Christ in the United States directory.
“Raccoon” John Smith
The full text of Boles’ speech is available at this link. Boles begins with a statement of grounds of agreement and a recital of the common history of the two branches of the Restoration Movement. He then quotes several paragraphs written by “Raccoon” John Smith. Smith was a contemporary of Stone, the Campbells, and Scott, and led the effort to merge the Stone and Campbell movements, despite their many disagreement. In fact, Smith pushed for unity with the Stone movement even before Alexander Campbell was willing to endorse the merger. Boles quotes Smith —
I have the more cheerfully resolved on this course, because the gospel is a system of facts, commands, and promises, and no deduction or inference from them, however logical or true, forms any part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. No heaven is promised to those who hold them, and no hell is threatened to those who deny them. They do not constitute, singly or together, an item of the ancient and apostolic gospel.
Ponder this one a bit. If the gospel is a “system of facts, commands, and promises,” then the gospel says nothing of instrumental or a cappella music. That controversy is not a fact or a promise. And it’s not a command, because there is no command to use instruments or not to use instruments.
Smith continues declaring, very much in line with Thomas Campbell’s “Declaration and Address,” that no logically, correctly inferred “deduction or inference … forms any part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
It’s argued that the prohibition against instruments is inferred from the command to sing by virtue of the Regulative Principle (silence is a prohibition), which is itself inferred from a number of passages. Hence, to get from Ephesians 5:19 or Colossians 3:16 to “instruments are sinful,” one must first infer the Regulative Principle from other passages, infer that those two passages are speaking of the assembly (hardly obvious), and that the command to sing in the assembly implies a prohibition against the instrument. If we were to study the Regulative Principle in detail (previously covered several times), we’d see that it is composed of quite a long list of inferences all by itself.
Therefore, by the very words quoted, Boles cannot possibly insist that instrumental music is a gospel issue, that is, a salvation or fellowship issue.
We continue with the words of “Raccoon” John Smith quoted by Boles,
While there is but one faith, there may be ten thousand opinions; and, hence, if Christians are ever to be one, they must be one in faith, and not in opinion. When certain subjects arise, even in conversation or social discussion, about which there is a contrariety of opinion and sensitiveness of feeling, speak of them in the words of the Scripture, and no offense will be given and no pride of doctrine will be encouraged. We may even come, in the end, by thus speaking the same things, to think the same things.
Hmm … If an instrumentalist and a cappella advocate were to debate, and they were to speak solely “in the words of the Scripture,” they would both say —
(Eph 5:18-21 ESV) 18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, 20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.
— with all their hearts. They would agree on the words of God. They would disagree on the inferences to be drawn from the text. They would be one in faith but not in opinion. If they would speak only the words of scripture, they would give no offense and “no pride of doctrine will be encouraged.”
“Faith,” as used by Smith (and the Campbells), is limited to the gospel: facts, commands, and promises — and does not include inferences at all, even correct ones. So how on earth does Boles refuse unity with fellow believers who agree on matters of faith and disagree only one a matter of inference? We’ll see.
Boles argues,
The use of the instrument of music in the worship must either be put in the class of things authorized by the New Testament, or its use must be classed in the realm of opinion or expediency; there is no other alternative for it.
If it’s authorized, it’s not sin. If it’s a matter of opinion or expediency, then it’s not a salvation or fellowship issue. Amen.
O.E. Payne and others affirmed that the use of the instrument was included in the New Testament use of “psallo.” J.B. Briney and the Christian Standard at one time endorsed Payne’s position. Those who occupied this position were forced to teach the use of instrumental music in worship. If the instrument is in the New Testament meaning of “psallo,” then, the New Testament commands the use of instrumental music when we engage in the worship of God; and when we do not play the instrument in worship, we are in rebellion against God; God commands whatever is in the New Testament meaning of “baptizo.” We have no alternative in either case except to do what is in the words “psallo” and “baptizo” or be in rebellion against God. There is no other conclusion, and there is no escape from this conclusion. God commands us to “psallo,” and no matter what it means, that is what we are forced to do by the word of God, or to rebel against him. If the position of the advocates of the use of instrumental music in worship is correct, then every church that does not play instrumental music in its worship is in rebellion against God.
This is, of course, an absurd argument. Is the guitar included in the English word “sing”? Well, the word is neutral. It neither includes nor excludes the instrument. Therefore, to insist that — as a matter of logic or grammar — psallo must either exclude or include the instrument is false. Boles begins with a false dichotomy — and a particularly obvious one at that. Indeed, there’s not a single Greek scholar who contends that psallo means “sing without an instrument.”
Boles argument concludes, in all fairness, based on what he had been taught… Obviously, now that people like Danny Corbitt and others have presented scholarly works on this issue, we understand that the debate is not centered around “psallo” but rather “psalmos, hymnos, and ado.”
What we have learned, which you once again correctly stated, is that there is no command (for new covenant believers) to use or not to use instruments in worship… However, they are allowed if the scriptural text is allowed to define the words… Danny did a great job and so did many others presenting this material in the Wineskins articles…
One can only wonder what Boles would have concluded if he had the benefit of hearing and reading the information we have at our disposal today.. Which is why I find it strange that Tidwell uses this message to advocate a theological position.
What is truly amazing and you have effectively illuminated this in recent posts…the CoC had a real determination in the beginning to Unify Believers… they put down dogma, tradition, opinion, inference….just about everything except the CLEAR command of God for the sake of unity…Somewhere along the way…it was picked back up and used to Divide… Seriously, CENI would have been discarded by the early pioneers of the churches of Christ leadership.. (if I’m reading Boles correctly.) And today it (CENI) or some equivalent, dominates the theological positions of most churches in the CoC… truly amazing. Freedom became the “Change you MUST believe in” inside of 50 years…
Controversies in the 1850’s and beyond tested the resolve of the Restoration Movement. They failed to hold onto the lofty goals and principles which their predecessors had prescribed.
If we had been in their shoes, I’m not sure we would have done better. The evidence is against us. We have the benefit of seeing the outcome of their choices in subsequent generations. Yet, having seen that, we still continue to quarrel and to divide over opinions.
Your probably not looking for a comment from someone who did not grow up CoC, though this reminds me to be careful with my opinions. The more times I read my Bible the more I change my opinions. When I was Baptist I rejected once saved always saved and when it came up in a Bible study once I found out most Baptist don’t seem to believe it either. Many do but most people my age that have read the Bible came to the same conclusion I did. Thankfully the Baptist have a strong tolerance for difference of opinion as long as it doesn’t interfere with your salvation. I never opened my mouth the whole Bible class and learned one important message. To be very careful with my opinions. If they become doctrine you may start a church only to start a war. I try to hold to conviction that Christ tells me to hold to the rest are my opinions. It is important to keep the two separate. Convictions you need to be willing to die for. Opinions you need to be willing to overlook for unity. I’ve seen this in practice in a ministry from many different back grounds. You would be surprised at how much there is to preach that we all agree on. I love my old Church and the way they worship with every talent they can muster and I miss it sometimes. I have no problem in the CoC worshiping the way they do. Do I think they could reach more people sure I do. The Church hurts itself when it limits itself beyond what is required. Many have come to Christ where I used to go to Church because of the music and drama programs. People will come to special programs that wont come on Sunday. And a lot of people love a good Easter or Christmas musical that think they hate Church. That’s all it takes sometimes just get them in the door to see what Jesus is really like and He does the rest.
Thank you Eric, the calm amidst the storm.
…”but be filled with the Spirit”… is the focus of the passage, not instrumental issues. But what do I know… I’m just trying to read it in the broad context of what is being said.
I looked in vain in brother Boles’ discourse on the only basis for unity for any discussion of Paul’s instructions to the church in Rome in Romans 14.
Instead of Paul’s irenic admonitions, I found:
It is remarkable that all who have a peculiar view of the Scriptures make the same argument: “If others will give up their advocacy of ____________, then we can be united.” Fill in the blank with any number of things – from church support of orphans’ homes to multiple communion cups to Bible classes for children and on and on, ad infinitum.
This speech by brother Boles is not a path to unity – but is, as B.C. Goodpasture appended to it,
What do we want, brethren? Unity and peace in Jesus, or war against fellow believes who insist that it is for freedom that Christ has set us free? (See Gal 5:1ff.)
Eric,
Thank you for your thoughtson this… they show a growing maturity in Christ and strong influence for unity and peace in the body of Christ. I was impressed with the idea that convictions you die for, opinions you can overlook for the blessing of unity and peace.
Jack
Jay,
Excellent balance in content of this study. Looking forward to the rest of the series.
Jack
Price and Alan,
Thanks for trying to evaluate Boles in light of what was known when he spoke. It’s important that we not read our current knowledge back into 1939 in order to judge too harshly.
But Boles was not arguing from the meaning of psallo. Rather, he was arguing that psallo either includes or excludes instruments as a matter of grammar and logic. That bit of reasoning is not based on the Greek or language studies but an institutional tendency to build cases on false dichotomies — ignoring the possibility that there may be answers other than “all” and “zero.”
Thus, during the same age, preachers began to assert that silences grant either 100% permission or 0% permission. Either all silences are permissive or all silences are prohibitions. It’s an argument that persuades many but it’s deeply flawed — and one deeply entrenched in 20th Century Church of Christ hermeneutics. You can prove anything by such arguments, you know, even that all church buildings must be green: /2009/06/the-regulative-principle-all-churches-must-be-painted-green/
Alan,
I can’t say what I would have thought in 1939, but there were plenty of good men and women in both branches who disagreed on the instrument and yet who sought unity. They held annual unity meetings and tried to preach a gospel that bridged such disagreements. But the Gospel Advocate soon refused to publish notices of their meetings, and most other CoC periodicals followed their example. I grew up in the Churches and attended Lipscomb, and had no idea that such events had ever happened until I read Murch’s book in the 1980s.
There was a concerted effort to repress and silence the voices of unity. Men such as Garrett and Ketcherside were systematically excluded from church publications and lectureships. “Ketcherside-ism” became a heresy — the heresy of treating the Christian Churches as brothers in Christ! Garrett was even arrested for meeting with Freed Hardeman students — the administration preferring that a brother be jailed than have a chance to discuss his views with their students!
It’s not that message wasn’t being taught, but that those in power found the message intolerable and worked to squelch it — largely with great success until the 1970s. But the true gospel was being taught throughout these years, despite the repression that occurred. But those in power chose to suppress the truth.
Eric…I would probably agree with you more if you used the word “commandment” instead of “conviction” as I have been guilty of being convicted of something that was in fact not a clear teaching of scripture and therefore what I was “convinced” of was an error…. One man’s conviction is another man’s opinion… Only when we get down to what is an absolutely clear command from God can we begin to build our base theology… That seems to be a difficult task as times.
One conclusion we can draw from the new editor citing this article by Boles as his on-going policy. He will continue, as the Gospel Advocate historically has done, to work for disunity and lack of fellowship. The point we all should understand is that the apostles were totally silent about any regulative principle. That’s the basis for the teaching of the Church of Christ sectarians. They seek “authority” for every act “in worship,” not realizing that the apostles taught nothing whatever about any worship service by Christians. There’s no hope for unity IN CHRIST with brothers who seek authority for every act we perform “in worship” and as a church body.
Their announced goal is to respect the silence of the Scriptures. Their actual practice is to speak where the apostles never spoke, and to ignore the call for unity which the apostles clearly did speak. Legalists love their human regulations and choose to ignore the clear teaching of Jesus and His apostles. It appears that Jay and those who agree with him are seeking to read and believe and act upon what the apostles actually did say and practice. Are any of us perfect either in practice or preferences? Do not all of us seek to love JESUS and make Him our Lord. Should we not seek to remind those who love law supremely that apostolic doctrine has replaced law with grace. We are no longer under law, especially laws claimed to be from God but actually of entirely human derivation.
That’s simply not true. Just because one does not see it does not mean it is not there. Please don’t forget, that NT doctrine is based on the application of OT principles/types/shadows in the light of Christ. The whole temple worship was transformed to a higher level with a new priesthood, spiritual sacrifices, a temple of living stones – the regulations ofthe OT changed therefore as well, but they did not vanish. What was meant to be a type has to make room for the reality. Bloody sacrifices, incense, the wash-basin, the curtain, the lamp stand … and the (heavily regulated!) musical instruments of Temple worship.
Superficiality does not help in these discussions, name calling (“church of Christ sectarians”) neither – but a good understandng of the relationship of both covenants would.
Alexander
Alexander, such a dominant hermeneutic, one with the awesome power to turn dead silence into divine command by means of human argument, needs a lot more support than this. The fact that we have types and shadows neither presents the regulative principle nor supports it. We have been set free from the law, not just been provided an updated version — Moses 2.0. “The letter kills, but the new, improved letter gives life”? Er, no. The fact that certain principles overarch the law and the teachings of Jesus is clear, but this does not give us the regulative principle (which is of necessity strictly a legal view, needing a law upon which to stand). One must prove that the NT canon is in and of itself a closed and finite body of law before the regulative priniciple can even be applied to it. If God is still speaking, where is the requisite “silence”? If He will reveal himself and his will to us in prayer, how can we see the canon as the hard limit of divine revelation?
Jesus declared clearly how we would know the will of our Master. We have too often reduced his own words to historical footnote, to our own hurt. We have replaced the voice of our Shepherd with words given to us ABOUT him. We have then overlaid our human hermeneutics over these words about God to create what we claim to be all the revelation which we now must follow. But this is NOT how Jesus said he would reveal himself to us. He made simple promises in John 14:26, 15:26, and 16:5-15. With the regulative principle and a revised Law, we have now taken over by human wisdom just about all of what Jesus said the Holy Spirit would do. For men to step into a role given to the Holy Spirit seems to me to be the height of folly.
One logical problem is that NONE of our current system was either described or even hinted at by Jesus. As a new canon of law is never even vaguely suggested by Jesus, the regulative principle, if applied consistently and made subject to the actual words of Jesus, would prevent us from taking note of the rest of the canon. It is self-eliminating. (Jesus never said to follow the NT canon, so that paticular silence forbids us from doing so merely on the words of lesser men.) Yes, I find the result of that reasoning completely unacceptable, but I don’t try to keep the reasoning AND discard certain of its logical consequences. Since I find the consequences of this hermeneutic to be at odds with what revelation I do have from scripture, I reject the hermeneutic.
Not a frequent poster, but here goes.
After reading the speech of Mr. Boles, I better understand why we are not more united. Can you imagine sitting in that audience as a Christian Church member and hearing this? Basically, you all are wrong and need to become CoC if you want to stay in God’s grace.
As Jay said so well, “It’s important that we not read our current knowledge back into 1939 in order to judge too harshly”. However, I still know folks who would say the same today. Culture is pervasive and sticky!
I grew up in the CoC, but my horizons continue to expand every day. While I love my church family, I see that we still have a long way to go to be truly united with fellow believers. We have come a long way, but miles to go….
That’s the problem with a format like this. Either you are content with a summary, or you allow me to publish a book here.
(BTW CCM is more than dominant today – without ANY hermeneutics to back it up.)
One of the better books I read on this subject was by John Price, Reformed Baptist. After his studies on this subject he turned froman IMer to an ACer (and his congregation as well): Old Light on New Worship
Concerning unity he takes a good approach: He has no problem with churches that use IM to support singing, but he sees a great danger ion churches that use IM in a dominating way. That’s basically my approach. Both John Price and I agree that AC is the historic truth and that it best fits into the typological reading of the scriptures. BTW he gave some very good definitions and scriptural examples of the Regulative Principle of Worship. Both he and I also see that IM is not IM. CCM and all of its trimmings goes far beyond the question whether we may use a piano in order to serve our singing.
To keep it short:
a) There is a historic approach to the issue: IM was not introduced until the middle ages, which is a fact. Chew on it. (Danny Corbitt got it wrong concerning the Odes of Salomo).
b) There is a typological approach to it: If we want to argue for IM based on the OT, we also must burn incense. And we also must allow IM only to Levites. Be consistent!
c) The Regulative Principle of Worship needs some more consideration than most IMers are putting into it.
d) There is this Spiritual Siege, Bruce Morton normally points to (Let me respectfully remind you of his very good book: Deceiving Winds)
AC therefore stands on four pillars. It’s hard to make a case for IM once you really dealt with them.
Alexander
Price Thanks for the correction. I see your point. To me convictions rise to the level of Jesus the Son of God, raised from the dead, repentance and so on. The things core to salvation. I can live without instruments on Sunday. In fact I could do just fine in a house church studying with other believers on any day of the week. though I love big churches, the bigger the better. If you don’t like big churches you’ll hate Heaven.
Eric…if we all did as you suggested…just boiled it down to the essentials…the whole of Christianity would be largely in agreement.. Wouldn’t that be a great place to start over !!
The Disciples / Christian Churches came out of the Methodists/Anglicans (OKelley) which proposed the “high church” right to make additions but never passed it in a vote.
“The ‘union’ itself was consummated on New Year’s day, 1832, in Hill Street Christian Church, at Lexington, Kentucky, where representatives of both parties pledged themselves ‘to one another before God, to abandon all speculation, especially on the Trinity, and kindred subjects, and to be content with the plain declaration of Scripture on those subjects on which there had been so much worse than useless controversy.’
The plain meaning is that they found common ground to occupy, threw away their divisive teachings and opinions, and acted as one. The men who at Lexington pledged themselves there and then gave one another the hand of fellowship,
speaking for themselves, and the churches they came from,
but not for all the churches or the denominations in Kentucky or the United States.
Alexander Campbell laughed at the notion of two diverse groups could be “united.”
In The Christian Messenger for November, 1834, is quoted an article from the Millennial Harbinger (Campbell’s paper) as follows:
“Or does he (Stone) think that one or two individuals, of and for themselves, should propose and effect a formal union among the hundred of congregations scattered over this continent, called Christians or Disciples, without calling upon the different congregations to express an opinion or a wish upon the subject?
We discover, or think we discover, a squinting at [14] some sort of precedency or priority in the claims of the writer of the above article,” etc.
STONE AGREED:
“We cannot, with our present views, unite on the opinions that unimmersed persons cannot receive remission of sins.” Stone didn’t believe in the Atonement or anything in common with Campbell until later
The Christian churches (NACC) sected out of the Disciples to which the Churches were never united in any sense. 1906 was agreement with the census taker that Churches of Christ could not be counted as part of the Disciples. Division happened in what became the Christian Churches. The Church of Christ continued many views of Calvin who petitioned the king for a Restoration of the Church of Christ by removing all of the AIDS the Catholics had added.
Not before Calvin did anyone at any time from Genesis to the church fathers to the founders of all denominations is there a single example of the godly people engaging in congregational singing with or without instrumental accompaniment.
That is history: none of the Bible is metrical and the accent marks for cantillating or SPEAKING in Paul’s commands to guarantee that no one could add or subtract from the text even by imposing words of remark. No one ever thought that any of the “Psao” or Sop-based words had any musical content. The concept is to PLUCK a string with the fingers but NEVER with a plectrum. It is never used as a single word to define “plucking AND a harp. All “playing” words are COMPOUNDS such as “Kata-Psallo” which Paul did not use.
Alexander;
I have always wondered what could possibly cause you to believe that the Levites were the only people on earth including all of the other tribes of Jews that had or used IM.
“And we also must allow IM only to Levites”
(Gen 4:21 KJV) And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.
By what evidence can you prove that there any people on earth at any time period that did not have and use IM except by the writings of some historians after 100 A.D, I have tried to send you information that could explain what I have found on that subject that has never been discussed or displayed in these discussions. possibly you could send me another email then whatever is blocking my sending to you would be cleared so it will work.
Blessings, Larry
Jay, I had in mind a time frame much earlier than 1939. By 1889 (Sand Creek Address and Declaration) the mold was already set. From my reading, the controversies began to raise their heads around 1850. In the next couple of decades, people had to decide which of two principles outweighed the other. And in the end, they decided that what they thought they saw in the scriptures (on subjects like instruments and missionary societies) outweighed the biblical principle of unity.
I think history has shown that they were wrong. But they were not bad people. Again, I’m pretty sure most of us would have done the same thing. We’re still doing it.
And yes, I said “we”. Some people on both sides harshly criticize the other side. And many other people leave that harsh criticism unchallenged. Both sides spend their efforts defending the boundary rather than finding ways to take it down.
Larry….. If the information you offered to Alexander is available to others I would like to read what you’ve found and studied… [email protected] Thanks in advance.. I hope you feel guilty if you don’t send it….Ha…just kidding.
Alexander said: “There is a typological approach to it: If we want to argue for IM based on the OT, we also must burn incense.”
>>>
Type is not eternal law. It is metaphor. It is by definition NOT definitive, but illustrative of something else. Many of us as modern believers can embrace the spiritual priniciples found in the Law and the Prophets without bringing the expired Mosaic legal framework along with it. I can still read Shakespeare as he originally spoke without feeling the need to talk like him at the office.
Now, if we ARE going to consider the NT canon to be nothing more than God’s Law 2.0, as some do, then this argument has merit. But ONLY under that condition. The regulative principle is purely legal in its foundation and application. If there is no fixed and closed revelation, one cannot define the place where it does NOT speak. If God is still speaking in any way, how can one determine the requisite “silence” upon which the regulative principle depends?
Many of us do not read the New Testament as revised law. In fact, we find it downright puzzling that people read “the letter kills” and then continue right on to bind the letter on themselves and one another. We cannot imagine how a written code which has been cancelled is still in effect.
(Gen 4:21 KJV) And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.
There were TWO families as the TWO SONS becomes a pattern. Jubal came out of the Evil Lamech and Cain (Cainites) is derived from a musical note. This family–documented on clay tablets–are the PATTERN of all that is destructive.
Taphas (h8610) taw-fas’; a prim. root; to MANIPULATE, i. e. seize; chiefly to capture, wield; spec. to overlay; fig. to use UNWARRANTABLY: – catch, handle, (lay, take) hold (on, over), stop, * surely, surprise, take
Taphaph (h8608) taw-faf’; a prim. root; to drum, i. e. play (as) on the tambourine: – taber, play with timbrels.
Tophtheh (h8613) tof-teh’; prob. a form of 8611; Tophteh, a place of cremation: – Tophe
Josephus notes:
“But Jubal, who was born of the same mother with him, exercised himself in music; 1 and invented the psaltery and the harp. But Tubal, one of his children by the other wife, exceeded all men in strength, and was very expert and famous in martial performances. He procured what tended to the pleasures of the body by that method; and first of all invented the art of making brass. Lamech was also the father of a daughter, whose name was Naamah. And because he was so skillful in matters of divine revelation, that he knew he was to be punished for Cain’s murder of his brother, he made that known to his wives. Nay, even while Adam was alive, it came to pass that the posterity of Cain became exceeding wicked, every one successively dying, one after another, more wicked than the former. They were intolerable in war, and vehement in robberies; and if any one were slow to murder people, yet was he bold in his profligate behavior, in acting unjustly, and doing injuries for gain.”
Price: Boles argument concludes, in all fairness, based on what he had been taught… Obviously, now that people like Danny Corbitt and others have presented scholarly works on this issue, we understand that the debate is not centered around “psallo” but rather “psalmos, hymnos, and ado.”
The Hebrew translators of the “psao” based words understood the evil nature of the root meanings such as SOP.
The name of psaltery entered Christian literature in the 3rd century B.C. translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint where, in the Psalms, nebel [from a vile person] was translated psalterion. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar’s idolatrous ensemble included the Aramic psantria. Notice, also, that the book of Psalms has also become known as the Psalter (or psalterium), from the hymns sung with this harp. Source
“Psalmos also appears in the LXX as equivalent to the Hebrew word neginah [5058]. This Hebrew term is used to describe a wide variety of songs. Neginah is translated by psalmos in Lam 3:14 (song), in Lam 5:14 (music) and in Ps 69:12 (song). It is striking to observe that in the LXX translation of Lam 3:14 and Ps 69:12, psalmos, or its verbal form, is used for songs that are not only uninspired but are in fact the product of the wicked, even drunkards, who mocked God and His word. The Hebrew term neginah is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures of: the songs of the wicked, Job 30:9 (song); the inspired praise of God, Psalm 61 title (Neginah-a song performed on a stringed instrument); and the uninspired praisd of the Lord composed by King Hezekiah, Is 38:20 (my songs).”
Negiynah (h5058) neg-ee-naw’; or nÿgynath neg- ee- nath’; from 5059; 5059. nagan, naw-gan´; a primitive root; properly, to thrum, i.e. beat a tune with the fingers; expec. to play on a stringed instrument; hence (generally), to make music:—player on instruments, sing to the stringed instruments, melody, ministrel, play(-er, -ing).
H5060 nâga? naw-gah’ A primitive root; properly to touch, that is, lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphemistically, to lie with a woman); by implication to reach (figuratively to arrive, acquire); violently, to strike (punish, defeat, destroy
We are lucky that no one in recorded history until after the Reformation attempted to SING any of the Bible in a tuneful sense: they could not. Paul told us to SPEAK to teach and admonish in The School of Christ.
A psalmos can be a SONG: the definition of a song
…..You may read it and meditate in the heart (David)
…..You may recite it.
…..You may sing it IF any of the Bible was metrical
…..Or you can accompany the song with a NAMED instrument.
It never MEANS to play an instrument: the MEANING is to twitch a bow string or hair with the fingers and never with a plectrum.
Psalmos , ho, twitching or twanging with the fingers, psalmoi toxôn E.Ion173 (lyr.); toxêrei psalmôi [toxeusas] Id.HF1064 (lyr.).
Psalmoi toxôn does not mean “sing and play a harp” WITH a bow. Psalmoi just means pluck or twang a bow: never with a plectrum
…..Alal-azô (formed from the cry alalai): –raise the war-cry shout the shout of victory, nikên alalazein
Metaphor Shoot out or send forth a hymn</b?
Pindar, Isthmian 2.[1] The men of old, Thrasybulus, who mounted the chariot of the Muses with their golden headbands, joining the glorious lyre, lightly shot forth their honey-voiced songs
http://www.piney.com//Psalmos.Corbitt.Ferguson.html
</b
@ Larry
I was talking about the way Instrumentalö Worship was regulated in the OT – The sons of Jubal (descendants of Cain who whent away from God) would hardly qualify as worshippers.
@ Charles
Typology is very important even in understanding the atonement and justification – look at the way the apostles read and applied the OT. It’s not a legalistic aproach, but a meaningful aproach. Christians worshipped a-capella because they came to a deeper understanding of worship.
Progressives and conservatives alike come from a legalistic approach, asking whether siomething is allowed or forbidden by express law or permissible silence. You can get all of this right and still miss the meaning. Typological hermeneutics as the apostles and the ECF used it, focusses on the meaning not the law.
In other words: Whether IM is allowed or forbiden in secondary. The first question is to understand IM in the setting of OT worship, and the reasons why OT worship was done away with. This is followed by some inquiries as to why IM was done away with together with the bloody sacrifices and incense and other elements and rituals of the OT worship. Search for the meaning, Charles, and you won’t need a law.
Alexander
“Christians worshipped a-capella because they came to a deeper understanding of worship.”
>>>
Is there some evidence of this, Alexander? It seems to me that it has been argued elsewhere that IM was not even introduced until the middle ages. From what other practice did they transition when they reached this “deeper understanding”? I do not notice anything in the NT writers speaking of such a deeper understanding of worship, which would seem to be a matter of some significance if true. In fact, while singing is mentioned, and corporate meeting manners are addressed, the manner of actual worship is hardly even alluded to among the writers of the epistles.
Here I find a contradiction in the reasoning. If the Jerusalem church used IM, prior to its finding “deeper understanding”, then the Restorationist idea of following the practice of the early church is violated by the subsequent ECF. If the church didn’t even develop IM until later, then acapella was part of the original Jewish tradition, not something developed later by the followers of Jesus.
And btw, the regulative principle requires an established bright line between revelation and silence. It is a matter of absolutes; the principle brooks no gray area. Either God is silent or he is not. Lose this bright line and the principle collapses. There is a clear, mutually-exclusive dichotomy here. But if God continues to reveal himself in any way beyond the NT canon, it cannot be said with any degree of authority that God is clearly silent about anything. It may well be that we have simply not heard him yet. Or heard all he has to say.
I grew up in a very conservative church of Christ. Ephesians 5:19 was always the “go to ” verse against instrumental music. The case made was that even if psallo ment to “twitch or pluck” that the only instrument authorized was “the heart”. That arguement is still used today…However, if you use that strict hermaneutic, that the only instrument is the heart, couldn’t you just as well say that the only way we can “speak to ourselves’ is in “songs, hymns, and spiritual songs..”? That seems to break the restrictive use of the language in this particular verse.
The Jerusalem church did not worship with IM, because they COULD NOT. Why? Because they were very Jewish, and knew that according to the regulations of OT worship IM was regulated in a way that only the Levites could play them in the temple.
As to the deeper understanding: The epistle to the Hebrews.
Alexander
“The Jerusalem did not worship with IM…”
But the Jewish Christians did continue to participate in temple worship to some extent (Peter and John healing at the Temple; Paul attempting to offer a sacrifice at the Temple); hence they would be condemned by our modern inquisitors for being associated with error.
A charge they would find laughable.
(Even alluding to Jewish practices favorably in the Epistle to the Hebrews would be considered error by our would-be religious gatekeepers today.)
Ken…Danny did a good job, IMHO, of showing the definition of “ado”, an approved way of singing according to Paul, by using the scripture to define the word versus some man made traditions incorporated over the years. Revelation uses the word to describe singing that was accompanied by instruments.. Unless one wishes to ascribe error to the word then an acceptable “choice” would be singing to the accompaniment of instruments.. No where is it demanded but certainly by the scripture use of the term, it is allowed… no tradition of man is ever going to change that…
The ‘Temple’ had about 7 levels of sanctity like the ziggurat and not commanded by God (Acts 7). The Disciples (students) went to Solomon’s Porch because that is where the people would gather. They continued in the APOSTLE’S doctrine: It was like many marketplaces. The sacrificial system effectively died at the Captivity: the rebuilt temple was a “makes works project” and it was called Herod’s Temple probably to Jupiter. The clergy were not true Israelites.
God’s command for the Jacob-cursed Levites was that they STAND IN RANKS (2 Cor29) and guard that no one not qualified come near any holy thing. They made “noise” and not music such as blowing one closely tuned note usiing 120 ram’s horns NOT commanded by God. Prophesying with instruments is “Soothsaying with instruments.”
The godly civillians attended synagogue on the Rest days and the worship of the starry host was AT the temple (never IN) and the noise warned the people to be OUTSIDE THE GATES. That is where we find Jesus and suffer reproaches.
Paul’s move toward “washing” OUTSIDE the temple gave him his only chance to preach the Purification by Christ. He had been warned that the Jews OUTSIDE of any holy place would use that as an excuse to try to murder him. Pauld did not “do congregationall singing with instrumental accompaniment” and excludes it using the SELF-pleasure: Greek aresko or Latin
Scaenicus I. of or belonging to the stage, scenic, dramatic, theatrical
I. Lit.: poëtae, dramatic poets, ludi, stage-plays, theatrical representations, : fabula, a drama, organ : gestus: modulatio Comedy. Orator
The ANTI-THESIS used by Paul is “use one mind and one mouth to speak that which is written for our learning.”
The Levites (an old Egyptian baby burning sect to Moloch) were the INSTRUMENTAL GATEKEEPER and they would EXECUTE you even if you came near any holy thing. Levites EXCLUDED all of the godly people who “went to church to rest, read and rehearse the word.” Execution was the command of God
The Word says that whatever Peter bound on earth was already bound in heaven…and whatever they “loosed” on earth was already loosed in heaven. Therefore, if IM is in heaven, then would not the use of them be on earth?
Yet, temple worship and Christians assemblies were two pairs of shoes right from the beginning (Acts 2:46-47). Yes, we shudder at the very thought that CHristians would circumcize their boys and be eager to keep all of the Mosaic Law (as the Jerusalem Church did until Acts 21!).
There are a number of interesting and heartwarming questions connected with this. But as sson as you say: “No, we should not circumcize our boys, nor be dherants of the Mosaic Law!” – then also IM disappears together with the Temple.
See, you cannot isolate IM from OT worship.
Alexander
Alexander said: “As to the deeper understanding: The epistle to the Hebrews.”
>>>
Indeed, there is deeper understanding there. But you were more specific before. The writer of Hebrews does not make any reference or connection to IM, as far as I can see. That correlation was yours, if I read you correctly. But then, you seem to say that acapella worship was already part of the Jews’ practice, prior to following Jesus. So how is acapella worship the result of “deeper understanding” by followers of Christ if they already had it? Acapella worship, in this argument, was either their practice before, or it became their practice afterward. It cannot originate in two places.
Here, I am not condemning either form and agree with your assertion that we have fellowship notwithstanding agreement on which form we should (or may) use. But that does not make the reasoning you have offered on this point any more sound.
If anyone wants to test whether or not silence is 100% permissive or 0% in all situations, just try it with your family and at your job for week. See how that works out for you. Chances are, there’s be a split at work and a disfellowshipping at that leads to you staying in your separate and apart from the supper dog house. 😉
Ken wrote,
Ken,
I don’t think these statements are close to historical truth. Can you cite a contemporary source — Philo? Josephus?
Again, not remotely true. Support from the Talmud? Josephus? If you’ve ever read the temple Psalms, you know that many different instruments were used. Other sources confirm this conclusion.
Yes, Jews often attended synagogues on Sabbaths, but worshiping the “starry host” at the temple? You can’t be serious …
This is just absurd and not remotely connected to the real world. I’ll continue to moderate your comments and will not waste the readers’ time with imaginary history.
Alexander, (laughing) you shouldn’t be surprised at the number of good Christians boys in this country who are circumcised!
The form of music among Christians remains, theologically, a matter indifferent to mature believers. When Paul writes about singing from the heart in Eph. 5, he’s certainly not discussing ripping out one’s own body organ and attempting to play a tune on it. It’s metaphor for the seat of thought, reason and/or emotion. Those, like Mr. Sublett, who have a mania for word origins because they can’t bear to deal with context, simply refuse to come to terms with that. They’ve become the internet cranks of the Church of Christ online.
BOB: The form of music among Christians remains, theologically, a matter indifferent to mature believers. When Paul writes about singing from the heart in Eph. 5, he’s certainly not discussing ripping out one’s own body organ and attempting to play a tune on it.
Singing AND melody or grace is IN THE HEART: this is a PLACE..
Bob, Paul often uses parallelism to confuse those seeing godliness as a means of financial gain”: translate ocupation.
The direct command for TEACHING one another with that which is written for our learning is the word SPEAK. That is a left-brain, rational, spiritual thing that disciples (Christians) do.
Sing AND string-plucking (no music in Psallo) is IN THE PLACE OF THE HUMAN HEART OR SPIRIT Both the sing and psallo words implicate soothsaying (the Levites) or sorcery (speakers, singers, playes) in Revelation 18.
Paul said that the converted Jews worshipped IN THE SPIRIT which contrasts to IN THE FLESH. Worship is UNIQUELY defined in a not-falling-on-your-face sense as Paul commanding what Christ commanded for the Qahal, synagogue or Church of Christ in the wilderness:
1Timothy 4:12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
1Timothy 4:13 Till I come, give attendance to [public]reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
1Timothy 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy [teaching], with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
1Timothy 4:15 MEDITATE upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.
1Timothy 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
The command of Christ in the wilderness was:
INCLUSIVE of Rest, Reading and Rehearsing the Word.
EXCLUSIVE of vocal or instrumental rejoicing which word includes “an elevated form of speech.”
The word PSALLO (which has no inherent musical content) is replaced with KHARIS or grace. Both melody and grace are qualities of SPEECH: good thing since none of the Bible is metrical and COULD NOT be sung until post Calvin.
Psallo is never translated as MELODY in any Greek text. If Paul wanted to command musical melody (can’t do that and speak the Logos) he would have used the word MELOS. Paul’s command to Timothy defining “synagogue” is amazingly close
G3191 meleta? mel-et-ah’-o From a presumed derivative of G3199 ; to take care of, that is, (by implication) revolve in the mind:–imagine, (pre-) meditate.
G3199 mel? mel’-o A primary verb; to be of interest to, that is, to concern
If people sing or pray out of their OWN SPIRIT people would think them MAD: Paul said they would be speaking or singing INTO THE AIR. Mania was almost uniquely brought on by singing and playing instruments called “prophesying” which used of the Levites means SOOTHSAYING.
Any lad who had begun reading would instantly grasp that Paul was not commanding to do something impossible and destructive of teaching the Words of Christ.
Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me. Dan 7:15
Plautus, Curculio CAPPADOX My spleen is killing me, my reins are in torment, my lungs are being torn asunder, my liver is being tortured, my heart-strings are giving way, all my intestines are in pain.
Hecuba Alas! a dreadful trial is near, it seems, [230] full of mourning, rich in tears. Yes, I too escaped death where death had been my due, and Zeus did not destroy me but is still preserving my life, that I may witness in my misery fresh sorrows surpassing all before. But if the bond may ask the free of things that do not GRIEVE them or WRENCH their heart-strings, you ought to speak in answer to my questions and I ought to hear what you have to say
Christ outlawed “vocal or instrumental rejoicing or elevated forms of speech.” This word was use of trying to TRIUMPH OVER GOD. If you grasp synagogue or ekklesia you will grasp that the RESOURCE is supplied by a higher authority and singers would be hurt really bad if they even tried it.
MOST religious discord has been produced by the “music” thingy because almost no one can grasp what the Campbell’s momentarily restored.
Church is A School of Christ
Worship is Reading and Musing (mediatiing) on the Word.
Alexander wrote, “Superficiality does not help in these discussions, name calling (“church of Christ sectarians”) neither – but a good understandng of the relationship of both covenants would. — Alexander.”
RAY remarks: I’ve just read all the comments above, and surely appreciate the sensible ones based on true facts. How obvious it is that Christians are called to love one another. And to exhort one another to follow apostolic doctrine and practice. But foolishness about a regulative principle is not apostolic. Nor does presuming to understand covenants when apparently unaware of Acts chapter 15. The early church had to decide whether or not to follow Old Testament practices, of course, for most of the early converts were Jewish.
When trouble-makers came to the churches which resulted from the efforts of Paul and others and sought to change the practices of those churches, Paul appealed to the other apostles and church leaders in Jerusalem where the trouble-makers claimed to have authority from, and asked that a definitive word be spoken as to what must be brought forth from the Old into the New Covenant. Speaking for himself and for the Holy Spirit and the other church leaders, James answered the question which had been raised. He specified exactly what was to be carried over from the Old.
Like Jesus, early church leaders knew that the Way of Jesus was NOT identical to the law of Moses. It was so different as to demand totally new approaches to every question. It just wouldn’t fit into the mold of godliness as prescribed by Moses. I see foolish claims made about Old Testament worship as practiced in the first century. These are claims with no basis in fact. Use of musical instruments was at no time limited by God to only Levites in the temple.
Formal priest-led worship by Jews was limited to temple worship after the temple was built and available for use. No longer were altars built away from the temple. But were Jews told they must not use musical instruments as they sang? I know of no such prohibition. Non-use of musical instruments in synagogues was simply because of free choice, based on the Jews in exile in Babylon not being willing to sing the songs of Zion while they were captives in a foreign land. Was non-use commanded by God? I think not. His people freely chose to not sing songs extolling Jerusalem and its temple and its ways while in captivity away from the “holy” land.
So Alexander feels I’m being sectarian when I speak of the fact that the law-makers are all on the “Anti” side. We free Christians are not demanding that everyone must use musical instruments. We made NO laws about how assemblies must be conducted. But countless laws HAVE been made, starting with an anti-instrument law. I’m sure that it is accurate then to speak of “sectarian Church of Christ” leaders and some members. It’s THEY who have made “worship laws” and insist that in order to be in unity with them we must obey (accept and follow) their human law(s).
Alexander proposes: “There is a historic approach to the issue: IM was not introduced until the middle ages, which is a fact. Chew on it. (Danny Corbitt got it wrong concerning the Odes of Salomo).”
RAY writes: If we seek light from apostolic writings concerning whether or not Christians are free to use musical instruments when they praise God, we’ll find little illumination in “the middle ages.” Or in “church history.” The source of wisdom is in apostolic writings, which include absolutely no mention of a regulative principle or an anti-instrument law for God’s church. I’m convinced that study of the Bible is useful and instructive.
Apostolic writings make no mention whatever of Christian worship services. All the rules which we hear about what Christians may or must not do “in worship” are man-made. Last I knew JESUS was head of His church. Can any who support worship laws point to what Jesus said in favor of worship services with or without musical instrumental use? How about a word on this subject from the apostles who were led into all truth? Not some hidden word based on what we might think the original language meant. But some actual teaching concerning Christians meeting together in order to THERE conduct a worship service.
Alexander writes, “(BTW CCM is more than dominant today – without ANY hermeneutics to back it up.)” Ray wonders: What in the world is CCM? I suppose BTW means “by the way.” Texting is interesting if the one sending and the one(s) receiving understand the abbreviations. I don’t text. I write sensible sentences and try to spell out the words so every reader can understand what the intended meaning is. I wish we all did so. I wonder if the CCM refers in some way to Christian use of musical instruments.
I want to speak out in favor of every brother and sister using the God-given musical talent they have. I love to sing. I can’t make music on any instrument I’ve tried to learn to play. For me, piano lessons were a waste. My fingers just didn’t agree with what I was supposed to be playing. I gave up when trying to master a slide trombone. Others enjoy varying degrees of musical talent. I think every one of us should use our talents to praise God. Woe on those who decide they know more than Jesus does about how we should praise God! And how obvious it is that every admonition about singing given by apostles has NO reference to being in a “worship service.”
Alexander makes a rule, “b) There is a typological approach to it: If we want to argue for IM based on the OT, we also must burn incense. And we also must allow IM only to Levites. Be consistent!”
Now wait a minute! Does Alexander hear anyone demanding that we MUST all use musical instruments in our assemblies? I hear that implication. And it’s not based on truth, so far as I can tell. I know absolutely NO advocates of Christian use of musical instruments who are saying that every congregation MUST use musical instruments in their assemblies. Are we talking about the same problem? The problem is that some are saying we must NEVER use musical instruments when we’re together to praise God. And for this to be true, it is imperative that THEY produce the God-given law which they attempt to enforce.
Some of us realize that we are free in Christ, free to please Him in any way that is an honest recognition of His lordship. There are NO worship laws which require particular acts of worship by Christians in assembly. There are NO worship laws which prohibit particular acts of worship by Christians in assembly. All the laws are man-made. The apostles never wrote or spoke of our assemblies being worship services. The entire idea of assemblies being “worship services” is foreign to the New Covenant writings. And all this talk about types and shadows has no bearing on the subject unless we can see a direct correlation between the type and the shadow.
That’s not what I do. My point is areaction to the so often heard statement: God approved IM in the OT. All I say: If you use the OT as a guideline then be consistent.
Alexander
Alexander writes, “c) The Regulative Principle of Worship needs some more consideration than most IMers are putting into it.” And Ray marvels! Since the apostles of Jesus never spoke of a regulative principle of worship, and since all we know about it is non-apostolic, exactly WHY should we consider it for even a moment? Don’t we still want to speak where THE BIBLE speaks?
CCM is short for “Conetemporary Chrsitian Music”, an “industry” “producing” new songs and styles in accordanbce to the taste(s) and fad(s) of the world. Coinsumer oriented, fame oriented, charts, stars, fans … of this world.
As for the reast: All this sematinbcs about the term “worship” are just leading away from the topic. Nowhere in the NT the teaching in the church is called “preaching” – and yet we use this term because it experienced a shift in its meaning. The same is true for “worship” – I prefer and use “assembly”, but “worship” became synomnymous to “assembly – since no one really has a clue what OT worship really meant anway.
The church did not use IM for well over 1000 years – and in some places even up to today. Those who split churches by introducing IM, by starting arguments, by benmding historic truth to their preferences … will be held accountable, but not by me (which is not the same as being damned, but of having to give an answer). I see no good fruit coming out of this controversy.
Alexander
Alexander briefly concludes: “d) There is this Spiritual Siege, Bruce Morton normally points to (Let me respectfully remind you of his very good book: Deceiving Winds). AC therefore stands on four pillars. It’s hard to make a case for IM once you really dealt with them.”
RAY: “AC” that’s the initials of Alexander Campbell. But he stood on two feet. So Alexander must be pointing to something else. I wish he had said what he was talking about. If it’s anything about Christian “worship services,” I hope he will add to his remarks by explaining where the New Covenant writings speak about even one Christian worship service.
I’ve asked and asked on the Stone-Campbell History list for advocates of Christian worship services to point to any apostolic writing about such things. No one is willing to admit that there are no such passages, so they make fun of my asking rather than providing the citations requested. I hope Jay will be more helpful! Or Alexander. Or anyone at all. I studied both logic and hermeneutics in college. I admire logic and seek always to myself be logical. Is it illogical to ask for some inspired word on a religious subject before we seek light from every other source?
The term Regulative Principle of Worship is as unscriptural as “Trinity”, yet it sums up an observation and helps to speak about it in a concise manner. Those who know the term and its definition know what’s being talked about.
If you’d just stop word-picking and be more willing to follow the reasons presented (instead of looking for a word to pick on), it would be easier to converse with you. But your last replies were not really replies, not even questions … what was it that you wanted me to learn from them?
Alexander
AC in this debate is short for a-cappella
As for the apostolic writings: They were not written in a vacuum. And is we in the 21st century believe we can read them with a blank slate, we err. Therefore I dropped the Sola scriptura” approach as “not working”. The writings iof the hfirst 2-3 generations of the church of Christ are more dear to me than whatever any scholar put forth in our times. What I say and argue I can back up not only by scripture but also by the ECF (Early Church Fathers), that are a valuable commentary to the NT.
See, we can’t agree on the meaning of the Apostlic writings, can we? We split into thousands of denominations, yes? So where did “sola scriptura” lead us, Ray? And now we speak about “unity” in the context of the “IM/AC controversy” – and it cannot but fail! It must fail, because we cannot find unity if everybody keeps to its own hermeneutical standards, reganrdless how they are linked to historic Chritianity. Theology without church history is necessarily in danger of missing the point. Therefore: “Sola Scriptury” is a myth.
Understanding this is no less than a pradigm shift …
Alexander
My thanks to Alexander for explaining CCM even if I fail to see how it applies to a study of whether or not Christians are free to use musical instruments in their assemblies. He wrote, “The church did not use IM for well over 1000 years – and in some places even up to today. Those who split churches by introducing IM, by starting arguments, by benmding historic truth to their preferences … will be held accountable, but not by me (which is not the same as being damned, but of having to give an answer). I see no good fruit coming out of this controversy.”
Alexander assumes that church splitting was caused by introducing use of musical instruments in churches. It is to be hoped that changes made in any congregation are made by majority decision. But if a split occurs, is it always the fault of some who saw an advantage in change? Are all traditions inspired and inflexible? I still point out that those who want to uphold any worship law should first of all show us where their law originated. If it’s human tradition, that’s one thing. If it’s apostolic teaching and example, that’s another. I’ve asked for even one citation from an apostle calling for Christians in assembly to sing. The one verse I know which applies is 1 Corinthians 14:26, where it’s clearly pointed out by Paul (an apostle of Christ) that in Christian assemblies EACH has a psalm. Not one word about the group singing together. One sang TO the others, just as did the prophet who prophesied or the one who delivered another word from the Lord, as Paul speaks of some doing in that verse. Solos all.
If one of us is going to demand that all others must sing only a cappella, then there MUST be an inspired word calling for that method of psalming. Do some want to create their own law and call for us all to follow it? That’s exactly what some have done and are still doing in this day. Do I hear Jay asking us to return to apostolic Christianity? Can anyone point to an apostolic law about congregational singing? Alexander is off by nearly 1,000 years.
Please, Ray, try to come away from the “law-approach”! I tried to phrase it this way above, and this is very imoportant:
It’s not about law but about meaning!
Think about it. It#s not 8only) about what we must and must not do; but about understanding (in this case) the shift from the Old to the New Covenant. Why don’t we have a temple of stone anymore? Because it is forbidden to build one? No, because it would not fit the new dispensation. Why don’t we sacrifice lambs anymore? Is it forbidden? No, but it would not fit. Why don’t we burn incense anymore? The same.
In fact burning incense is the best way for me to illustrate the issue, because both instruments and incense appear only in the book of Revelation; and while we all agree on not burning incense, we disagree on the instruments. Catholics and Orthodox churches do burn incense – and the point to Revelation. Why? Because Incense has been used by the Apostles? No, it hasn’t been introduced into the churches before the 4th century! All of the ECF unanimously poke against the use of incense. So we have a strange situation that can serve as a model:
There is not only silence but opposition to incense thruioghout the whole Early Church – then things changed, and theolgians began to make the new custom sound ancient. The same is true by the way for the use of images and icons. Instruments were aded to worship / the Christian Assembly much later. In each case we have a gap several centruries wide!
If you read the ECF, you will notice that they understood the meaning, the spirutual meaning of the types and shadows of everything that made up OT worship. They did not condemn people who used IM, but the churches simply did not use them. Why? Not because it was a law and they had sinned if they had done so – but because the understood the significance thereof.
As long, Ray, as long as we are disputing on the level of commands and condemnation, we won’t get to the root of the matter; and all of these discussions ended (at least for me) frustrating.
Alexander
What is an inference?
We humans infer and God implicate in his word about spiritual matters ! Inference deals with correct reasoning, but correct reasoning with regard to what God has implied. Everything the Bible teaches it teaches either explicitly (by Direct Commands, Apostolic examples, ) ; or implicitly. We are focus on reasoning correctly with regard to what God has implied in His explicit statements. And, the authority inherent in that which is implied lies not in the fact that I have reasoned correctly with regard to an explicit statement, but in the fact that GOD HAS IMPLIED IT!
There is a vast difference between “inference” and “assumption.” Many things are called “inference” which are not “inference” but which are mere assumptions (opinions). Acts 16:15 states that Lydia and her household were baptized. It is often claimed that, therefore, Lydia was married, that she had children, and that some of these children were infants, and that, therefore, it is scriptural to practice infant baptism. There is a great amount of “assumption,(someone opinion)”, but not “inference” that God has implied. Why people have to speak where the scripture does not speak and support that amount of assumption (opinion)?
When an action, fact, or teaching is absolutely DEMANDED by the biblical information at hand – without being specifically stated – then that action, that fact, or that teaching is a matter of IMPLICATION and is necessary to understand the biblical Text.
When some people don’t accumulate all the evidence on a given subject before formulating a conclusion. One should study the passage in its context and historical setting (exegesis) and the parallel passages on the subject. For example: the Great Commission of Jesus Christ to His disciples is found in three different places, Mt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15,16 and Luke 24:46-48. If the account in Luke 24 is taken by itself, one can conclude that FAITH is not necessary to salvation since faith is not mentioned by name in that passage. If mark 16:15,16 is taken by itself, one can conclude that REPENTENCE is not necessary, since repentance does not appear there. The fact is , that faith, repentance and baptism are all necessary to salvation. To learn this full truth one must consider all three passages and by inference see the whole picture of what really happen and not just one of the accounts because God implied in his written word. A practical daily life example . If you received a telegram from a friend telling you by parts and he said first that he would be in New York, later other telegram on January 1, a few minutes he send the time at 5:30 p.m. by INFERENCE (Deduction with evidences), you would conclude that he would not be in Miami at the same time. You would conclude this even though he did not expressly say that he would not be in Miami. Jesus used a Necessary Inference from the OT to conclude that a man lives after death (Mt. 22:31-32). “ Charles said “Someone has said that we Speak where the bible is silent” the fact of the matter is that by implication God speaks also not but human assumptions [opinions] but by God implications that is not the same!
Jay said “ because there is not command to use instrument or not to use instruments” First century Christians were limited ( as are all Christians) in their use of music in the New Testament worship to vocal music- and to a specific kind of vocal music – that is, to singing They did not use organs, pianos, banjos, guitars, trumpets, .flutes, nor any other mechanical instrument in their praise to God. They sang- they did not play! Any church that employ mechanical instruments in their worship is not identical to the church that we read in the New Testament. The church of Christ now limits its music to singing, as did the Lord’s church of the first century (1 Peter 4:11; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3.16).
Jay “ what is your evidence of a false dichotomies? Does not the scripture teach about “ Darkness against the light? Truth versus lies? Acapella versus mechanical Instruments? Are these dichotomies and are false?
Jay said “ Thus, during the same age, preachers began to assert that silences grant either 100% permission or 0% permission” This affirmation is truth in the church of Christ side because some of our coc brethren start thinking beyond committing the sin of going beyond, of falling short of, or seeking to change, or disregarding, what is written. (1 Cor.4:6) , but if we test your affirmation in the sense of history we found that before of 1906 there were fruit from departure of restoring the New testament church of Christ from the side of the Christian Church. Remember when brother J.B. Henshall Speaks out in Kentucky to be exact on February 22,1851. Two opposing attitudes developed toward the scriptures. One view was the organization, worship and work of the church was revealed in the New Testament. This position insisted that there must be a positive command or approved example in all this areas. (regulative principle). The opposing view maintained that the Scriptures presented a loose framework for activities, and that no specific pattern was required in the worship, organization and work of the church (Normative principle).
The Basic Difference between the ICC and the coC. We differ definitely and decisively in the matter of how God establishes Biblical Authority.. In fact, this is the difference between churches of Christ and the entire religious world. How does God authorize? The Bible itself teaches that God authorizes by what He says – not by what He does not says! They are folks who introduced mechanical instrumental music into Christian worship, and in so doing they tore the church of our Lord asunder. Jay, Is not just the instrument the cause of division but their attitude toward the Authority granted in the word of God. May be you sees us as the people of Israel in the O.T. that God prohibit them to be mix with the gentiles. But God has his good reason why he put that example of us the spiritual Israel with avoiding pagans worships with instruments and others things. (1 Cor. 10). God don’t rely on our capacities but in our faithfulness to his word. We find this example in 1 Samuel 15:22-23 “ So Samuel said:
“Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams. 23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He also has rejected you from being king.” Brother J.B. Henshall said “ We are far in the rear of Protestants on the subject of the church music” (One is remainded of Israel’s desire for a king in order to be like the other nations around them) I Samuel 8:5. Hensall replied by saying that, in proportion to men becoming worldly minded, so they begin to require helps to their devotion. He argued that those who live in the light of the gospel privileges and enjoy God’s mercies and providence over us, is to say that we have no gratitude in our hearts and that we are in every way unworthy of these benefits.
In churches of Christ we are determinate to continue to stress the following: (1)” And whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the father through him” (Col.3:17). (2) we understand, believe, and teach that to be right in the sight of God we must “….walk by faith” (2 Cor. 5:7). (3) We understand, believe, and teach that “….. faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ” (Rom.10:17). (4) we recognize,believe, and teach that there is not word of God, there can be no faith, and that without faith it is impossible for one to please God (Heb.11:6). We recognize,believe and teach that the absence of bible teaching does not establish biblical Authority in matters of obligation. While respecting the existence of the realm of expediency in relationship to our God-given obligations, we recognize, believe and teach that our obligation are established by what the New Testament SAYS – not by what it DOES NOT SAY!
These are eternal matters – they can not be changed! Why would stumbling, bungling human being want to change them?
Those who introduced the Missionary Society and Mechanical instruments of music into the work and worship of the church are responsible for the division that those innovations produced.
Years later after the departure of trying to restore the church of Christ , those Erring brethren have a “loose constructionist [normative principle?]” attitude toward bible authority.
Alexander explains why the Bible is insufficient as a guide for us today: “AC in this debate is short for a-cappella. As for the apostolic writings: They were not written in a vacuum. And if we in the 21st century believe we can read them with a blank slate, we err. Therefore I dropped the Sola scriptura” approach as “not working”. The writings iof the first 2-3 generations of the church of Christ are more dear to me than whatever any scholar put forth in our times. What I say and argue I can back up not only by scripture but also by the ECF (Early Church Fathers), that are a valuable commentary to the NT.”
RAY: God has preserved for us the apostolic writings. It’s to these that I look for light on any question about the early church. Alexander has different sources. Those sources are not generally available to most simple Christians. But a Bible we all do have. And to the BIBLE I ask that we turn for light on what the apostles taught and practiced. If other ancient writings are preserved and available to some scholars, I have no right to object to their being mentioned. But it’s the apostolic writings I trust as being from God. If they are incomplete, can men provide a better and more complete word from GOD?
And then can we all agree on these extra-canonical authorities? How could we? So it’s back to the BIBLE I want us to go. But, some may think, it wasn’t until 300 years had passed that some Christian leaders agreed on which writings were apostolic. I figure, with no assurance of being correct, that they were better able to evaluate the available writings than we are who are much more distant in every way.
So, what BIBLE passages should we consider in evaluating the anti-instrument law? I have no trouble finding exhortations about loving one another, about honoring Jesus as Lord, and many matters important to us as disciples of Jesus Christ. But these passages get little hearing in our debates about music and appropriate acts in our assemblies. Instead, we quibble over minors and ignore major matters we’re asked to consider. Is it not so?
I’m sorry indeed that Alexander didn’t understand what I pointed out about covenants as they relate to the Christian Way. Alexander wrote: Think about it. It’s not (only) about what we must and must not do; but about understanding (in this case) the shift from the Old to the New Covenant.”
I pointed him and every other thoughtful student to Acts 15 to understand about the covenants. In Hebrews there’s great contrast made between the old and the new, the law and the covenant of grace. But the example which most clearly tells of the “shift from the Old to the New Covenant” is in Acts 15. And it appears that Alexander isn’t convinced that those brethren (James claimed to speak for himself and for the Spirit) understood properly what was to be brought forward from the Old to the New. Yes, the particular discussion centered on circumcision. But the conclusions were not so limited. And Alexander is not echoing the thoughts of James and the Holy Spirit in what Alexander is writing.
Instead, Alexander is disagreeing with James and the Holy Spirit. I urge everyone who reads this comment to read and consider the controversy which led to a conference in Jerusalem which led to the conclusions I share with James and the Holy Spirit. Acts 15 tells the tale.
Jay and others, is the inspired writing adequate for our learning about the Way? Do we really need to acquire access to non-apostolic writings in order to know what is right for the church of Jesus Christ to do? Were the pioneers in this unity movement wrong to urge study of the BIBLE in order to be united in Christ? I hear you urging us to love one another and agree with one another in all possible ways. I think this is desirable indeed. But I do not choose to myself study non-apostolic writings and think I’m hearing from the apostles who were led into all truth.
I note also that Alexander has written, “The term Regulative Principle of Worship is as unscriptural as “Trinity”, yet it sums up an observation and helps to speak about it in a concise manner. Those who know the term and its definition know what’s being talked about.”
RAY: I agree that those who know the term or read it even for the first time surely understand that it refers to a totally unscriptural concept, unknown to the apostles and to the churches led and fed by them. Why do we want to ignore what the apostles DID say and write and focus instead on what we think they should have said?
Ray asked: “Jay and others, is the inspired writing adequate for our learning about the Way?”
>>>
Is a wedding “adequate” to make you a husband? Yes… and no.
This question seems to fall short of the purpose of God revealing himself to us. Could we lose the book of Philemon or 3 John and still know how to be saved? If we lost one of the synoptic gospels, would we still be able to follow Jesus?
Jesus said that it would be the Holy Spirit’s task to “take what is mine and make it known to you”. Once those 27 letters and essays were penned, was that revelation complete? Was everything that is of Jesus revealed to all men for all time? I look at the Jesus of Revelation 1 and I look at my little Gideon NT and think that there must be a difference between the two.
Ray, your question seems to suggest that there is no inspired writing beyond the canon. This is a position which cannot be found anywhere in the NT itself. The very idea is extra-biblical. So then, is that extrabiblical idea from God, or from men?
Ken,
When you say things like “Christ outlawed ‘vocal or instrumental rejoicing or elevated forms of speech'” it’s hardy to imagine where on earth you’re coming from. It makes no sense.
You remain on moderation, and I’m not going to allow posts through that make such claims without coherent, understandable explanation.
As I understand your position, all singing — instrumental and non-instrumental — are banned in the Christian assembly. I think you are likely the only person anywhere who thinks that to be true. And I’ll not burden readers further with that claim.
1Corinthians 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Corinthians 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink:
for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
1Corinthians 10:5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
1Corinthians 10:6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
1Corinthians 10:7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and ROSE UP TO PLAY.
Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church [ekklesia-synagogue] in the wilderness with the angel [Christ] which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
Acts 7:41 And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands.
Acts 7:42 Then God turned,
and gave them up to worship the HOST of heaven;
as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel,
have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness? [not commanded]
Acts 7:43 Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the STAR of your god Remphan,
figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.
The synagogue is defined in Numbers 10 for holding A Holy Convocation.
Ken,
I’ve allow this comment through because you’ve succinctly explained your position. Let’s see if it’s true.
“Holy convocation” does not appear in Num 10, but it does appear several places in the Torah. The Greek is ????????? ????, that is, “holy assembly” or epiklEtos hagia. It’s not the same word used for “synagogue” or “church.” And Num 10:10 does indeed describe a festival that is elsewhere referred to as a “holy convocation.”
The command for that festival is for a ram’s horn (or trumpet) to be blown, it’s true. But the Psalms make this statement —
1 Sing aloud to God our strength;
shout for joy to the God of Jacob!
2 Raise a song; sound the tambourine,
the sweet lyre with the harp.
3 Blow the trumpet at the new moon,
at the full moon, on our feast day.
This is plainly a reference to the use of singing and instruments during the feast day of Num 10:10. And Numbers 10:10 refers to the blowing of the horn! But the Psalm plainly adds to the “silence” by allowing singing and instruments!!
Thus, it’s quite impossible to treat Num 10:10 as limiting a “holy convocation” to just study and trumpet calls. David himself calls on his readers to sing and play other instruments — because it’s a celebration!
The synagogue was not invented by the Prophets, but is an invention of man. There was no singing or instruments until long after the First Century, but nowhere in the Bible is the Christian assembly said to be built on the synagogue.
Indeed, the best evidence is that the assembly is built on the Passover tradition, if anything, which included … singing. And probably dancing (it certainly did at a later date). But neither singing nor dancing is commanded in the Torah. They were added. As were the cups of wine that Jesus sanctified. It was a meal, and prayers were said, hymns sung, and the Jews celebrated as Middle Easterners celebrate.
And, of course, there is explicit NT references to singing in the assembly. Therefore, to suggest that Num 10:10 demonstrates that we cannot sing in the assembly is absurd and utterly devoid of scriptural support. In fact, the evidence suggests that adding to God-ordained rituals is permitted.
Synagogue was not an institution but a set-time-place.
The Holy Convocation was held on the first and sixth days during festivals.
This holy convocation defined as Reading and Rehearsing the Word of God came to be every REST day. Numbers 10 defines the difference between the Alarm (vocal or instrumental rejoicing or elevated speech) from the quiet assembly for instruction only. That is how Jesus exampled it and commanded it with the “ekklesia” word for reading, discussing and summarizing something from a HIGHER authority.
Every seven years, that is in the year of release, during the feast of Tabernacles, the Law was to be read before all the people according to the command found in Deut., xxxi, 10. But this enactment was probably soon found to be impracticable; and thus the Jewish authorities arranged to read on every sabbath, commencing with the sabbath after the feast of Tabernacles in one year of release and ending with the feast of Tabernacles in the next year of release, a portion of the Law so calculated that the whole Pentateuch would be read through in seven years. This would in some way the commandment be fulfilled. Some time later, the Jews of Palestine lengthened the sections for each sabbath in such a manner that he entire Law could be read in three years (Talm. Babyl. Megillah, 29b)
Isaiah was the ASSIGNED text already opened when Jesus stood up to read and then decently sat down. No preaching, no singing in the synagogue.
It is easy to miss “synagogue” as Church beginning the wilderness because people look up the word synagogue. Jesus “came together” or synagogued with the disciples two first days in a row.
When Paul uses “come together, assemble or gather” he always uses forms of the “synagogue” word. James also uses “translate.”
The godly people never did “worship IN the Temple.” John Calvin defined the synagogue in Numbers 10 Latin Con-gr?go Congrego Academia
“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)
“The LXX uses the word ekklesia to translate the Hebrew qahal. Qahal means to call, to assemble, and the noun form means a congregation or assembly. Solomon is called koheleth the Preacher, translated by the LXX ekklesiastes. The earliest known occurrence of the word is found in Job 30:28, ‘I cried in the congregation’. In the books of the law, qahal is rendered by the Greek word sunagoge, showing that the synagogue is the beginning of the New Testament church. Stephen in his speech which ended in his martyrdom referred to the history of Israel, and dwells for considerable length upon the one great leader Moses, saying in Acts 7:38:
Church.
‘This is he, that was in the CHURCH in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai’.
The people of Israel, looked upon as ‘a called-out assembly’ were ‘the Church’ of that period. By Charles H. Welch
Christ ordained that in the wilderness: the Lord’s Supper as the only addition is to preach the death of Jesus.
Jay,
A while back I saw something that I had never seen in a Restoration Movement Church. The congregation was singing praises and all of a sudden a young lady moved into the aisle and began dancing in place. It was obvious to me that she was not doing this as a show and she continued to sing as she danced. Now, I would have thought that I would have viewed this as shocking and as something that never should have occured before this happened but as I watched her sing and dance, I realized that it was really very lovely and natural for her to do this.
Jay suggests, “In fact, the evidence suggests that adding to God-ordained rituals is permitted.” This is a comment in reaction to a suggestion that an Old Testament text might be instructing Christians that they cannot please God by singing when they meet together. May I suggest that there are NO rituals taught by apostles of Christ for us Christians to perform separately or together. So, seeking “authorization” for such rituals or amendments to them is not profitable. Shouldn’t we instead be doing the things we are called to do to serve Jesus daily? What commission was left for us by our Lord? To meet together for worship? Or is it to carry with us everywhere the good news that Jesus has risen from the dead and offers life to sinners? Is it to be served or to serve? Is it to seek lovers or to be a lover of others? Are we called to perform rituals of any kind? What chapter and verse in the apostolic writings tells us how to live for Jesus by performing any ritual?
Ray, if you believe in the BIBLE as the only source, then we should quit preaching and be content with reading. But as we speak, we should do so as if wewere speaking in the name of God, Peter said. So, there IS inspiration beyond the written letters. OK, this may lead to a whole set of new questions …
Alexander
“Inspiration beyond the written letters”? The apostles were promised they would be able to remember all that Jesus had personally taught them, and THEY would be led into all truth. WE received no such promise. Therefore I cite apostolic writings as authority, and am therewith content. I do not believe I or anyone is inspired by GOD in going “beyond what is written.” Jesus is Lord. We are His servants.
Jay suggests, ” there is explicit NT references to singing in the assembly.” Is there? The passages which might be thought to refer to singing “in the assembly” make no mention of “the assembly” but instead are referring to daily life if we are to judge by the context in which they are found. The one mention which links singing and “the assembly” is 1 Cor. 14:26 and it speaks of one person singing to the others, but does not mention any singing by the assembly. So where can explicit New Testament references to singing in the assembly by found? Which passage am I overlooking? I know of two–one in Ephesians and one in Colossians. But they certainly are not referring to congregational singing if I understand language.
Ray…do you not distinguish between the prophetic voice used by the Corinthian church members and “scripture?” I don’t find in scripture any passage that says the “gifts” have ceased….therefore, by your own preference for scriptural guidance, the gifts are still in play…and the Holy Spirit is still doing what He does best…guiding us toward Truth…
Jay I have responded where I can exand. There will be no shame in confessing that you followed Al Maxey to do evil.
If the church is still the qahal–ekklesia
And it is a School (only) of Christ in the prophets and apostles.
And that vocal or instrumental rejoicing is outlawed to guard against the lawless
And the NACC founded with the DNA to try to force everyone to Bow to Baal
Then you have blasphemed the Holy Spirit of Christ Who spoke through the prophets to forbid “speaking” your own words on the rest day.
I have picked on you because you have been led into being the most vocal.
I believe that is my “assignment.” I hope that has instructed some of the more than 18000 congregations only 21 which have been deceived by being handled by the NACC.
To say that churches of Christ were ever unioned in any sense with the Disciples of Christ is really psychological violence trying to intimidate. It is a lie and they have had less success than Judas whose prophesied bag was for “carrying the mouthpieces of wind instruments.” He was a thief and Jesus dispatched him with the SOP which has the same root meaning as PSALLO.
To moderate my response to your charges is NOT manly or honest.
Ken
Ken
I’m no expert in understanding God’s current revelations, if indeed there are any NEW ones. But what I do know is that the special gifts of the Spirit did not seem to be present except when apostles had laid hands on (anointed) particular persons. Paul had been in Corinth. Gifts were present in Corinth. A frequent gift, not spoken of in the letter we call first Corinthians, was the gift of healing. Does any reader know of someone today who is able to touch and pray and healing is sure to follow for the one who was touched? Does any reader know of someone today who can speak new revelations from God with hearers knowing surely that indeed the speaker is speaking for God?
My youth was spent in a small Illinois town. Later, after I was studying in Ozark Bible College and visiting my home town, I heard about a prophet who had spoken for a Pentecostal church which had come to town after I had moved away. It was meeting on the main street (two blocks was all we had for a main street in our town) in a former store building. The prophet is said to have foreseen that soon the much larger congregation would build a fine building on a nearby highway. I was told he was clear that this was soon to happen.
That was fifty years ago. The congregation is still in the same building on main street in Hutsonville, Illinois. Does anyone know of any true prophecy which would indicate that God is still speaking to us through prophets today? Does anyone know of any truly sick person who was healed without medical intervention but by prayer? I question whether or not special spiritual “gifts” as existed in the early church (given by apostolic power) still are given and being used. I do not believe that I or any man today can speak with a new message from God. My goal is to understand and repeat what the apostles were led to speak.
Ray, with all due respect…it seems to me that you are appealing to man to affirm your position on gifts…Wasn’t that what you just got through criticizing Alexander and others for doing… Just show me where the scripture says that gifts ended and that the Holy Spirit would no longer choose to empower others to do whatever He wanted them to do. If you’re going to establish a theological position, it should be done only with scriptural authority and not anecdotal evidence from some person some where….according to your own words. At least as I understood them…please correct me if I misunderstood you.
I was told that gifts must still be in place since the writer knew of no statement in the Scripture which said they would cease. I could have pointed out that indeed Paul says they would cease. But since it’s so obvious to me that they HAVE ceased, I supposed that everyone else would agree they have ceased UNLESS THERE IS PROOF TO THE CONTRARY. I know of no such proof. So I asked if anyone else knew of some. I’m sorry that displeased Price. A mere pointer to the statement that they WOULD cease with no time frame stated surely would not be convincing to someone who wanted to believe they have NOT ceased.
“Does anyone know of any truly sick person who was healed without medical intervention but by prayer?”
I do, I do. And, by “truly sick” I assume you mean, like a diagnosable cancer or bodily injury…right?
GFT is confusing inference with inductive reasoning. A quick search of English grammar sorts this out readily. Inference is the reader’s response to the writer’s implication. If you say, “You’re not the first knucklehead to say that!”, I may INFER that you think I am a knucklehead, for it seems clear that this is what you have IMPLIED in your statement. When Jesus told the moneychangers in the temple that “you have made it a den of thieves”, we can infer that Jesus was calling those particular people “a den of thieves” because he appears to be implying just that.
Inductive reasoning, OTOH, is a method of arriving at conclusions without conclusive evidence. It is the practice of deriving general principles from specific facts. Examples of induction:
“As every specific example of NT baptism shows a man doing the baptizing, it is wrong for a woman to baptize.”
“As every example of preaching found in the NT is being done by a Jewish man, Gentiles cannot preach.”
“We find that Jesus drove salesmen and moneychangers out of the temple, therefore God prohibits the youth group from selling cookies in the church building.”
“As we find several NT examples of apostles performing miracles, all apostles –and only apostles –could perform miracles.”
Negative induction is even more wobbly. It draws general principles from the ABSENCE of specific facts.
“We have no record of anyone in the NT church ever shaving his upper lip, so every Christian must wear a mustache.”
“No believer in the NT is said to have worn cotton clothing, and linen is mentioned as the garb of saints in Revelation, so believers today must avoid cotton and wear only linen.”
“No mention is made in the NT of a musical instrument in worship, so… ” (Well, you know the rest of that one.)
GFT, most traditional CoC doctrine which is so debatable is based on inductive reasoning, or its scrawny cousin, negative inductive reasoning. While induction can be appropriate in some cases where a conclusive solution is not needed, it is not sufficient to establish the sort of binding commands which have issued forth from it over the years.
Induction is not even part of the CENI hermeneutic, which is weak enough on its own.
Ray said, “But since it’s so obvious to me that they HAVE ceased, I supposed that everyone else would agree they have ceased UNLESS THERE IS PROOF TO THE CONTRARY.”
>>>
Ray, the fact that you cannot see something is not evidence of anything at all. You have placed your own lack of experience into the realm of fact. “Since I don’t see it, then everyone must agree that it does not exist.” What foolishness! Why in the world should we agree with your conclusions as a default?
What if I say that it’s clear to me that you are not really Ray Downen, but you are really Ray’s twin brother Ramesh? Does that mean everyone else should doubt your identity until you stand on each one’s porch with your drivers’ license in hand for identification? What will you do to provide “proof to the contrary”? Especially if we don’t accept that driver’s license as proof? I mean, you guys are twins. After all, I said so.
Charles suggests that I may not be the person I claim to be since I dare to suggest that observation is one way to determine whether or not spiritual “signs” are still present in our generation. But I know some people who do claim they see such signs, usually in other countries rather than our own U.S.A. So my suggestion stands despite anyone’s incredulity. And now that the fun is over, does any reader see signs of spiritual gifts of the Spirit today?
Nancy affirms that she knows of instances of “divine healing.” That is, of a very sick person who was not treated medically but who received prayer and was healed from the known sickness. I’d love to hear some details.
Ray,
A minister that I know about was in a horrific tiny car/18 wheeler crash. By all medical accounts, he was dead. In fact, pronounced dead at the scene. He lived to write a book about his experience. I was blessed to hear him tell his story personally, but if you want to know more, I’ll provide the link. I suspect you’ll find it hard to believe.
What I’d like to know is who laid hands on the dying person and prayed so that God healed him. Any details would be interesting, of course. What is in question is does God still furnish healing spiritual gifts to some of us.
It was a passer by (a driver that stopped to render aid). I believe God did the healing though..not the man who initially prayed over him.
Charles says: “Inductive reasoning, OTOH, is a method of arriving at conclusions without conclusive evidence. It is the practice of deriving general principles from specific facts. Examples of induction:
‘As every specific example of NT baptism shows a man doing the baptizing, it is wrong for a woman to baptize.'”
RAY: But this is not an example of inductive reasoning. It’s an example of jumping to a conclusion which makes no logical sense at all. The stated fact says nothing whatever about women baptizing others. So the proposed conclusion has no relation to the stated fact. We do want to think logically. We all do. But to claim such an example is of any kind of logic is faulty thinking. Much of the Church of Christ law-making is based on just such illogical faulty thinking. And we have no right to make even one law, let alone the many which now divide Churches of Christ from one another.
There are many examples in Acts of people being baptized into Christ.
In each case, the baptizer is a man rather than a woman.
Therefore, we jump to the conclusion that women are not allowed to baptize.
And it was quite a jump. It made no sense at all.
Nancy’s example of use of spiritual gifts is not exactly comparable to what happened in the early church or in the ministry of Jesus Himself. A sick person touched an article of clothing worn by Jesus, and was healed. Jesus laid hands on a sick person and that person was immediately healed. Jesus spoke to a dead person and that dead person came back to life. Immediate. A miracle. If a passer-by prayed and some time later through medical action an injured man was restored to health, that is not an example of use of a special spiritual gift of healing. The “gift” normally involved touching and immediate healing, so far as I know. And, yes, I know that Jesus could merely say the word and (immediate) healing would be done even at a distance. I don’t think anything like that is reported to have happened in Nancy’s illustration.
Well Ray, I’m just gonna hang on to the idea that God miraculously healed that man right there in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. I may need Him to heal me one day and raise me from the dead. I need to believe that He has that power.
Thanks, Nancy. No one doubts that God can heal or do absolutely anything He chooses to do. I’m glad you understand that also. But that has nothing to do with the discussion of whether or not the “signs” of special spiritual gifts which obviously were present in apostolic days are also now present. And some of us think it important to wonder whether or not we should ask God for such signs. And, hopefully, all of us marvel at the continuing wonderful things our God does do. We also notice that some who are injured die and some die from lingering illnesses. We may not believe that God heals every sickness or injury. Some believe there is no sickness at all. Most of us see that there IS sickness and injury and death as possibilities every day. So some of us discuss whether or not the healing powers which pervaded the apostolic church should be present in U.S.A. lives today. And some provide examples of logic which is not logic. Life goes on.
Charles rightly says: “He (Jesus) made simple promises in John 14:26, 15:26, and 16:5-15. With the regulative principle and a revised Law, we have now taken over by human wisdom just about all of what Jesus said the Holy Spirit would do. For men to step into a role given to the Holy Spirit seems to me to be the height of folly.”
What Charles does not mention (perhaps does not notice) is that these simple promises were made to only the apostles He had selected and trained and would empower through a baptism in the Holy Spirit. The promises do not in any way apply to us who are NOT apostles, who are NOT trained by traveling with Jesus for many months, and have NOT received baptism in the Holy Spirit. We do well to rely on the GIFT of the Spirit which all of us who are in Christ HAVE received, and then do our human best to grow in Christ realizing that God has given us His Spirit to HELP us learn and live and grow. But we have no reason to believe the Spirit will do the learning or the work FOR us or TO us. Despite the promises Charles points us to, when Jesus gave His commission to the apostles, He instructed them to do things He had pointed out should be done. The commission, as reported by Luke in Acts, was understood by the early church as applying to all disciples and not only to the apostles. The ones who were scattered carried the gospel with them wherever they fled. But the power and authority was for the apostles alone. And the miracles mentioned were performed by the apostles and those who had been anointed by them for special power.
How does this apply to unity between the Christians who freely serve Jesus and those who accept human laws forbidding use of musical instruments at certain times? Jesus wants us united. We need to love one another and serve Him together as one body. That’s the design. So that’s what Jay is calling for. Unity in Christ.
(1Co 14:26 ESV) 26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.
It’s reading a lot into the passage to presume that “each one has a hymn” (literally a “psalm”) necessarily means that one person sings a solo. To reach that result, we must presume that Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16 speak ONLY of singing in a group outside the assembly, whereas only solos were sung in the assembly.
It’s easy enough to assert that Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16 are not specific to the assembly (and I’d agree) but quite another thing to insist that they don’t refer to the assembly at all.
Ken,
I’ve approved your comment, as it amply demonstrates the kind of reasoning that supports your position. I’ll not likely approve further comments.
“One another” needs fellowship. Whether we call it “assembly” or “meeting” or “get together” or “worship” is just a matter of traditional vocabulary. In fact the NT is not bound to one technical/liturgical term to describe one and the same event, which may take place even daily (Acts 2:46-47) or at least every 1st day of the week.
If we feel scripture is ambiguous on this, we should consult the writings of the next generation or two. The Didache sheds light on the assemblies of the early church, as well as Justin Martyr’s 1st apology. The letters of Ignatius speak on this subject as well. Even a letter of the Roman official Pliny contains information on what Christians did in their meeting.
We read – basically – of singing together, reading the scriptures, prayer, various teaching, collecting material goods, eating a meal together, having the “eucharist”. Let’s say they had 7 “acts of worship” (instead of only 5) 😉
It’s also worth to mention that we should envision living-room-sized congregations. No pews, no pulpits, but couches, a table and plenty of food on top of it. Christians met after work (sunday was no holiday yet) for a supper (hence the term “Lord’s Supper”!) and had fellowship. In the course of the meal they broke bread and shared the cup, but they had more wine with the meal (hence twice we are warned not to get drunk – 1Co 11 and Eph 5, which BTW confirms that Eph 5:18-19 indeed speaks of the assembly). After that they spent the reast of the evening singing, praying, sharing, reading, teaching as long as time permitted (even past midnight as in Acts 20:7-11).
It’s so simple and natural! In Austria’s countryside you still can find places where families come together for a meal, followed by conversation and singing folk-songs. I’m speaking f a secular context here, but that was common everywhere a century ago! In these times of fellowship “everyone” had a story to tell, an adectote, a joke, a folk-song, a yodeling, a cake or buiscuits – for each other’s joy. A Christian assembly – in the beginning – was very alike these meetings; that’s why the ECF also called the Agape a banquet, but a “temperant one” (although a healthy amount of wine was part of the feast (!)). How and why is this getting lost? TV and radio – seriously. All stay at home to watch their favourite soaps or football – and therefore the feel for neighborhood in rural Austria is vanishing. And since music is provided by professionals from the radion people stopped singing together. And the same happened to Christian homes and fellowship.
You see, Jay, how many topics are interwoven here: “Eating in a church building”, “five (or more?) acts of worship”, “house church”, “one-anothering” – all of them are highly debated, because we traditionally understand “assembly” as a formal gathering for worship in a specially dedicated building that can hold hundreds of people, seated in pews facing a pulpit. All who hold fast to this “system” cannot and will not grasp the essence of a Christian meeting/assembly/get together.
You can imagine in the light of the decline of such warm fellowship in our society that house churches could provide something very valuable (and necessary) in your immidiate neighborhood, something an institutional church cannot provide.
Just to bring all of this into the context of a-cappella singing: Most traditional home-meetings (and most folk singing) were and are a-cappella, not for spiritual reasons but because instruments are expensive and only relatively few are capable of learning one. That’s why e.g. Scottish and Irish folk-singing traditionally primarily was a-cappella, while instruments where used primarily for dancing or instrumental music (in both cases “exclusively” would be incorrect). So there is a “natural” aspect to “a-cappella worship”, too. Not to mention that you’d hardly fit a full-fledged worship band in a living room …
Alexander
Alexander,
I think you are quite right to point out that the NT assembly was usually in someone’s home — a fact that dramatically impacts our interpretation and application of the text.
I wouldn’t go so far as to insist that the churches meet in homes, I do think the current small group movement is an important step in returning to home-based fellowship.
I would point out that the Jerusalem church met both in homes and in the temple courts (in groups of thousands), which seems the optimal plan to me — both home meetings and larger meetings.
As I stated before, I think there are advantages both to home meetings (which you express very well) and to institutional church (such as the ability to impact the community through concerted action), and so a church that has both large and home gatherings seems optimal.
However, something is lost when the organizational structure is autonomous at the house church level, as is so often the case. That is, house churches have to be able to band together with the rest of the church in their community to be the church together so that they can minister and work as one. In the NT, the house churches were all “one church” that sometimes gathered as one and were under a common group of elders. We lack many details, but it one church dispersed among many houses, not several churches that might or might not unite and work together.
<blockquote> … both home meetings and larger meetings.</blockquote>
That’s how we’ve been doing it for well over two years now. Every second sunday we meet in house churches, the other sundays we meet as a larger assembly (in a traditional format). The church is one, under one leadership.
My point was: We will misunderstand and misapply the NT descriptions (which are neither exhaustive nor systematic) unless we keep the “format” in mind in which they met. Many discussions therefore are fruitless; and since so many topics are interwoven, we really have to – at least forthe sakenof the study – let go of ALL our traditional views, imagioning we had no church background at all, but were trying to reconstruct/restore our understanding of church life from the oldest and best sources available. “Denominational” Bible-Study tends to confirm denominational traditions. This is true also for the churches of Christ, seen as a denomination – what we actually don’t want to be.
Alexander
Alexander, when did you become a progressive? 🙂 That last paragraph is exactly what we have been arguing all along. The New Testament pattern for worship isn’t a pattern at all. The Jerusalem congregation had its wonderful mix of large and small gatherings but it is a bit hard to see the same “pattern” at work in the rest of Acts. Elders seem to be more over areas than individual gatherings (perhaps making the step to metropolitan presiding bishops in the second century easier than we imagine). I get a sense of unity in teaching while variance in local practice. A living out of Paul’s “all things to all men.” And frankly this is what makes the Didache, Barnabas, Clement and other very early Fathers important. This is how the first believers lived out the Apostle’s instructions. They also tell us how quickly some left the reservation and created something else. And it is very easy to see how, post Constantine, the Church was coopted to become an extension of imperial power by other means which created new habits and concepts which we are still struggling to throw off. (uniformity, dress, authority, etc.)
Todd, you and ALexander surely know that the Didache instructs early Christians to do things that, if parcticed in the CofC, would result in Church splits that would make the IM/non-IM spilt seem minor? Just how do you envision using these ECF writings? Do we get to pick and choose?
Ok, am I interested in understanding how things were acually done in the first few centuries of the Church and trying to restore based on the actual real historical record or am I trying to keep people contented and happy with their opinions of how things were done in the first few centuries of the Church which they arrived at by using their own opinions and interpretations without regard to the facts?
A lot of our problem is how we view Scripture. The Jewish view is a multi layer view point. The Torah is Scripture Scripture. The Prophets are Scripture. The Writings are scripture. And there is an entire body of writings which are not at all considered scripture but are useful to read and understand. We adopted the Greek view which is an either or issue. Now, not to belabor the point but the early Fathers adopted the Jewish view at first- even Jerome listed some writings as “good to read” but told folks not to base doctrine on them. Also we need to understand that some of those early writings – Barnabas for example were actually counted as Scripture and were removed later for reasons having nothing to do with their value.
Again though, everybody talks about how they want to go back to the way things were done at the first. Excellent concept, so why in the world would you ignore documents telling you how things were actually done “at the first?” That strikes me as a somewhat illogical approach.
Now as to how we approach it, perhaps Alexander and I have different approaches. I look at the ECF and see a great unity of overall doctrine while some flexibility as to local practice. The formulae for baptism in the Didache is an interesting example.
As for the trouble bringing them in would do, I can’t see how looking to them for a little guidance is worse than what we have now.
Well said, Todd 🙂
In fact I also see the flexibilty in local practices. An example ist the the Didache allowed pouring for baptism in case not enough water is available, and says the best place for baptism is in “living water” (e.g. a river). I know from experience that the “pouring” is a hot topic because of our extremely narrow view of immersing (no flexibilty, no knee, heel or tip of a hair may stay above the serface for the validity of baptism …).
Also it is hard to make the shift from single to triple immersion which was very common among the ECF (and is reflected in the triple pouring in the Didache as well). Every more detailed description pof baptism has it, followed by laying on of hands and praying for the Spirit to come (which is even in Scripture: Acts 19). Doing this would mean to admit: “We had very good intentions, but still got it wrong in many aspects. Maybe we should not be too loud and proud about the way we do things in the future …”
Taking this a step further: There is so much insecurity about the indwelling of the Spirit among us, that I believe this second aspect of baptism (laying on of hands) is even a necessity. At least for assurance, but maybe even for the fact: Or does the Spirit come to us without being asked to? Can we really take it simply for granted?
And that’s only a few points on baptism where we are not a “Completely Restored New Testament Church”! What shall I say about the meaning and practice of the Lord’s Supper, the order of the widows and virgins, the attitude towards war and politics, the headcovering for women, the regular hours of prayer, the regular days of fasting, the annual celebration of Passover as a highlight of the church year, …
It’s important to be just a “church of Christ” (no extra name tags for the sake of unity), and it is great to be a “Restoration Movement”. But it is not healthy to claim to be THE church of Christ FULLY restored. This would mean we have nothing more to learn, we have it all … but that’s simply not true.
Alexander
Jay remarks that 1 Corinthians 14:26 MIGHT refer to congregational singing. Could it? Each listed act is something that ONE person at a time was to share with the group. It does not appear that the apostle was speaking there of congregational singing. The same applies somewhat to the Ephesians and Colossians passages about singing. The context is all about daily life, not at all about formal assemblies. Yet those who seek to make them laws for “the worship” are affirming that we who love Jesus should only sing from the heart when we’re in a formal assembly. They don’t commonly object to singing psalms and hymns with accompaniment except “in worship.” Yet their “proof texts” do not pertain to formal assemblies. I suggest we are free to sing about Jesus any time, anywhere, in any assembly at all or alone and that the Lord places no restrictions on our singing with or without accompaniment. I’m not attempting to make any law at all. But I point out what the passages actually do teach rather than what some want to read into them.
No, Ray. It is embedded between the verses 23 and 34 – let me quote:
This is about the assemblies. In fact, from chapter 10:14 to the end of chapter 14 Pauls is repeatedly speaking aboutthe assembly (with some detours). The singing in this paragraph my be a solo (as is recorded in the writing if the ECF) or it may be that someone suggests a song for congregational singing. Both is possible, both was practiced.
Alexander
Alexander suggests names are relatively unimportant: Whether we call it “assembly” or “meeting” or “get together” or “worship” is just a matter of traditional vocabulary.
But in Church of Christ discussions, names are not unimportant. They speak of a formal “worship service” as if it were something the early church did, and they have rules by the dozens as to what is “authorized” in those formal meetings. They call them services of “worship.” They do not call them get-togethers or assemblies or meetings. They call them “worship services.” Is Alexander not aware of all the worship laws which pertain to worship services of Churches of Christ?
Surprisingly, in apostolic writings not one mention is made of a congregation ever gathering for worship. What should that tell us about worship laws for Christians?
Alexander suggests that Ephesians must be in reference to the shared suppers since the apostle warns against drunkenness. He wrote: It’s also worth to mention that we should envision living-room-sized congregations. No pews, no pulpits, but couches, a table and plenty of food on top of it. Christians met after work (sunday was no holiday yet) for a supper (hence the term “Lord’s Supper”!) and had fellowship. In the course of the meal they broke bread and shared the cup, but they had more wine with the meal (hence twice we are warned not to get drunk – 1Co 11 and Eph 5, which BTW confirms that Eph 5:18-19 indeed speaks of the assembly). After that they spent the reast of the evening singing, praying, sharing, reading, teaching as long as time permitted (even past midnight as in Acts 20:7-11).
Alexander has a good imagination. Ephesians 5 confirms to him that the apostle in verses 18 and 19 speaks of the assembly since Alexander thinks the assembly was the only place where drinking occurred? I guess that may be what he was thinking. But some people drink even when alone, and Paul warns against overindulgence without specifying that it must apply only to an assembly. We see indeed that it does apply to the drinking IN an assembly. We believe the exhortation against drinking to excess applies to drinking at other times as well.
We believe that unity in Christ is hindered by the creation of worship laws which all in “the body” will be expected to obey. We see that we ARE called to be united. Anything we do which hinders our unity is wrong. Creating laws hinders unity.
Ray….I’m a little confused about your last two posts… In the first to Jay regarding singing in a “formal assembly” you suggest that the Eph and Col passages are about daily living rather than the corporate assembly… In your remarks to Alexander following, you suggest that there was no such thing as a “formal assembly”…if I’m understanding you correctly… That would mean that the teaching and speaking to one another through song as the Eph and Col passages state would then seem more to apply to the informal gatherings that you say were more the norm…That still makes them apply to the thought of a gathering of persons…One can’t “teach” or “speak” to another if another isn’t present… I agree with you on I Cor 14… just don’t think that the Eph and Col passages EXCLUDE our concept of worship with a “gathering” of people.. It does exclude it as a consideration of just a “personal” exercise it seems to me since someone else should be present.. Is that fair to your comments ?
Good for Alexander! He wrote:
You see, Jay, how many topics are interwoven here: “Eating in a church building”, “five (or more?) acts of worship”, “house church”, “one-anothering” – all of them are highly debated, because we traditionally understand “assembly” as a formal gathering for worship in a specially dedicated building that can hold hundreds of people, seated in pews facing a pulpit. All who hold fast to this “system” cannot and will not grasp the essence of a Christian meeting/assembly/get together.
And this is indeed the essence of Christian unity, starting with the smallest get-togethers (assemblies). Good for Alexander! But even when we’re gathered in large groups, we should strive for fellowship. At noon today I visited with a brother and his wife who are members of a very large congregation here in Joplin. (By very large, I only mean slightly over 2,000, which doesn’t qualify for large in many cities). Their comment was that indeed the “visiting” which occurs outside the assembly is a fine way for growing together as brethren. They testified that frequently they weren’t done visiting with others who had come for an earlier service even as the next service was coming to a close in the auditorium (sometimes called by other names). And it’s that sharing which Paul recommends in 1 Corinthians 14:26 as I understand him.
How greatly we do need to love one another. And if we love one another, we should diligently seek ways to work together to praise God together and to serve Him as one body. Anything which prevents fellowship is bad. Human worship laws (and God made no Christian worship laws) prevent fellowship. So aren’t they bad rather than good?
Alexander wrote: Just to bring all of this into the context of a-cappella singing: Most traditional home-meetings (and most folk singing) were and are a-cappella, not for spiritual reasons but because instruments are expensive and only relatively few are capable of learning one. That’s why e.g. Scottish and Irish folk-singing traditionally primarily was a-cappella, while instruments where used primarily for dancing or instrumental music (in both cases “exclusively” would be incorrect). So there is a “natural” aspect to “a-cappella worship”, too.
But if the topic is fellowship between other historic Disciple groups and Church of Christ groups, wouldn’t we want to acknowledge that many small groups enjoy guitar accompaniment? And also they enjoy singing hymns and gospel songs (Stamps-Baxter or whatever) as well. IF the apostle is creating a law against singing other than a-cappella (which he surely is not doing), and IF his comments to the church in Ephesus and in Philippi relate to assembled singing, then the law against use of guitars and harmonicas and other small instruments surely applies everywhere singing is done.
I believe we should realize that the apostle was not making a worship law, but was encouraging fellowship which included singing which many of us like to do. The topic is Christian unity, as I understand it. The way to unity is by us all loving Jesus and refusing to try to make laws unknown to the apostles barriers to the unity He desires for us. Should we be united in Christ? I say yes, we should be. Will we all agree on any particular worship laws? Obviously not. The anti-instrument law is a barrier to unity. We need to realize that it’s UNITY which is called for rather than agreement on laws not found in the writings of the apostles.
Ray,
the good thing is after a while the making of laws on top of laws and all must be obeyed or hell is your destination becomes so ridiculous that people start seeing that teaching as it really is.
Then they start leaving to seek a relationship with God instead of the man made laws.
We in the churches of Christ are at, or very near, that point now.
THANK GOD!!!!
One of the reasons, Ray, we “downsized” our church to a network of house-churches was the problem for the leaders to have regular fellowship with all members. Scott, our main preacher at that time, said that when he started a concersation this sunday it would most likely be continued a year later if he tries to give equal attention to each member in the congregation. After restructuring, each small-group leader is the shepherd of his small group, the burden is divided and each member gets the support and attention needed. Each church leader is engaged in a small group as well, but our leadership tasks are focussed on the whole church – esp. to maintain unity among the various house-churches, to provide sound teaching, to handle the “tougher” cases which cannot be solved by a house church alone and the like.
Alexander
P.S.: Our Sunday gatherings (assemblies) in the house churches actually run like I summed it up above. So I don’t write from theory, but I see it working in real life.
Todd wrote,
I had the same thought! And I agree that one of our unspoken and most dangerous assumptions is that there is one and only one way to do church right. We see little in the way of uniformity in the scriptures or in the ECFs. Yes, doctrine is uniform, but practices need not be.
Todd wrote,
Actually, it is exactly what we do now. Going back to Campbell’s articles on the Ancient Order, we’ve brought the ECFs as authorities on how to do church for 200 years! And look at how well that’s working.
To decide who is going to heaven and who can speak at a lectureship and who can lead a prayer, we have to compare views to the views of the ECFs — but only those views of the ECFs that support our traditional pattern of worship and church organization. Bring in ECF opinions that differ from our traditions, well, you can’t speak at our lectureship!
Thus, we’ve taken our traditional pattern of worship, inherited from the Calvinist churches and modified and simplified over the centuries, modified them a bit more with some Frontier Revivalism (the Invitation is a late 18th/early 19th Century innovation from Methodist and Presbyterian revival preaching), and then defend that tradition using the ECFs, claiming they had special knowledge not found in the Bible of what God really commands. Then ignore all evidence to the contrary — thus rejecting the love feast, daily gatherings, home meetings, sharing of goods, etc., etc.
Alexander wrote,
Ahh … now we’re on to something very interesting. Exactly!
The NT speaks of the laying on of hands in association with baptism. We don’t practice it, but we assume God endows the convert with the Spirit anyway. Perhaps the cautious approach would be to lay hands, indeed. Or perhaps the hands only symbolize what God is doing for the purpose of, as you say, “for assurance.”
Now, I ask you, why doesn’t the same logic apply to baptism? After all, we really can’t separate the receipt of the Spirit from salvation. God mediates our salvation via the Spirit!
Pingback: The Fork in the Road: “The Way of UNITY between “Christian Churches” and Churches of Christ,” Dec. 20-27 Comments | One In Jesus
Charles McLean wrote: If God is still speaking, where is the requisite “silence”? If He will reveal himself and his will to us in prayer, how can we see the canon as the hard limit of divine revelation?
———————————-
What is this about God revealing himself “and his will” to us “in prayer.” Prayer is us speaking to God. It is NOT God revealing Himself. No way. Not in the slightest. If we pray and then decide some teaching was true because we prayed about it, that does not make it so. We can and must see “the canon” as the hard limit of divine revelation. Otherwise, all the varying views of anyone must be accepted equally, whether or not they agree with what WAS revealed. Truth is found in writings we accept as having been inspired. We have no reason to believe that truth is changing as human opinions change. We have no reason to imagine that others are inspired and led into all truth as were the apostles of Jesus Christ. No, God does not in any sense at all reveal Himself or His will to us “in prayer.”
Charles McLean also says, and rightly, concerning “the regulative principle” held to by many in Church of Christ congregations and others like them: One logical problem is that NONE of our current system was either described or even hinted at by Jesus. As a new canon of law is never even vaguely suggested by Jesus, the regulative principle, if applied consistently and made subject to the actual words of Jesus, would prevent us from taking note of the rest of the canon. It is self-eliminating. (Jesus never said to follow the NT canon, so that paticular silence forbids us from doing so merely on the words of lesser men.) Yes, I find the result of that reasoning completely unacceptable, but I don’t try to keep the reasoning AND discard certain of its logical consequences. Since I find the consequences of this hermeneutic to be at odds with what revelation I do have from scripture, I reject the hermeneutic.
———————–
RAY: The regulative principle is wrong because it is clearly in opposition to what the apostles taught. That’s why we should reject it. But the basis for the distinctive doctrine held by all Church of Christ congregational leaders/preachers is that regulative principle. So they seek to create laws which they feel the apostles should have formulated. And of course they succeed in doing so. But still some in most churches love Jesus and accept HIS authority and seek to shape themselves according to teaching which came through His selected and empower apostles. The better we know the Bible, the better we will know Jesus and the Father.
Alexander writes: a) There is a historic approach to the issue: IM was not introduced until the middle ages, which is a fact. Chew on it. (Danny Corbitt got it wrong concerning the Odes of Salomo).
——————————-
RAY: The history which is most helpful to Bible students is found in the Bible. There is no indication in apostolic writings that congregational singing was a part of early assemblies of Christians. That singing was encouraged is obvious. That singing together in any assembly is not stated. The ONE verse which describes what Christians were to do is 1 Corinthians 14:26. It speaks of one person singing TO the others and one person prophesying TO the others and one person speaking in a tongue not known by the others but speaking TO the others (an interpreter was present or the speaking was not done, of course), but not one word about congregational singing. The purpose for their meeting was to eat together, Paul says. And he devotes attention to rules for right eating in their assemblies. But no word about a hymnal or a song leader or a worship leader. Or a clergyman like we think we must have. So shall we do as the apostle teaches? Few if any now do so.
Alan makes a judgment call. I think he’s exactly opposite of the truth. He wrote: Jay, I had in mind a time frame much earlier than 1939. By 1889 (Sand Creek Address and Declaration) the mold was already set. From my reading, the controversies began to raise their heads around 1850. In the next couple of decades, people had to decide which of two principles outweighed the other. And in the end, they decided that what they thought they saw in the scriptures (on subjects like instruments and missionary societies) outweighed the biblical principle of unity.
———————————————————
RAY: Indeed not! Our people did not lightly disregard “the biblical principle of unity.” That’s an odd way of looking at it. They simply refused to believe that some brothers had the right to create a law concerning what others must do in their assemblies and seek to impose their human law on all Christians. No indeed, we desired and do desire unity IN Christ. We have no desire to unite ourselves with legalism as if that were the gospel of Christ. Jesus we seek to obey. Human law-makers we must disregard as having any right to make laws we need to obey. Union based on submission to human legalists is not unity in CHRIST.
Charles McLean writes: Many of us do not read the New Testament as revised law. In fact, we find it downright puzzling that people read “the letter kills” and then continue right on to bind the letter on themselves and one another. We cannot imagine how a written code which has been cancelled is still in effect.
————————————–
The law code which has been cancelled is the Mosaic Law–Old Testament. The New Testament is not a law code. Charles and others is right that some create laws which they claim to get FROM the gospel of grace, and those laws are obviously NOT part of the gospel. Instead, they are of human origin. But these laws some seek to bind on us are not found in either the Old or the New Testaments. Obviously of human derivation, they must be ignored by all who love Jesus and seek to serve Him as Lord. We surely want to obey Jesus. We see that Jesus instructed the apostles that they were to represent HIM in their dealings in this world. They spoke for Him. Their teaching is authoritative. But they created not one single worship law. They exhorted the other disciples to LOVE and to demonstrate that love in all we do. But they set up no sacraments, no church regulations of any kind which we are compelled to follow. The instruction to guide us is that we all are to carry the gospel with us wherever we go and are to baptize in water those who come to believe in Jesus as Lord. We are urged to assemble with other believers and to edify one another when we are together. That’s all.
I wonder where this knowledge came from. Alexander proposes: Typology is very important even in understanding the atonement and justification – look at the way the apostles read and applied the OT. It’s not a legalistic aproach, but a meaningful aproach. Christians worshipped a-capella because they came to a deeper understanding of worship.
——————————————-
RAY: The scriptures are absolutely, totally silent about Christians ever meeting for a worship service. We are not told they sang together when they met together. We are not told if some brought a musical instrument to their meeting. We are surely not told they they were FORBIDDEN to bring a musical instrument to an assembly of the saints. So this anti-instrument law is totally foreign to apostolic Christianity. Not a hint from any apostle that musical instruments were at any time to be banned from a Christian’s experience. The anti-instrument law is of human derivation. It is not apostolic. We are not even told that early Christians even once met in order to do their worshiping together. Romans 12:1 speaks to the apostolic view of worship. It’s by how we live! It’s not something we have to meet with others to do, and there are no laws concerning what we are to do as worship. Not one. So the final sentence quoted above is total moonshine. Nothing factual in it at all. I’m sure Alexander thought he was speaking truth. He was saying things he has heard others teach. He is wrong.
Brenda says: I grew up in a very conservative church of Christ. Ephesians 5:19 was always the “go to ” verse against instrumental music. The case made was that even if psallo ment to “twitch or pluck” that the only instrument authorized was “the heart”. That arguement is still used today…However, if you use that strict hermaneutic, that the only instrument is the heart, couldn’t you just as well say that the only way we can “speak to ourselves’ is in “songs, hymns, and spiritual songs..”? That seems to break the restrictive use of the language in this particular verse.
—————————–
RAY: Good for Brenda. She sees that in Ephesians (and to the Colossians in a parallel passage) the apostle was not making a “worship law.” In fact, the context shows that he was talking about everyday life. And we could search all day and still will not find any “restrictive use of the language” by an apostle concerning Christian assemblies. We don’t find that they ever met for a worship service, by the way. Yet various Church of Christ sects (and other sects) have created many worship laws they say are apostolic.
Ken Sublett writes, along with much else: Author: Ken Sublett
Comment:
Price: Boles argument concludes, in all fairness, based on what he had been taught… Obviously, now that people like Danny Corbitt and otheers have presented scholarly works on this issue, we understand that the debate is not centered around “psallo” but rather “psalmos, hymnos, and ado.”
—————————————
RAY: If I may add a comment, I’ll do so. What debate do we speak of here? Why is there any question about the Greek words or their meaning? Shall we all pretend that the apostle is creating a law about what Christians are to do in their assemblies? I’m not willing to do that. It’s not correct at all, from the very first word of the “debate.” There are NO worship laws given by an apostle for Christians to observe. Not one. Well, except that James (brother to Jesus, not an apostle) urges that we show no favoritism in seating rich people in the best seats when we assemble. But all that is said about how our meetings should be conducted is found in Paul’s writing to the Corinthian church. And he sums it up in 1 Corinthians 14:26 which everyone who wants to debate things ignores, and those who plan and present our agenda in our meetings also are either ignorant of or choose to ignore. Some of course say that Paul was speaking there only of special spiritual gifts, which seems odd when we realize that in the verse one has a PSALM to share with the others. Is singing a special gift from the Spirit? We don’t usually think so.
Alexander writes: The Jerusalem church did not worship with IM, because they COULD NOT. Why? Because they were very Jewish, and knew that according to the regulations of OT worship IM was regulated in a way that only the Levites could play them in the temple.”
————————————
RAY: Question: How does Alexander know the Jerusalem church did not worship with or on musical instruments? Which verse tells of the Jerusalem church meeting even once for worship, let along singing while in a worship service? There are no such verses. Imagination speaks. But we seek truth based on what the apostles taught and practiced rather than on imagining what their worship services were like. And as for believing that we know exactly what the Jews did in the temple, I’m doubtful. What we know for certain about the matter is that it was GOD through His prophet who instructed David to train and use musicians in the temple which would be built by David’s son. There is absolutely no Bible reason to guess that God hates musical instruments or those who use them. It’s obvious that some are gifted by God in USE of musical instruments and some are not so gifted. It’s equally obvious that some are gifted by God in use of the voice, and some are less gifted and some can’t sing at all. If we were required to sing vocally, those who cannot carry a tune are in terrible trouble. But there is no such requirement. I promise you that God loves those who can and do play musical instruments just as much as He loves us who can sing vocally. And GOD is not responsible for even one worship law some seek to bind on all Christians.
How proud we should be of Brenda for noticing a simple truth many overlook. She wrote: Author: Brenda
Comment:
The Word says that whatever Peter bound on earth was already bound in heaven…and whatever they “loosed” on earth was already loosed in heaven. Therefore, if IM is in heaven, then would not the use of them be on earth?
———————————-
RAY: Note, please that she is not saying musical instruments must always be used in Christian assemblies. But how obvious it is to those who study the matter without prejudice that God loves musicians (and is source of their talent) just as He loves us who have no talent to play musical instruments, and their judicious use in Christian assemblies is surely pleasing to HIM. I also presume to believe that our singing as a congregation is approved by Him even if not commanded by Him. We have not one example of Christians assembling and singing IN the assembly while the apostles lived. I’m sure glad Brenda is thinking!
Alexander: you cannot isolate IM from OT worship.
———————————
RAY: Really? I can. I see no reason anyone else couldn’t. But when the subject is a Christian worship service, I beg for anyone who believes in such a thing to point us to even one instance where Christians are instructed to gather for worship or ever did so during the time the New Testament was being written. Jay? What’s a reference?
Alexander considers: That’s not what I do. My point is a reaction to the so often heard statement: God approved IM in the OT. All I say: If you use the OT as a guideline then be consistent.
——————————–
RAY: Right! Let’s BE consistent! God commanded David to make use of talented musicians in temple worship. God made NO commandment concerning Christian worship in Christian assemblies. No temple. No requirement concerning particular acts. Just the general requirement that it all be done “for edification.” That is, to bless one another as servants of the Lord Jesus. The apostles did not call for Christians to meet in order to there do their worship! Not once. No command. No example. Neither singing nor playing instruments is required of us as ones who love and seek to serve the Lord Jesus.
Alexander: The church did not use IM for well over 1000 years – and in some places even up to today. Those who split churches by introducing IM, by starting arguments, by benmding historic truth to their preferences … will be held accountable, but not by me (which is not the same as being damned, but of having to give an answer). I see no good fruit coming out of this controversy.
———————————————
RAY: I hope we all can agree there’s no merit in controversy about what God did not say! Amen, and amen! But if we are to form apostolic doctrine from what we think we know about church history, we’re in big trouble. And that’s what I see Alexander doing. The anti-instrument “in worship” law is totally non-apostolic. A PRACTICE of not using musical instruments was prevalent until churches could afford them and musical instruments became available. Arguments over whether or not they could be used in Christian assemblies are pointless as well as futile. We do not argue that we can use them despite some apostolic teaching to the contrary. We point out that God was SILENT about what we were to do in our assemblies. Any law anyone makes about what we can or cannot do while assembled is a human law. Those who seek to bind human laws on other Christians are out of order from the word GO. Please not that we are not demanding that others USE musical instruments. We are making no law. We’re content to accept apostolic example and doctrine. We could be united if all shared in letting the LORD lead us. Division is by choice of the lawmakers rather than by our action or decisions. Legalists have no right to create a law and say we have to obey it. Why would anyone think they HAD that right?
RAY: Now how did my computer eat that “e” in the word “note”? For shame, computer! By the way, I should explain that the reason for all these recent notes is that after the Joplin tornado I was unable to access my computer for a time, and then found that sofnet.com wouldn’t let me send responses using their service. They charged just the same as when they provided the service, but now they said I had to send using their webmail service. I’ve been unwilling to be limited as they now want me to be. So I’m sending from a gmail.com account which is not as satisfactory as sofnet.com used to be but which is acceptable. But the backlog of notes received is only now getting manageable, and I found it best to sort the unanswered notes alphabetically rather than by date. So I’m just now in the extremely long series of blog notes, and that means a multitude of notes from me. I try to keep them brief!
Alexander: As for the reast: All this sematics about the term “worship” are just leading away from the topic. Nowhere in the NT the teaching in the church is called “preaching” – and yet we use this term because it experienced a shift in its meaning. The same is true for “worship” – I prefer and use “assembly”, but “worship” became synomnymous to “assembly – since no one really has a clue what OT worship really meant anway.
————————————
RAY: That’s amazing. “Worship” means something different now? Of course it does not. It does NOT mean “assembly.” Read Romans 12:1 and try substituting assembly for worship to see just how preposterous is the claim that worship no longer means worship. Romans 12:1 (ESV) I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.
Yet I agree that many now use “the worship” to refer to the assembly of Christians. They are totally wrong to do so. But they do it anyway. I ask again for any reader to point to an apostolic exhortation for Christians to worship while assembled or for any record they ever did so during the apostolic age. We rightly worship by LIVING for Jesus every day in every way. Can you see that that’s what Paul clearly says in the verse quoted above?
We call our assemblies” worship” – that’s a change in terminolgy, a change in the meaning of words how we use them. Scripture is clear what worship does and does not mean. But all our debates on worship are actually not about worship but about the assemblies. In these assemblies we teach and encourage one another, and we also sing praises to God, break the bread, pray and have fellowship. In fact this is also part (!) of our worship as far as we do everything in love and in the name of God. But calling the assembly a “worship service” is indeed misleading, tempting us to “reduce” worship to a “formal” hour per week.
Alexander
In fact it was not about talent in teh OT, but certain Levites were appointed to play the instruments for certain occasions of the temple-worship. All of this was highly regulated, even the instruments. When the temple was rebuilt, the Jews did not just imrovise on the matter, but specifically “restored” David’s instruments and they way they should be applied:
What’s interesting is that there was a command on by whom and how the instruments shall be used. And their conviction was: Everything should be restored in the way it was in the beginning when these ordinances/directions/commands (depending on the translation you use) were given. You can find these commands in 2Ch 35:4-15.
Now the NT is different as you stated. But listen also to what Hebrews says:
Heb 7:12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.
This means we cannot point to the OT in order to argue for IM as some do: “God was pleased with IM in the OT so He will be pleased with IM today because He has not changed.” This overlooks the fact that IM was part of the Levitical system, the temple, the sacrifices. Now the priesthood has changed and the law therfore also, including all ceremonial ordinances.
Yes, our meetings as church are very different. WE are the temple of living stones, our worship consists of spiritual sacrifices and is a 24/7 matter. Even our singing is not accompanied by stringed instruments that have no life in them (Let al that has breath praise the Lord! – this makes intruments a shadow of a reality:), but by our hearts touched by the Spirit of God. The only instructions about singing are in Col 3:16 and in Eph 5:18-19. The latter one exchanges (it’s a quote from the Psalms) the instruments with our hearts. Grammatically (compared to the LXX) this sentence has the exact same structure as in the Psalms (Sing and play with the harp – Sing and play with your heart); so there is a shift from the OT to the NT that is consistent with all the other changes from the shadows to the body.
The Early Church understood this well, and it is amazing that while infant baptism was already introduced as early as around 200 AD, the churches remained a-capella until the middle ages (in the East until now). For me this is conclusive evidence of how we should handle the matter: Our attitude of restoration should be as diligent as that of Ezra and Nehemia, but in NT terms.
Alexander
Alexander wants us to abandon respect for the inspired apostolic writings in favor of accepting as equal authority the writings of later church leaders. “Theology without church history is necessarily in danger of missing the point,” he says.
I disagree. Jesus promised the apostles THEY would be led into all truth. No such promise was made to non-apostles.
Alexander says he wants AC to stand for “a cappella.” But in “our” unity movement, it is far more apt to stand as the initials of Alexander Campbell. So I suggest it should not be used as shorthand for “a cappella.” He also writes, “Ray, try to come away from the ‘law-approach!'” But I can’t possibly do that. I’ve never used a “law-approach” to studying the Way of Christ. I can’t abandon what I never used. I fully agree that the gospel of grace is not a code of laws. Yet the truths spoken by the apostles is fully true and to be believed and acted upon as the teaching of the Master. Anyone who considers the gospel as a code of laws should indeed quit using a “law-approach.” Is Alexander doing what he wants me to quit doing? In defending an anti-instrument law which is NOT of apostolic origin, he is using a law-approach. Why would he accuse me of doing what I’m not doing and he IS doing?
Correction: I should have used the plural verb with “truths spoken by the apostles” and instead put a singular verb in the sentence. I’m sorry. Please forgive me.
Charles McLean asks whether or not Jesus gave us all the instructions we needed, and only those we needed in the 27 books of the New Testament. He writes, “Could we lose the book of Philemon or 3 John and still know how to be saved? If we lost one of the synoptic gospels, would we still be able to follow Jesus?”
I’m satisfied that early church leaders examined many other writings of the post-apostolic period as well as during their lifetimes. THEY decided that the 27 we now have as the apostolic writings were the ones inspired by God. I have no reason at all to disagree with them. It’s obvious that some do disagree and seek to consider other writings of those years equally inspired. Alexander suggests we MUST consider such uninspired writings as being of equal import as the 27. I think not.
Ray, if you believe in the BIBLE as the only source, then we should quit preaching and be content with reading. But as we speak, we should do so as if we were speaking in the name of God, Peter said. So, there IS inspiration beyond the written letters. OK, this may lead to a whole set of new questions … Alexander.
Thanks, Alexander. Is there apostolic teaching or example concerning us in our assemblies having a hired “preacher” leading our thoughts? There surely IS an example of Paul writing to a church and encouraging the reading of what he had written so all could hear and be blessed. But our clergy system is unscriptural at best. I see merit in Jay Guin’s blogs, and they are not just sharing apostolic writings. I see much good in mutual edification in our assemblies, however it can be done. And if we respect the apostolic writings, they surely should be featured in our discussions, in my opinion. I hear excellent sermons on occasion. The best ones are expounding apostolic teachings, with personal stories interspersed on occasion. How blessed we are when we are together hearing again and again stories about our Lord and His call for us to serve Him and live daily for Him.
Price suggests: Ray…do you not distinguish between the prophetic voice used by the Corinthian church members and “scripture?” I don’t find in scripture any passage that says the “gifts” have ceased….therefore, by your own preference for scriptural guidance, the gifts are still in play…and the Holy Spirit is still doing what He does best…guiding us toward Truth…
RAY: I surely do distinguish between the leading God gave in His church prior to the availability of the “books” we feel are apostolic and the books themselves. It was said by inspiration that the gifts of which you speak would cease. No timetable was given. But the last book of the 27 was likely written prior to the year 100. The canon was settled some 200 years later. I am very impressed by some current preachers and writers who speak about things of God. Some are terrifically good. But they are not apostles. Their inspiring words may be a big blessing to many. I’m sure they are, just as we hope what WE write may bless and not curse. But I’m confident that we do not need to add new books to the 27 and feel all are equally inspired. I look forward to in Tulsa March 21-24 hearing helpful and encouraging words from Jay and Al and Patrick and several others. I will not be adding their words to the list of apostolic writings. But I surely will appreciate the opportunity to hear them. I will be offering for sale there a book (one of the books I’ve written and published) which I hope will encourage those who buy and read it. But it will not become a part of anyone’s list of apostolic writings.
With respect, I’m sure it was with respect for he says it was, Price writes: Ray, with all due respect…it seems to me that you are appealing to man to affirm your position on gifts…Wasn’t that what you just got through criticizing Alexander and others for doing… Just show me where the scripture says that gifts ended and that the Holy Spirit would no longer choose to empower others to do whatever He wanted them to do. If you’re going to establish a theological position, it should be done only with scriptural authority and not anecdotal evidence from some person some where….according to your own words. At least as I understood them…please correct me if I misunderstood you.
RAY: The apostles wrote before they died. The last person who had been anointed by an apostle died several years AFTER the apostles had all died. The books we call the New Testament of the Bible were written but not yet codified and available until some years later. I suspect that during those intervening years, and possibly even until we finally got around to having printing presses and Bible readily available, that spiritual gifts may have continued. And they may be continuing yet today. I’m not the one who can say yea or nay to that idea. All I’m confident about is that soon after 300 A.D. the church leaders consulted together and agreed after considerable discussion that the 27 books we have as the New Testament were THE ones which reflected apostolic teaching correctly. They obviously considered many other writings. The 27 passed muster. Please don’t suppose I am saying God can’t speak to us today if He chooses to do so. Through anyone, anywhere, at any time.
But I am SURE that I believe the 27 books (as are also the 39 of the Old Testament) are the voice of God. Any speaking or writing which conflicts with what is in the 27 (or 39) books is not going to get MY vote of approval as being inspired by God. Nor do I feel the 27 (and 39) are inadequate to guide us in the Way. I am not still seeking new (improved?) truths. I’m satisfied with what is in the 27 books we call the New Testament writings. Do some of us want different truths? It might seem so.
Jay writes: (1Co 14:26 ESV) 26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.
It’s reading a lot into the passage to presume that “each one has a hymn” (literally as “psalm”) necessarily means that one person sings a solo. To reach that result, we must presume that Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16 speak ONLY of singing in a group outside the assembly, whereas only solos were sung in the assembly.
—————————-
RAY: I see no reason to bring into an understanding of Paul’s instructions to the church in Corinth unrelated passages if it’s the Corinthian passage we seek to understand. It can’t be doubted that Paul encourages singing and playing to and about God by Christians in groups OR alone. But in 1 Corinthians 14:26 he is very clearly speaking of things ONE does while the others listen. And to say it’s presumptuous to seek to understand the apostolic advice to the one group is to say too much. He is clearly not speaking of leading a congregational psalm. The word is “Each HAS.” It is not “Each LEADS.” I’m not at all opposed to congregational singing. I very much favor it. But that is NOT what Paul was writing about in this verse. And what he wrote in the two parallel passages to Ephesians and Colossian Christians is obviously not limited to particular places or times.
We are free to sing to and about God any time anywhere, with or without musical instruments being involved. We are FREE in Christ! But the verse in his letter to the Corinthians is about ONE person singing to the group. Or one person prophesying or one speaking in a “tongue.” EACH has. ONE to the others, taking turns.
On Dec. 17th Alexander wrote: … In the course of the meal they broke bread and shared the cup, but they had more wine with the meal (hence twice we are warned not to get drunk – 1Co 11 and Eph 5, which BTW confirms that Eph 5:18-19 indeed speaks of the assembly)…
RAY: And how right he is that the early church didn’t have a ceremonial ritual and call it a supper. They ate a MEAL together during which time they honored Jesus as they ate bread and drank wine during the meal.
But this comment above that since Paul in Ephesians warns against drinking too much (as he reproved the Corinthians who did so) proves that he was writing there about the assemblies ignores the fact that the context proves he was speaking there about any time anywhere rather than just wrongfully getting drunk during the eating of the Lord’s supper. The advice about getting drunk in his letter to Corinth was specifically about overdrinking during the Lord’s Supper meal.
In the Ephesian letter Paul was giving advice about living for Jesus every day and singing to and about Him any day. Good advice for good living.
A blogger wrote about “Christians who have not heard about baptism.” I wonder how a person could become a Christian without experiencing the new birth of water and spirit which culminates in water baptism. I wish he had worded his statement, “Sinners who believe in Jesus and seek to follow Him but have not heard about baptism.” I’m convinced that every Christian has already been baptized into Christ. I’m sure that many others have heard about Jesus and some of them may thoroughly believe in Him as the risen Lord. But I do not believe they are made Christians by only believing in Him or even by seeking to live by His teachings. I think it urgently important that we do our best to make clear to everyone who will listen that Jesus calls for sinners who hear of Him and believe in Him to repent and be baptized. And THEN we join with other believers in serving Him and helping one another in the Way. We can even call non-Christians our brothers and sisters, realizing that we are kin through Adam and Noah. And we can work with ones who love Jesus but are not baptized. Why would we not do so?
A brother writes: Therefore my “full” salvation is conditional. I have to maintain this obedient love-faith-relationship to the end.
And supposes he’s not fully saved until this life is over. But that’s not Christianity. Acts 2:38 points out how sinners are changed into saved people, ones whose sins are remitted and who HAVE received the Holy Spirit. And the apostle Paul in Galatians 3:26,27 makes clear that we have passed from death into life. We are baptized INTO Christ. In Romans 6 he points out that we are buried in baptism, then raised up INTO NEW LIFE. We at that time are fully saved. Are we sinless? No, but our sins are covered by the blood of the Lamb of God, and as long as we are repentant, not seeking to sin but seeking to NOT sin, we are fully assured of salvation! If Alexander was baptized INTO Christ, he was immediately completely and fully saved. We are raised up into new life when we obey the gospel.
Ray opined: I’m satisfied that early church leaders examined many other writings of the post-apostolic period as well as during their lifetimes. THEY decided that the 27 we now have as the apostolic writings were the ones inspired by God. I have no reason at all to disagree with them.
>>>
Mom told me that my great-grandfather was half-Cherokee. I have no reason to doubt her, but that in and of itself does not provide us with any additional evidence as to whether my ancestor was half-Indian or actually half-Lithuanian. The fact that I agree with someone is not evidence of anything.
Ray, please forgive me if I seem to split hairs here, but I would like to make a seemingly minor distinction which has major consequences. I realize that several early councils of church leaders offered their view that the 27 books were from God. I think it is overreaching when you add the term “the ones” to identifying inspired writings. Take those two little words from your statement and see how differently it reads. And, IMO, how much more accurate it is. By analogy:
Ray and I looked all over the produce section and found some bananas. We bought those and shared them with our families. We said, “Hey, we found real bananas!” We did NOT say, “Hey, we found all the real bananas there are!”
That would have been overstating what we found. Just as it would be for those leaders to tell people that the 27 books were all the revelation from God that there was then… or is now.
Two points:
a) When we rely on the ECF onm this crucial matter of the canon, why should we treat them as incompetent in other matters of church life and doctrine?
b) I’m not viewing the ECF as equal to the NT since they themselves did not do this either. They are the best source available next to the NT, giving us insight in the earliest applications and understanding of the NT by men who grew up in churches built by the apostles, led by elders appointed by the apostles – and one or two generations beyound (I do see a difference in the development from the 2nd to the 3rd century).
Alexander
This is very important, because here a lot of misleading doctrines are passed around. No, salvation is not a one-time-event! You cannot take baptism verses that speak of our “initial reconciliation” and new birth as if they were a finished work. I tried to make clear that salvation is walking the path after we have entered the gate.
Baptism is only the first step of our salvation, the “hard” (or narrow) way is our life in discipleship. We have to walk this way to the end, in order to be finally (or fully) saved.
What happens when we are baptized? We become one with Christ, receive forgiveness of our former sins. the Holy Spirit, a new birth. And tremendous truths these are! But is this all? Are we “fully saved” then?
As I said elsewhere, “guarantee” is a misleading translation. KJV renders the word “earnest”, the Greek has the meaning of a downpayment. A downpayment is not the full price. You pay the builder a downpayment so he is able to start the work, but you will pay the rest when the house is finished – and you won’t pay the rest when he does NOT finish the job.
There are two sides to the completion of God’s work in us. One side is expressed here, Christ is at work in us. But note: The work is NOT finished – so how can we say we are FULLY saved, if scripture clearly says the opposite?
That’s the other side of the coin: We must see that our love does not grow cold through lawlessness – we must endure to the end in order to be saved! Salvation here lies in the future! Does that mean we are NOT saved after all? By no means, but salvation is a life-long process.
A parable which makes this very clear is the one of the seed and the different soils:
On the way the word was not received – no repentance, no regeneration. But on all other grounds the word was received, and new life began to grow. Regeneration took place, it’s about people to whom Acts 2:38 would apply. They were saved. But what happened then? One fell away in persecution – the new life died. One was choked by the sorrows and pleasures of this world – the new life died. Only those who remained alive and brought forth fruit are the ones who are saved in the end – it’s at this point in our biographies when we can be called “fully saved” (or lost after all).
Today we are still in the process of growth – we may bring fruit or we may fall away again. Both is equally possible to each one of us. Therefore Paul says:
We must maintine this humble attitude which “forces” us to hold fast to Christ. The idea of being already fully saved often creates an “independent” life style, as if we don’t really need Christ that much anymore, since we already received all He can give us.
But there is a day of judgment also for us, and we will be judged according to our fruit and works. This day will ultimately determine our salvation. Many, many who were born again will be denied (!) by Christ:
“I never knew you” does not mean that they were never born again. They had the gifts of the Spirit and did mighty works in His name. Christ does not say that these were fake gifts and works! These are the words by which Christ will deny those Christians who were constantly disobedient to His Father’s will. May we not be among these!
To clarify: I understand the phrase “fully saved” to be synonymous to “once saved always saved” – to this I strongly object. If you use this in a completely different sense then we are talking past each other all the time. “Once saved always saved” or “fully saved” rarely produces wise men who build solidly on the rock of obedience (Mat 7:24-27) but rather dreamers who think that no rain will ever hit their roof.
I am convinced that Christ said these words with much fear and trembling and tears in His eyes, looking at us, pleading with us to be serious about the Kingdom.
Alexander
Alexander wants us to respect and study non-canonical writings of early church fathers. I feel we should study the Bible itself if we seek apostolic advisories. If the early church fathers had considered other writings inspired and accurate, any of them, surely they would have included those other “inspired” writings as being inspired and apostolic. They did not do so. I think we have plenty of light from the known-to-be-inspired writings so that we don’t need to seek additional info as to what the apostles taught and practiced. If we are not satisfied with the writings KNOWN (by early church fathers) to be inspired, what do we gain by seeking other sources of knowledge on the subject? I’m sure the 27 books provide all the guidance needed for us to be in union with Jesus and His Father.
The early (NT) churches were not limted to the written word, but also had the spoken words and living examples of the apostels. Two verses to underline this:
Both are aspects of apostolic teaching that supplement their written legacy. In fact, our understanding of apostolic teaching often is incomplete because we lack these additional sources. For instance Paul closed the 11th chapter in 1st Corinthians like this:
So there is more to the topics than what was written in the previopus verses! In fact, had the Corinthians been a better and more obedient church this letter would never have been written! Of headcoverings for instance we’d only know from “church tradition” and the ECF, Ray! And you know what: Even though it is right in our Bibles, we find every cunning way to explain them away!
Now think a bit with me: Is it imaginable that a number of ambiguities could be easily solved by listening to those who grew up in churches where the apostles personally taught? Or even from letters of companions of the apostles (such as Clement of Rome, Polycarp or Ignatius)?
If you want to go by scripture alone, don’t you contradict scripture (e.g. the quoted verses)?
Alexander
It’s good that Alexander seeks truth! He writes: Baptism is only the first step of our salvation, the “hard” (or narrow) way is our life in discipleship. We have to walk this way to the end, in order to be finally (or fully) saved.
And I have to protest that baptism is the LAST step in the new birth of water and spirit. It MUST be preceded by faith in Jesus as Lord which causes the sinner to turn away from sin. And THEN, according to the apostle Paul, two things happen. The former sinner now is raised INTO NEW LIFE, and the sinner has been baptized “INTO Christ.” He can lose his salvation of course if he chooses sin rather than continued obedience, but the sinner is now SAVED and SURE of eternal life with no reason whatever to suppose further actions will buy his salvation. We are saved by the blood of Christ which is figuratively applied AT BAPTISM. Our salvation is sure. It’s not in doubt. If we are IN Christ, we are saved from sin.
But Alexander is correct in seeing that we can turn away from salvation and LOSE it. the writer of Hebrews, in chapters 6 and 10 speaks of this very possibility. Alexander is right!
Ray…in comparison…how far must one turn away to loose their salvation ??….farther than the prodical son ?? Is it a culmination of mistakes that add up or just one big one ?
Farther than Peter’s denial ? Farther than Anninas and Sapphira ?? Please identify the edge of no return so we can avoid it entirely…
The answer is here:
Alexander
Alexander…Thanks for the Hebrews 3 passages… Its seems the woman that wrote this…. says that unless we turn into evil and unbelieving people and instead maintain our confidence (faith) until the end…we aren’t going to loose our salvation !!
That seems like something one can put their trust in… It doesn’t require or even suggest perfection, but rather a trusting and believing faith… Hebrews 11:6
That’s it, Price. Our focus must be Christ and not our weaknesses.
Yet, the warning is (obviously) necessary: We can be deceived by sin, our hearts can (gradually, not immediately) become hardened. The Israelites in the desert are a well chosen example (see also 1Co 10:1-13).
We don’t have to live in constant fear of our salvation – but we are called to be watchful.
Alexander
I wonder how long it would take a person of true faith to turn into an totally evil person who no longer believed in God? I guess we have Job’s wife…Judas… Perhaps it is disappointment with intended outcomes that drive us away from what we say we believe in… I see it in friends who are experiencing sickness and death…financial hardship…things that thought wouldn’t happen if they loved Jesus… Maybe the warning is to those of us who might be placed by Him in a position to be supportive and helpful in time of need..
Price,
Not evil, but not believing in God anymore happens way too often.
When they try and try and cannot live as perfect as they are taught they must, many have just given up. Its a hard life knowing at any moment if you die hell is your destination because of something you did or didn’t do regardless if you knew about it or not.
God being a merciful and a loving God has not been taught or believed by so many.
So sad and tragic to see them just give up.
Price asked:
Besides the fact that this is impossible to know, I also think it is a completely unfounded question. As humans, we can’t help but view these types of questions in a temporal way, but in “God time” a day is one thousand years and visa versa.
It always comes back to our hearts. I’m persuaded that a person could make a heart change this very second that would take him out of his relationship with God. More, I am also persuaded that a saved person could struggle mightily with sin for the rest of their life (think a drug addict living on the street) and remain in fellowship with God.
Why? Because I don’t think it is a “time thing.” It’s a heart thing.
Alabama J…. I see your example as somebody giving up on religion…not God…Unfortunate is an understatement that people teach the Gospel as being a new set of rules that one must follow or fall from God’s favor…
JMF…. Do you honestly believe that a true believer has a total shift in what they believe overnight ?? Seriously? How does one go from total faith and dependence on God to not believing in Him at all… I don’t think the question was unfounded at all…it’s generally not in people’s character to radically change in an instant… it’s a process… and something to watch for in ourselves as well as others… not out of fear but of love to help in time of need..
Price asks:
I think we must acknowledge that as a possibility, as that is what keeps us in check to understand the power of sin.
A hypothetical played out in real time: I have faith, but I don’t exercise it much. I struggle with porn. One day, I give in to my urges. My realistic rationalization: “God, I try to follow you and do good and my life still sucks. I may as well give the world a shot.” I fall back into a sin trap. I say, “I know I shouldn’t do this, but right now it is the best thing I’ve got going.”
I continue in my sin. Since sin separates us from God, so my ability to hear my Shepherd becomes dulled. The flame of the Spirit is an ember. Before long, I no longer have regret. I enjoy my sin. Since I cannot hear the Shepherd, my mind is flooded with doubt, skepticism, and then atheism. I no longer have faith, and I couldn’t care less.
Now, the question is, Price: At what point did I lose my faith? I don’t know. But it must be acknowledged that I chose to take a single step that put this entire thing into motion.
I can understand if this sounds like harsh and legalistic old-school doctrine. It isn’t at all. But I believe one can fall away from faith at some point. Likewise, I believe (as I said earlier) that a person could be consumed in sin the rest of their life and still be safe with the Shepherd. It’s your heart. Are you denying Him?
But the scary thing is that (I believe) sin dulls us to Him, and that opens us up to the kinds of things/thoughts that would lead us to that denial.
That all said, I’d probably be considered a Universalist so at the very end of the day, I think God will get what he wants and all will be saved. 🙂
Any sinner outside of Christ can choose to repent and be baptized if they learn of and trust Jesus as Lord. Any sinner still alive can repent and return to salvation if they have once been reborn of water and spirit. Check out Hebrews 6 and 10 and believe that the writer of those promises is speaking for God.
JMF suggests: at the very end of the day, I think God will get what he wants and all will be saved. 🙂
We will agree that God will get what He wants at the end. We are warned that in that great judgment day we all will be brought before the Judge. Some will be on His right. Some will be on His left. Some will go into eternal life. Some will be sentenced to eternal death. Yes, God WILL surely get what He wants. It won’t be what JMF suggests! No smiley. The sermon on the mount also points out that some will “build” on a good foundation. Others, who built on a poor foundation, will not have a happy outcome.
A brother suggests, “Ray- the commands concerning the holy kiss are multiple and direct…” And I say, What “commands” are being pointed to? Baptism is a command of Jesus and clearly applies to us all. We are to preach everywhere we go and then baptize those who believe. Jesus commands it.
But the “greet one another with a holy kiss” admonitions are in every case directed to members of a particular congregation where such greetings were habitual and expected and common to them all. I’m positive that there is not even one command for all Christians to greet one another with a holy kiss. And to try to convert Paul’s exhortation concerning expressions of brotherly love into a requirement that we adopt a form of greeting wholly foreign to OUR culture is not helpful in the slightest.
From Paul’s writings, we see that we ought to recognize our shared love by loving all our brothers and sisters in the faith. But many men would object strenuously if some man started kissing the wives of other men. If the preacher did it, wouldn’t the church rather quickly get a different preacher? If not, they surely should! But less intimate greetings are routinely shared among us. And this is good.
Todd Collier is thinking and speaking well:
My point is that we take far less and create a hell or heaven choice while ignoring things that were expressly given as commands for the same reasons others reject the commands we see as binding. I believe Jesus called it straining at gnats and swallowing camels. I am not trying to get anyone to follow this command unless they are trying to bind similar commands on others. Paul clearly stated that if you are tryong to be saved by Law you better keep the whole thing. If you turn the NT into law you better not leave anyhing out. You can’t bind the laws our traditionalists teach which they have found in the nooks and crannies of scripture and not enforce those things that are plainly spoken.
——————–
He’s speaking well EXCEPT that we have no right to seek to bind any requirement of our own making on anyone in or outside the church. And the “laws” which describe the various Church of Christ sects are not found even in “the nooks and crannies of scripture.” They are based on the SILENCE of the Scripture–on what was NOT said by any apostle or by the Lord Jesus. Apostolic doctrine clearly and plainly calls for us to be members of ONE body. But some say that only those who accept their human laws are acceptable in THEIR body. Then they claim their body is the true church of God and Christ. For shame.
If the apostles did indeed require that followers of the Way must greet one another with a kiss, then we would have no choice but to obey that command. In fact, they never said any such thing, despite Todd’s thinking and claiming that they did so. In another post I’ve pointed out that each exhortation for some to greet others with a kiss was directed to members of a particular congregation, where obviously in that culture the “holy kiss” was a common form of greeting. But for us to assume that means WE in a vastly different culture should kiss one another is to create law where none is given by an apostle.
Ray… How did you determine that some churches habitually greeted one another with a holy kiss and others did not ?? Are you suggesting that Paul issued instructions for some Christians in some locations that did not apply to other people in different locations with different habits and traditions ?? Are we tonassume that these instructions might not apply to us today based on our traditions and habits 2.000 years removed. Which congregation do you believe had the most appropriate habits and traditions that we should pattern ??
Outreach. Absent any historical or scriptural reference, we are to disregard a biblical Instructionon Based on obvious independent conclusions ?? that sounds line what would lead to mass disagreement and division.
Price asks Ray: Ray… How did you determine that some churches habitually greeted one another with a holy kiss and others did not ?? Are you suggesting that Paul issued instructions for some Christians in some locations that did not apply to other people in different locations with different habits and traditions ?? Are we tonassume that these instructions might not apply to us today based on our traditions and habits 2.000 years removed. Which congregation do you believe had the most appropriate habits and traditions that we should pattern ??
————————————————–
The implication is that we must search out the habits of each congregation to whom Paul wrote and then weight the merits of those habits so we can determine which ones we are required to emulate. I hope Jay will comment on this suggestion. I suggest that it’s not the habits of any congregation which should provide a pattern for our practice of Christianity. But the teaching and example of the apostles is source of our knowledge of how to believe and practice the Way of Christ. Common sense is helpful in weighing what is written. If men then wore beards, should we wear beards? If women then were told to not braid their hair, is that a sign that our women must never braid their hair?
Or do we do better to seek light on how disciples in that day sought to honor Jesus in their words and deeds? Scholars do seek to weigh the words of inspired writers. And so must we all. And if we think those words demand that we kiss one another, then we’d surely better do it! And not make excuses if we don’t do it! But what is exampled and taught about becoming and living as a Christian are to my notion considerably more important than trying to become just like the people to whom Paul and others wrote with inspired advice. They lived differently than we do. They ate differently than we do. They didn’t, gasp!, speak English as we do. We must do our best to imitate Jesus in thought and deed and to live according to the advice given by His apostles. I don’t think that means we need to kiss one another! I think Price is misunderstanding what he’s reading.
Alexander argues that we should follow the oral tradtions of the apostles recovered from reading the apostolic fathers. I addressed this argument some time ago —
/2010/11/new-wineskins-a-thought-experiment-on-sola-scriptura/
/2010/11/new-wineskins-a-thought-experiment-on-sola-scriptura-and-the-historical-argument-part-2/
I looked at the writings of the Patristic writings that actually claim to be from the apostles, and found them seriously wanting — obviously not apostolic at all.
Then I point out that the New Testament was written at a time when rabbis memorized vast amounts of “oral law,” called the “traditions,” in those days. Those traditions were zealously guarded and passed down verbatim generation to generation by Jewish scholars.
If the Spirit and the apostles intended to create a binding oral tradition, why wasn’t that tradition memorized, guarded, and preserved with at least that much care? Surely, with the help of the Spirit, the Christians could have done at least as much as the Spirit-less rabbis! Where is the Christian Talmud?
It didn’t happen. There is no such deposit of unwritten tradition to be found. Rather, some read the ECFs and extract the portions that, subjectively, they conclude to be apostolic while ignoring those portions of the ECFs they prefer not to follow.
Alexander,
Don’t I recall that Ignatius insisted on monarhical bishops, as successors to the apostles? Epistle to the Magnesians 6.1
If Ignatius had access to an authoritative oral tradition, and if Ignatius taught that the bishops succeed to the authority of the apostles, does the Church of Christ in Austria have a single bishop? And which apostle does he succeed?
Ray opined: “But the “greet one another with a holy kiss” admonitions are in every case directed to members of a particular congregation where such greetings were habitual and expected and common to them all.”
>>>
I find this intrepretive tack wholly unexpected and entirely fascinating. If followed consistently, it takes any admonition given to a particular group of believers and limits it to those believers. In addition, this interpretive approach suggests that unless a group of believers is already practicing a thing, we need not concern ourselves with any admonition to do so. Like water baptism, perhaps, or the Lord’s Supper.
Since applying instructions given to first century Corinth to the 21st century church in Arkansas is the sine qua non of evangelical biblical thought, Ray’s approach is quite surprising.
There is no such term as “monarchical bishop” in any of his letters. By coining this we read back later developments into his letters. What is true is that the church leadership was threefold instead of twofold (bishop-presbyzters-deacons – presbyters-deacons).
Instead of reacting defensively we might question why. Just a few years before these letters were written, the apostle John finsished his race in Asia Minor. Is it imaginable that such a “dramatic shift” (as we see it to be) took place in such a short in time in all of Asia Minor? Or is it not more likely that the threefold leadership is a structural development approved/introduced by John himself?
Consider the following interesting steps:
a) First the churches were founded by Apostles/Missionaries
b) Then the young churches were led by prophets and teachers
c) After some time elders should emerge and be appointed (such a transitin is remarkably documented in the Didache, but can be seen by a careful study of all epistels in the NT also).
d) Not documented prior to 70 AD, but very likely: When churches begann to really fill the cities, the eldership of the city (church-leadership was citywide) needed a “president”, one who called together the presbyters, presided their meetings, was their spokesman …
One thing special to the letters of Ignatus which make them a bit ” dangerous”: They were written in a hot phase of the battle against the Gnostics, so he emphasized leadership to an extreme. If we take his admonistions (“Do nothng wothout the bishop!”) out of this context – which in fact later happened – we end with a “monarchical bishop”. But read in their context these letters are actually ver profitably, as also Polycarp rmarked in his letter to the Philippians.
Yet they were never treated as scripture or equal to it.
It seems that “binding” is a favorite term to describe the “fear of clarity”. Let#s simply accept the fact that not everything in the NT has been spelled out in written form, but it has been lived out to a much larger degree than the epistles describe. Can we agree on this?
OK – this then lieaves us with some uncertainties that so very often lead to unnecessary debates among us (among the churches of Christ, here in the Blog, not only between you and me). Some for instance argue that Paul condemned eating together in 1Co 11 – others maintain that he just regulated their meals. You know such unfruitful discussions very well. Can they be solved? The matter can be settled once for all, as soon as we look into the life and practice of the 2nd century church of Christ!
Our approach is 21st century after a number of more or less successful attemopts to reform and restore Christ’s church since it changed so very much in these last 2000 years. Some things we take for granted and scriptural which are all but apostolic! Even well respected scholars have their blind spots, especially when they want to serve their denomination or church tradition. The tendency to read back our practices and understanding into the NT is found everywhere. It’s only when we dare to say: “I don’t care what my church traditions say, I want to know the facts”, we can make progress. This is an uncomfortable place, because you might very well end up aliented from your church. Thus we are all very, very cautious.
The result: We hold fast to our man-made church traditions that evolved in the succession of numers attemts to restore the church, and continue to neglect the testimony of those who grew up in the churches founded by the apostles, who spoke Greek as their daily language, who knew the Ancient Customs 1st hand to which the epsitles frequently refer (e.g. banqueting) … who hald a wealth of memories of what the apostles aid and did.
I am NOT thinking of a “binding orla tradition”, but just of the normal course of life, Jay. Some imagine the church became apostate immediately after J0hn died (around 100 AD), but this means the apostles were failures who were unable to build churchs that last longer than one generation. This also means the Spirit left the churches or wqs unable to guard and lead them on. The implications of such theories that were raised only to justify our differing understanding ofthe NT (compared to the 2nd century church) are terrible: Christ’s church cannot be overcome by the gates of Hades, but crumbled into apostasy within one generation? I suppose you don’t go that far, but something to that extend is being taught in almost all conservative Protestant churches.
Again: It’s about the normal course of life! A different example: Some argue that the head-covering in Co is simply long hair. This idea came up probably 100 years ago or so and it really made its way through alomnst all denominations. But we can know for sure how it looked and was meant by looking into the writings of Clement of Alexandria (Egypt), Tertullian (Carthage), Hippolytus (Rome) and Ireneaus (Lyon, but coming from Asia Minor), as well as the pictures in the Catacombs. THere are no open questions anymore about:
a) Was this simply a local Corinthian issue? No this was practiced in ALL churches (as Paul himself says).
b) Is it long hair? No it is a cloth-covering.
c) Is it binding? Yes, it was meant to be obeyed.
When we rule out the ECF as relevant sources to help solving our disputes, we are thrown back to our 21st century traditions which vary from church spli to church split and the (so far) fruitless attempts to harmonize them with scripture. Yes: What we mostly try is to defend our 21st century version of Christianity with the 1st century NT. Ignoring the enormous gap between the two. Dismissing all voices of the past who had no less Holy Spirit than we claim to have.
This isn’t convincing at all, Jay.
Alexander
Maybe a few words on this as well: Is apostolic succesion really that weird (BTW Ignatius to my knowledge did not speak of “Apostolic Succesion”)? Wait before you listen to your emotions:
I think we can fairly say that is verse contains the principle of succesion. Paul leaves the scene, urging Timothy to take care that what he (Paul) taught will be taught three generations later as well. Following elements are crucial:
a) What Paul taught among many witnesses – it’s not a “secret” doctrine as some Gnostics wanted to introduce.
b) It shall be entrusted not to anyone, but to faithful men – which implies a “selection process”: Elders shall never be appointed hastily but with great care.
c) Three generations later the exact same teachings should be taught with no alterations – the faith handed down to the saints once and for all.
There is a need for “apostolic” succession – not in a “mysterious” and “sacramental” way, but in a very “down-to earth” way. When Irenaeus (who – as far as I know – first brought up this topic around 180 AD) talked about apostolic succession he had this in mind – of course, as we all see, 2000 years later things look way different because of the sum-total of gradual changes throughout church history. But within the first few generations this was a good approach and safeguard against the Gnostics.
Therefore I like to look back to these early generations of churches of Christ to back up and/or correct my understanding of scripture.
Alexander
Charles McLean — Comment: Ray opined: “But the ‘greet one another with a holy kiss’ admonitions are in every case directed to members of a particular congregation where such greetings were habitual and expected and common to them all.”
I find this intrepretive tack wholly unexpected and entirely fascinating. If followed consistently, it takes any admonition given to a particular group of believers and limits it to those believers.
RAY: “If followed consistently” is an interesting twist on what I wrote. When the apostle wrote about a command given by the Lord Jesus, the fact that he wrote to “a particular group of believers” does not limit it to those believers. What I have pointed out is that when the apostle speaks of a custom peculiar to the particular people to whom he was writing, his admonition may not apply to us who are not the particular people to whom he was writing. But when he writes about things NOT peculiar to “the particular people to whom he was writing,” then his advisory is applicable to all who read it.
In addition, this interpretive approach suggests that unless a group of believers is already practicing a thing, we need not concern ourselves with any admonition to do so.
RAY: This statement is totally incorrect, of course. And equally, it is unhelpful in the extreme.
Like water baptism, perhaps, or the Lord’s Supper.
Since applying instructions given to first century Corinth to the 21st century church in Arkansas is the sine qua non of evangelical biblical thought, Ray’s approach is quite surprising.
RAY: The only surprise is in the twist given it. The advice itself is helpful and instructive. A desire to bind kissing on us because early Christians in the time of the apostles in the area where Paul worked for Jesus had that custom is not wise understanding of apostolic teaching and example. Paul walked a good bit, and fled from a city once by being lowered in a basket over the city wall in order to escape enemies. We make no effort to imitate his example in such matters. Likewise we do NOT greet one another by kissing one another in the U.S.A. Nor should we do so. Common sense dictates that we obey the apostle’s admonitions concerning living for the Lord, but are not required to look like or dress like or speak as did the ones to whom he wrote. It’s not hard to distinguish between advice that is not for us all and that which is for us all.
A brother wrote: It seems that “binding” is a favorite term to describe the “fear of clarity.” Let’s simply accept the fact that not everything in the NT has been spelled out in written form, but it has been lived out to a much larger degree than the epistles describe. Can we agree on this?
——————————
RAY: Our goal in discussions on this blog is to create more fellowship between Church of Christ Christians and Christian Church/Church of Christ Christians as I understand Jay’s intent. One need in any search for increased fellowship is an understanding of revelation that we all can agree on. I do not for an instant agree that we ought to try to agree on every decision made by later followers of the Master than were alive during the time of the apostles.
We can be united in love of Jesus and in respect for the writings of His apostles who were led into all truth. What we learn about church leadership in apostolic writings is that elders were to be selected in every congregation, then followed so long as they led in harmony with revealed truth. Noting is said in New Testament writings about any distinction between bishops and elders. They were the same office. They did the same work. They taught truth as they were led in truth. They served and encouraged those in the congregation with which they were associated.
Do we see that when congregations in that time were troubled they did seek advice from outsiders? Paul was troubled by divisive people who came to congregations which had been established by Paul and tried to convert them to keeping the Jewish law as well as following the teachings of Jesus as taught them by Paul. Did Paul try to keep this false teaching out by tackling it alone? No, he went to the church from which the trouble-makers claimed to come and sought help from the leaders of that church.
Did he then appoint a bishop in the areas where the trouble had existed? No, he surely did not. The apostles (Peter being the only one named as present at that time) and elders (chief among them being James, who was brother of Jesus) sent a letter and sent people to confirm the letter advising that the trouble-makers did NOT speak for them as had been claimed. They fully approved what Paul was teaching, and they said so by the representatives they sent and by the letters they carried to the churches which had been troubled. Monarchial? No. Inspired? Apparently so. James claimed their advice was from them AND from the Holy Spirit.
But we don’t have church leaders in Jerusalem now to whom we can take our disputes, do we? So should we appoint a bishop to make and enforce decisions about doubtful matters? Or could we call a conference where our differences could be aired and perhaps settled? That unity is greatly needed can’t be denied. How to achieve it is not clear. It is to be hoped that Jay Guin can help foster genuine Christian unity, and that he will be helped by those who learn from the bloggers who write here. A step toward unity would come if we could get together and lovingly discuss differences and seek for common understandings. This blog may be a place for that. Or another blog since this one is so overburdened with many off-topic notes by now.
Do you as you read this seek unity with all who love Jesus? Then surely you will pray and share and do your best to be a peace-maker for Jesus. Unless God calls you to emulate Moses and deliver a set of commandments to His people, you will no doubt seek to understand the apostles’ teaching and believe and live as they have taught and exampled. I invite you to visit my web site http://missionoutreach.org/ and ponder what you see there. I seek to encourage unity of all who love Jesus. That surely includes many who claim membership in one of “our” churches.
Alexander speaks of early church history:
b) Then the young churches were led by prophets and teachers
c) After some time elders should emerge and be appointed (such a transitin is remarkably documented in the Didache, but can be seen by a careful study of all epistels in the NT also).
————————
But there’s no record of any church leadership by prophets OR teachers. God did speak to congregations and individuals through prophets on occasion. But very soon after congregations were formed, elders were selected to provide leadership for the group. And that “pattern” persisted during the lifetimes of the apostles, so far as is reported. And early on, servants to assist the leaders were appointed. So we know of elders and “deacons” in the early apostolic churches. And we know of apostles and evangelists, with many carrying the gospel as they traveled. It would be good if the church today found many Christians eager to tell others about the risen Lord.
But do we need officials over our congregations? I’m thinking they didn’t have them then and we don’t need them now. It will be interesting to see if others agree and say so. The unity we desire is possible. It will require us knowing one another and learning to love one another truly and work together positively. In Tulsa March 21-24 huge advancements toward unity could be made as we together listen to Jay Guin, Patrick Mead and Al Maxey implore us to love one another and seek ways to work together as co-workers for Jesus.
The gathering in Tulsa was for encouraging soul-winning when it began. And it was inspiring and helpful when led by Marvin Phillips. It has gone in a different direction in recent years, but Marvin is still there and still encouraging us to seek to win others and work together as we do so. I look forward to hearing him speak again this year as well as others who will call us to battle for the Lord. One of the people I learned to love in early years at Tulsa was Nelda Brock, who has recently died. Another was Horace Hooper, whom I’ve not seen there in recent years. And a brother from the eastern U.S. who succumbed to kidney failure more than a year ago but who was a voice for unity so long as he lived. And it was in Tulsa in previous years that I got to meet Cecil Hook and his wife, and many other workers for Jesus. I recommend the Tulsa gathering!
Alexander surely wants us to study carefully the writings of early church fathers. He writes: When we rule out the ECF as relevant sources to help solving our disputes, we are thrown back to our 21st century traditions which vary from church spli to church split and the (so far) fruitless attempts to harmonize them with scripture. Yes: What we mostly try is to defend our 21st century version of Christianity with the 1st century NT. Ignoring the enormous gap between the two. Dismissing all voices of the past who had no less Holy Spirit than we claim to have. This isn’t convincing at all, Jay.
——————————————-
RAY: Of course we don’t want to build doctrine apart from what the apostles taught. That is, most of us don’t. But Jay is 100% right in rejecting writings as canonical or inspired which are not part of the church-approved apostolic writings. If an early church father disagreed with the apostles, we should see that the father was wrong. If an early church father agreed with the apostles, we can learn from the apostles just as he did and don’t need his confirmation of their rightness.
We have good reason to believe we know with almost no margin of error what the apostolic writings originally said. Scribes carefully copied those books, and many copies are available for comparison as needed. But no such care was given to the writings which are not thought to be canonical. Alexander thinks he has knowledge of some things that early church father wrote. He may be right. Or he just might be wrong. It doesn’t matter either way. Our guide is the apostolic writings. Our example is the congregations which were led and taught by apostles. Their mistakes were publicly corrected. Their obedience was applauded. And we have apostolic writings which can guide us in our walk with Jesus.
But I say no to kissing! Whether or not it was a common greeting in the churches in Asia Minor and that part of Europe and Africa into which early Christians ventured and settled. We have no business kissing every Christian we meet! Such a greeting would be misunderstood by most, and possibly very much misunderstood by some. That we should greet and welcome brothers and sisters can’t be denied. But to suppose we should ask each one then to take off their shoes and socks so we could wash their feet would also be misunderstood. A handshake or even a “hug” of greeting is not normally misunderstood and unwelcome. The kissing and foot washing is not how we now greet or communicate our respect and love for one another.
But love and respect is very much needed, at least as much as it was in the first century. So we show respect to Jay by seeking to advance the discussion for which he set up this blog and other blogs. I do so by urging also the reading, in print or at their web site, of the CHRISTIAN STANDARD publication. I’m especially pleased by one I’ve been able to read in the past day, the issue of December 11, 2011. It’s available (parts of it) at http://christianstandard.com/. The December 11 issue featured studies about the Bible book of Revelation, and they are well worth considering.
I also recommend that every member of the Stone-Campbell unity movement should consider http://christianstandard.com/2011/11/biblical-interpretation-in-the-restoration-movement/. It’s from a later issue. It’s about how we can learn together as we study together from God’s Word.
Ray said: “It’s not hard to distinguish between advice that is not for us all and that which is for us all.”
>>>
Maybe it’s just me, then. So far, Ray, this easy hermeneutic you have taught tells me that I need to (a) apply common sense –without explaining exactly what that is, (b) know which commands were previously given by Jesus and are merely being repeated, (c) know which commands fall under the heading of “living for the Lord” -again, failing a definition of such, (d) know which customs are peculiar to which people, and (e) know which commands are not only not binding, but are actually contradicted by culture and/or political geography. Hard? It seems to get harder all the time. I suspect the list of requirements will continue to grow.
BTW, Ray, per your instruction that we should NOT greet one another with a holy kiss in the USA, does that revision of scripture apply only to the 50 states or to American territories like Guam as well? I was going to ask if the ban on the holy kiss was applied to the Indian Territory before that area became a state, but that would be hair-splitting. Perhaps you could just provide me with a list of “kissing countries” and “non-kissing” countries, according to scripture. I have kissed and been kissed in greeting here, so apparently I am already in trouble with God, but I travel a bit and don’t want to get into mischief unawares in front of foreign brethren. ;^)
Frankly, Ray, the one “easy” thing I find in your rapidly-evolving hermeneutic is that it all seems to boil down to “just ask Ray and he will tell you”. That IS easy, I must admit… and yet I struggle with it.
What you make fun of, Charles, is in fact waht many scholars do. But people tend to take them more seriously because they have a “degree”. Especially liberal scholars use this very same faulty methodolgy.
What is the alternative? You’ll hate me for this: CENI.
But in the end, the way Thomas Campbell wrote about commands, approved predendents (examples) and unavoidable inferences still seems the best approach to settle such matters. But not for “pickers and choosers” both on the progressive and the conservative side.
Alexander