The Need for Gospel Preachers
The Need for Gospel Preachers
One of the reasons the truth and the church are under such distress these days is this country’s lack of Gospel preachers. At one time in this great nation’s history we had men that were willing to stand up and speak “Thus sayeth the Lord”. We had men that would speak were the Bible spoke without explaining it way, softening it down, or subtly changing the meaning to keep the ‘audience’ from being offended. We had men that would challenge and debate those that openly taught error on the Holy Scriptures. Men that would hold nothing back in order to win souls to Christ.
One of the reasons the truth and the church are under such distress these days is this country’s lack of Gospel preachers. At one time in this great nation’s history we had men that were willing to stand up and speak “Thus sayeth the Lord”. We had men that would speak were the Bible spoke without explaining it way, softening it down, or subtly changing the meaning to keep the ‘audience’ from being offended. We had men that would challenge and debate those that openly taught error on the Holy Scriptures. Men that would hold nothing back in order to win souls to Christ.
The truth is, people do not want “thus sayeth the Lord” anymore! They have a desire to have their ears scratched, as Paul once told Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:3 “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.” This idea of “Do not tell someone what the Bible says, it is to harsh” is, as my old Dad says, Hogwash! People need to hear the truth, not some minister’s version of the truth! People need to hear the whole counsel of God, Acts 20:27, not just the ‘love’ and ‘feel good’ parts. People need to hear when they are in sin. So many people believe that you can just pour in a little ‘love’ on top of someone’s sinful life and help them live Godly lives! People cannot repent if they are not told!
Instead of people hearing everything that is profitable, Acts 20:20, and hearing all the counsel of God, Acts 20:27, people today hear 30 minute joke sessions from the pulpit, with no meat to grow on. People go to lectureships and hear joke and story after joke and story, and not one wit on the Oracles of God. When confronted with their sugar and fluff ‘preaching’ these ministers reply “Jesus says Hi” instead of considering the fact that God will hold them accountable for not teaching the truth, James 3.
2 Timothy 4:2 “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” Paul did not say to tell jokes, make people laugh, and then walk off the stage to a clapping audience! God is the audience! People do not need ‘youth ministers’, ‘singles ministers’, ‘widow ministers’, 'public relations ministers', 'college ministers', 'etc ministers'. People need Gospel preachers that will speak up, even when it is not convenient. No wonder God’s people are falling into the snare of the devil!
Hosea 4:6 “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee,”.
posted by Joshua Haley at Tuesday, July 19, 2005
120 Comments:
Hosea 4:6 “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee,”.
You quote this passage after you wrote an article condemning Christian universities that try to provide God's people with knowledge to go into the world in a manner that will receive a hearing. You advocate using a 19th century approach that no longer works in the world at large.
The world today is so similar to the world of the first century that we need to look at how the early Christians reached the lost world. They did not have 'gospel preachers' standing in pulpits in a building. They were out among the people talking to them at the level they were at be it uneducated slaves or highly intellectual philosophers. The message was adapted to reach the audience that would hear it.
What you advocate comes from 19th century America and not the 1st century Roman world. Re-read Acts and look at the different ways the early Christians presented the message. Re-read the Gospels and look at how your Lord adapted His message of life to the audience He spoke to.
Harsh words were reserved for very serious circumstances but they never stood on their own; they were also accompanied by words of encouragement. Look at Jesus' words in the letters of Revelation.
A singular approach does not work anymore. Sorry that is just the way it is.
July 19, 2005 4:48 PM
"Re-read the Gospels and look at how your Lord adapted His message of life to the audience He spoke to."
Adapting a message does not mean to leave out the plan of salvation. It does not include false doctrine. Jesus did not teach false doctrine nor accept false doctrine to "adapt". He refuted it time after time after time. Adapting the message does not mean using guile to attract people(by means of recreation, music, Six Flags, etc.)
"Harsh words were reserved for very serious circumstances but they never stood on their own; they were also accompanied by words of encouragement. Look at Jesus' words in the letters of Revelation."
What words of encouragement did Jesus give to the Pharisees in Matthew 23?
Which words of encouragement did he give to those who he cast out of the temple?
Jesus' choice word of encouragement in the NT was "repent"
"Get thee behind me Satan!" which was followed by......"thou art an offense to me"
Jesus message: Repent and obey
We say nothing different.
July 19, 2005 7:15 PM
You are right, Jesus did exercise righteous anger against certain people which is the same thing I have done in the last few posts. You guys always assume you are the ones with correct doctrine and the rest of us who disagree are in error, false teachers, apostates, etc. If you look at the description of false teachers you will see one of the characteristics is arrogance. Humble thyself before thy God, whom without Jesus covering your sins would banish you from His presence just as you banish other brothers and sisters in Christ from your 'fellowship'. Who gave you the seat at the right hand of the Father to judge His people?!!!
________________________
The 'plan of salvation' that came about in the 19th century through Walter Scott is closer to what the NT teaches than the adapted version that focuses all attention on humans.
God's plan: send Jesus to live and then die for our sins, rise from the dead, and give us the choice to accept this message through belief, repentance, & baptism, at which time He grants us the gift of the Holy Spirit, and eternal life. That is the true plan of salvation as it comes from God revealed in the NT. There is absolutely nothing that anyone of us can do on our own that can make us righteous and holy before God. Our righteousness is but filthy rags before the Lord. We can only be made righteous and holy through Christ Jesus. I think too many of us have forgotten that and have become puffed up in our 'knowledge'.
Lord, forgive me for not being able to perfectly walk as you did. Please forgive us for focusing more on ourselves than on You. Please forgive us for being distracted by things that do not bring honor to Your Name. Lord Jesus, thank you for taking the place reserved for me and my sin so that I could be reconciled to You Lord. May I live a life worthy of one who calls himself a disciple of You. In Your Name Jesus, Amen.
July 19, 2005 8:19 PM
"The 'plan of salvation' that came about in the 19th century through Walter Scott is closer to what the NT teaches than the adapted version that focuses all attention on humans."
After anonymous condemns 19th century thought on the previous post he now embraces it on this post.
July 19, 2005 8:49 PM
If 19th century thought was correct, who cares if it is old or outdated..
July 20, 2005 4:00 AM
It just doesn't work anymore anonymous says. Silly Paul and Silly Holy Spirit, they should have known that it wouldn't work when they said 1 Corinthians 1:18-21! I guess preaching is foolishness. I guess we do need to sugar coat it (or 'adapt it to the audience') in order for people to accept truth anymore.
I thought truth was truth, whether stated 2000 years ago or yesterday. People will repent at preaching, people will feel good about themselves and loose their souls at your sugared up, watered down, joke and story style 'talks' from the pulpit.
Why not just preach like Paul preached? Does it really not work anymore? We will be judged by every idle word. I wonder what God thinks when people say his ways don't work anymore. Are we so advanced? So wise? So smart? So much better then those of the first century? Reread I Cor. 1:18ff. Of course we are not.
July 20, 2005 4:16 AM
Before Walter Scott preaching was meant to create emotional religious experience. Walter Scott looked at Scripture and saw that the message required a response. The plan of salvation he presented came from Scripture and showed the total plan of salvation, not just what humans do.
Enlightenment thought that places logic and reason above all else in determining truth is a creation of men and not from Scripture. The proof of this is that two people can use the same logic and reason and still arrive at different conclusions. The society we live in no longer looks for us to prove with logic and reason that the message is true. They want to see our words manifested in our actions. The NT teaches us how to do this by the examples we see from Jesus and the apostles, deacons, etc. The world wants to see us live our faith every day not try to prove through scientific reasoning that what we say is true. That is what I meant by saying the method of preaching advocated here is 19th century and will fall on deaf ears in most cases. We should not be so tied to a method that we are unwilling to reach people where they are at in a way they will respond to. Hammering it down their throats will drive more people away than it will bring into the church. Follow the examples of the early Christians in how they reached the world and you will do great things. Stand behind a bully pulpit and you will really only preach to the choir.
July 20, 2005 10:20 AM
It doesn't matter how you preach. The Holy Spirit will interpret the message exactly how he wants you to receive it. Using reasoning is silly. Pray to the Spirit and he will fill you up and make you understand what the Bible is meant to say.
July 20, 2005 2:17 PM
When confronted with sound reasoning from the scriptures some people who can't answer you will respond this way:
eric said...
you=dumb
6/26/2005 11:48 AM
This was a response I got from someone who apparently disagreed with my reasoning on my last blog post. I haven't seen any of the "conservatives","legalist","pharisees","OC Bashers",etc saying things like that.
July 20, 2005 2:25 PM
Most people will reject your message if you claim reasoning and logic determine authoratative truth because another person could use the same reasoning and logic you use and honestly come to a different conclusion. Your view would say that one is right and the other is wrong because your view cannot deal with the fact that logic can lead to different conclusions over the same matter. That is why people reject Enlightenment thought today. It does not lead to undisputed truth. This is very apparent to anyone who has kept up with these blogs as both sides use logic and reasoning to show how their side is right.
The 'conservatives' (if they can really be called that), 'legalists', 'OC bashers' etc may not say things like that rather they choose to label people as false teachers, apostates, not really Christians and therefore Jesus' teachings about how to treat brothers do not apply. What eric said was just a simplified version of what you and others have implied when you mention people who do not do things the way you believe they should be done.
July 20, 2005 2:41 PM
You are right logic and reason are silly ideas. We should only trust our feelings.
July 20, 2005 3:41 PM
No one has said that. It is apparent that some do not yet understand how post-modern, post-Christian American society views things. You can bash people over the head with logic and reason to your hearts content and they still will not accept your conclusions. If you show them through your life and actions that you actually live what you preach then you might receive a hearing. If the church does not move away from this 19th century model we will continue to lose our ability to evangelize and convert people in this country.
That is the heart of much of the disagreement on these blogs: there are two different worldviews presenting their approach to Christianity. One view is losing its grip on the church and so it is speaking louder and more aggressively in the terms that used to work and the other is accepting that the world has changed and Christians must begin to reach the world where it is at and in terms it accepts. This is no different than the examples we see in the NT of evangelism in the Roman world. If anything the new view has returned to the model of the first century by rejecting the model of the 19th century. True restoration of NT Christianity is beginning in this country. I am excited to live in such a time.
July 20, 2005 4:10 PM
Enough of this nonsense. I have heard Josh, Scott, and others talk about unity only coming through agreement.
Josh, Scott, Jerry, Brant, and any others: I want you to give a detailed list of everything we must agree on to have true Christian unity. Do not leave anything out because if we must all completely agree on every matter then you must tell us everything that we must agree on. I am sincere in this request and will post it on all your blogs. I look forward to your answer so we can be unified as brothers.
Please do not respond by giving generic: everything in the NT or everything Jesus and the apostles taught. We need specifics because we all know there are cultural examples and commands that are not binding on us. If you truly want unity then tell us what we need to agree on, please.
July 20, 2005 9:44 PM
If you will send me your address, I will be gald to supply you with a Bible.
The "christian baptist" demands a list of items we must agree upon and has set out to hound us until he gets what he wants. Here is the very difference between chruches of Christ and the denominational world. Everybody is looking for a list outside of God's list.
Although, if you are suggesting a study in hermeneutics, I believe that can be arranged.
Rick Popejoy
July 21, 2005 8:48 AM
Anonymous wrote
"What eric said was just a simplified version of what you and others have implied when you mention people who do not do things the way you believe they should be done."
Like others of a post-modern bent, Anonymous is stuck in subjectivism. While he and others talk about "agreeing," we have been talking about following the New Testament pattern. Not a single one of us has rejected anyone who does "not do things the way" we "believe they should be done." I challenge Anonymous to find and post a single statement to that effect from my pen. That charge is false and pejorative and poisons the well of discussion.
We could all agree, agree not to agree, agree not to disagree, or agree to disagree, but that is not what saves souls. Jesus said, "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32). While we may "agree" with each other, that is of no consequence unless we agree with the Truth first. Please do not charge us with trying to persuade people to do things the way we "believe they should be done," as though we set ourselves up as the standard for others to follow. That is simply not so.
July 21, 2005 9:08 AM
In order to obtain Biblical unity you must teach the right things. Those who teach things that are contrary to the “apostles doctrine” are the one who cause division (Acts 2:42). Paul commands in Romans 16:17 “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” Unity is so important that we are told to mark and avoid those who disrupt it. One cannot have true Biblical unity with people who teach false doctrine.
Rick, Jerry, Scott (who continues to delete comments rather than discuss them), Brant, and any others this excerpt is from Scott's post about Unity. I have simply asked you to enlighten us on what parts of the apostles doctrine we must agree upon to be brothers. Your response: get a Bible and figure it out yourself. Must we make our women cover their heads? Must we wash one anothers feet? Must we greet one another with a holy kiss? Must our women abstain from makeup and jewelry?
You tell us we must be in agreement to fellowship, yet when someone asks you to provide information on where we must agree you delete their post or tell them to study the Bible. These blogs have been filled with people who study their Bibles and come to different conclusions than you, so you tell them they are not brothers, are not Christian, are in error, are false teachers. Yet you will not tell us what we need to believe to be in agreement and have unity. It seems you are all talk but when it gets to the specifics you haven't a clue how to go about living out what you say.
Again I ask you to provide us ignorant heathens with the information so we can be in agreement.
I will post this on all your blogs, and if you refuse to answer or delete this then it shows us that you are holding people to a standard that you yourselves cannot define in its entirety.
July 21, 2005 12:32 PM
Unless you accept the fact that baptism is aboslutely necessary for salvation and without it a person(accountable person) is lost(even the man who died on his way up to the baptistry) then all other "matters of fellowship" are irrelevant.
July 21, 2005 1:56 PM
Out of 166 comments on Scotts blog... only one was deleted.... Just some numbers. This can't actually be considered "continues".
July 21, 2005 2:10 PM
There's way more to salvation that baptism. Baptism alone does not save. Continue with the list "anonymous." What else must be done in order for us to agree in Christ?
July 21, 2005 3:04 PM
Unless you accept the fact that baptism is aboslutely necessary for salvation and without it a person(accountable person) is lost(even the man who died on his way up to the baptistry) then all other "matters of fellowship" are irrelevant.
I believe that Jesus is Lord, have confessed that before men, have repented of my sin, have been baptized into Christ for the forgiveness of my sins, have tried daily to live as a Christian, have received the gift of the Holy Spirit, and eternal life as promised by the Lord and revealed to us in Scripture.
Now that is out of the way. Give me the specifics of what it takes to be in agreement so you will consider me to be a Christian since obviously my conversion is not enough to be considered a brother.
Out of 166 comments on Scotts blog... only one was deleted.... Just some numbers. This can't actually be considered "continues".
Those are just the ones you see have been deleted. There are numerous comments that have been removed completely as if they never existed.
July 21, 2005 3:09 PM
Christian Baptist quit lying (Revelation 21:8) this is no way to obtain unity. The only comments that have been removed from my blog by me are the ones that you and others have obnoxiously posted several times on everyones blog. Anyone can read these comments on this blog and on others but I am not going to allow duplicate comments on my blog. You accuse us of wanting to only debate but it seems to me that you are the one not wanting this debate to end.
July 21, 2005 4:42 PM
I simply want you to teach all of us that you will not fellowship, all of us you say are in error, all of us you do not consider brothers in Christ everything we must agree on so we can be united as brothers, since obviously our study of the Bible has led us to the wrong conclusions.
I did not lie. You have deleted comments. I posted my comments on numerous blogs so that maybe one of you would actually address it and show us the 'way'
You all are the ones that constantly talk about our error, false teaching, and departing from the faith, but when I ask you to simply provide us with the information that will unite us you dodge the issue. You are the ones who say unity only comes through agreement and since these blogs are full of disagreement and those who disagree with you are the ones who are wrong then you are obligated to show us the way in detail so that we can agree on all matters.
Is this such a difficult request?
July 21, 2005 5:05 PM
Christian Baptist, I will atempt to answer some of your questions even though you have surmised evil against me by telling other people that I have erased comments of yours from my blog. You and I both know that the only comments that have been erased are comments you posted on this blog and the Reflections blog also.
The questions that you ask are a little bit deceptive. You want us to name every fellowship issue within the Bible so you will know them. Your question has not been answered because I doubt anyone wants to spend their entire day coming up with a list just so you can ignore it. We have used sound reasoning with you in the past and you have ignored our arguments.
The question that you ask is very elementary. It is not elementary in the sense that is an easy one to answer (although it is easy to answer; you just will not accept the Biblical answer) it is elementary in the type of question it is. You want us to treat you like a very small child and give you step by step instructions. Christian Baptist I am not your daddy and so I am not going to treat you like a little bitty child even though that is the treatment you seek.
You quoted the following from my article on unity:
"In order to obtain Biblical unity you must teach the right things. Those who teach things that are contrary to the “apostles doctrine” are the one who cause division (Acts 2:42). Paul commands in Romans 16:17 “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” Unity is so important that we are told to mark and avoid those who disrupt it. One cannot have true Biblical unity with people who teach false doctrine."
These few sentences that you have decided to use from my article are very easy to understand. We find unity in the Bible. Paul clearly informs us that those who teach things "contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned" are the ones who cause division. Unity comes from the teaching or doctrine of the New Testament. Peter told us to "be ye all of one mind" (1 Pet. 3:8). Paul told us to "speak the same thing" (1 Cor. 1:10). What does it mean to have one mind or speak the same thing? Does that mean we should gather everybody who professes to be a Christian together and vote on all the important issues and then agree to agree on the outcome? Absolutely not! Speaking the same thing means speaking what the Bible says (1 Pet. 4:11). The agreement we have is found in the Bible and does not originate with man.
You also want to know about custom and commandment. What is a custom and what is a commandment in the Bible?
I. Customs are to be violated if they hinder the cause of the gospel. Jesus broke custom in order to further the gospel (John 4:9,27).
Major Premise: All those who violated a neutral social custom when the custom hindered the advancement of the gospel are those who did good.
Minor Premise: Jesus is one who violated neutral social custom when the custom hindered the advancement of the gospel.
Conclusion: Jesus is one who did good.
We should never sin in order to bring about good (Rom. 3:8).
Since we should never sin to bring about good it is not a sin to violate social customs when it would hinder the advancement of the gospel to bserve the customs.
It is therefore a good work to violate customs which hinder the cause of Christ.
Peter was commanded to conduct himself contrary to custom in order to advance the gospel (Acts 10:15-16).
II. Paul instructed us to follow customs (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).
We should follow customs which are neutral.
Either a thing is
a. good
b. evil
c. neutral
We should
a. always follow customs which are good
b. never follow customs which are bad
c. examine the effects of a custom which is neutral
This would apply to such customs as women wearing a veil (1 Cor. 11:5-6).
Women at Corinth were to wear a veil because it was a symbol of subjection in Grecian society.
The presence of a veil in Genesis 38:14-15 was the mark of a harlot.
III. Are the instructions of 1 Corinthians 14:33-34 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 merely social custom for the first century only?
Summary of principles developed in I and II.
1. Social customs should never be followed when they are evil.
2. Social customs should be violated when they hinder the advancement of the gospel.
3. Social customs should be followed when they are either neutral or are good.
The role of women in the church as taught in 1 Cor. 14:33-34 and 1 Tim. 2:11-12 cannot be merely social custom.
1. It is to be violated only if it hinders the cause of Christ or is sinful.
2. The prohibition of a woman from preaching would hinder the cause of Christ if it reduced the number of preachers by 50 percent.
3. Since God would not allow a reduction in the number of preachers by 50 percent it is evident that this is not a matter of custom.
4. This is an eternal principle as set forth in 1 Cor. 14:34 (as also saith the law).
The above section on custom and commandment was adapted from notes given to me by Marion Fox.
Christian Baptist I hope the things above help you in your study. I am sorry you are not going to get a list of every fellowship issue there is. The fact is this would take weeks and everyone you have posed this question to has a job. We are not going to take several weeks compiling an exhaustive list of every little issue which is a fellowship issue. You are not going to find a list within the Scriptures either. You might find some but you will not find all of them. Paul commanded us in Romans 16:17 to "mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned." This means that anything contrary to the apostle's doctrine is a fellowship issue. If someone came along teaching that Jesus Christ is an alien and that He is going to pick us all up in His spaceship one day, I would know what this person was teaching was false, not because I read it in the Bible, but because I didn't read it in the Bible. It is not a part of the apostle's doctrine and therefore it causes division.
July 21, 2005 6:02 PM
"There's way more to salvation that baptism. Baptism alone does not save. Continue with the list "anonymous." What else must be done in order for us to agree in Christ?"
Are you serious?? Did anyone say baptism alone saves?? No, but baptism is the only thing people want to leave out of the plan of salvation so it does become a matter of discussion. We all agree on the other things(belief,repentance, confession).
May a person disobey God and continue in fellowship with him? This is how we know who's in fellowship.
Do we worship God in the way that he told us to according to the faith? This is a point of fellowship. I cannot worship with you if you are not worshipping the same as I am.
Quite frankly I am not to be in fellowship with those who teach false doctrine nor those who walk disorderly. Two cannot walk together unless they agree. If you disagree with me I cannot walk with you. If you were saved before you were baptized I cannot walk with you, if your worship is unauthorized by the NT, I cannot walk with you, if you fellowship those who teach error, I cannot walk with you, if you allow woman to usurp authority of man, I cannot walk with you. If you believe you are once saved always saved, I cannot walk with you. If you believe you have an umbrella of grace which says baptism washed away past, present, and future sins, I cannot walk with you. If you believe you speak with tongues, heal people, perform other miracles, I cannot fellowship with you. If you believe the Holy Spirit directly impacts your heart in order to convict, convert, or sanctify, illuminate the scriptures so that you can understand them(directly), I cannot have fellowship with you. If you believe the bible is not inspired, is not inerrant, or is not the word of God, I cannot have fellowship with you. If you are a member of a denomination: baptist, methodist,pentecostal, free will baptist, lutheran, united church of Christ, church of God, assembly of God, community church, LDS, Jehovah's witness, presbyterian, anglican, episcopal, catholic, nazerene, free methodist, disciple of Christ, Independant Christian, Calvinist, bhuddist, hindu, universalist, or a false teacher, a false teacher follower of the "Church of Christ"/"Stone-Campbell movement" I cannot have fellowship with you until you repent of following the doctrines of men, worship of pagans, and fellowship with such the like. When those of you who disagree with me stop serving the God of your belly, the desires of the flesh, then I can have fellowship with you. I am a member of the church of Christ, the Lord's church, the one true church, which has not left the sound pattern of words given through the scriptures. Any church that teaches other than that which the bible teaches(regardless of your interpretation, since there is only one correct interpretation)is a denomination because they have divided themselves from the truth rather than rightly dividing the truth.
July 21, 2005 6:23 PM
Christian Baptist, I will atempt to answer some of your questions even though you have surmised evil against me by telling other people that I have erased comments of yours from my blog. You and I both know that the only comments that have been erased are comments you posted on this blog and the Reflections blog also.
How is stating the fact that you erased my commments as well as others that I saw one late night that happened to be gone the next day surmising evil. You erased them that is fact.
The questions that you ask are a little bit deceptive. You want us to name every fellowship issue within the Bible so you will know them. Your question has not been answered because I doubt anyone wants to spend their entire day coming up with a list just so you can ignore it. We have used sound reasoning with you in the past and you have ignored our arguments.
You and your brothers all of whom are listed on reflections blog constantly talk about people departing from the faith, teaching error, etc. If you are going to make such condemnations of other brothers then you better back it up with specifics which is what I am asking you to do. If you feel it is a waste of time to back up your statements of condemnation then keep quiet about such matters.
You want us to treat you like a very small child and give you step by step instructions. Christian Baptist I am not your daddy and so I am not going to treat you like a little bitty child even though that is the treatment you seek.
Your condescending tone does not change the fact that you are unwilling to back up what you say and have said for months. I do not need you to teach me anything, but since you and others say we are in error and have departed from the faith then you must defend your position by showing us exactly point for point where we have strayed. You imply that everyone who disagrees with you has not used logic and reason to come to their conclusions. Likewise, you ignore the sound reasoning of others who disagree with your positions.
The fact is this would take weeks and everyone you have posed this question to has a job. We are not going to take several weeks compiling an exhaustive list of every little issue which is a fellowship issue.
So you are content that we all live in darkness since you are not in fellowship with us and refuse to tell us how to be restored to fellowship. The fact that you cannot list every fellowship issue raises a very large red flag and tells me a great deal about the sectarian nature of your wing of the brotherhood. Apparently you can't get in to fellowship if you think for yourself
July 21, 2005 6:37 PM
When those of you who disagree with me stop serving the God of your belly, the desires of the flesh, then I can have fellowship with you.
I do not have to agree with you to be in the Lord. You are not my savior nor my Lord. Humble yourself and repent of your divisive nature and allow the Lord to bring His people together. Nothing you do makes you righteous before almighty God except to be in Christ Jesus. Your list are all focused on men and their works. If anything dividing and separating yourself from God's people makes you an advocate of denominationalism also known as sectarianism.
July 21, 2005 6:43 PM
"You and your brothers all of whom are listed on reflections blog constantly talk about people departing from the faith, teaching error, etc. If you are going to make such condemnations of other brothers then you better back it up with specifics which is what I am asking you to do. If you feel it is a waste of time to back up your statements of condemnation then keep quiet about such matters."
Christian Baptist please provide me with an example where I have accussed someone of teaching error and I have not provided evidence.
We clearly see now that you had ulterior motives in asking this question. You did not want an honest answer for yourself. This is probably why you didn't get a quick reply.
July 21, 2005 6:49 PM
It is interesting that every one who espouses false doctrine uses an alias or anonymous. "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will SECRETLY bring in destructive heresies" (2 Peter 2:1)
July 21, 2005 7:32 PM
"If anything dividing and separating yourself from God's people makes you an advocate of denominationalism also known as sectarianism."
Gods people do not teach, follow, or condone false doctrine so therefore I am not 'seperating' myself from God's people.
July 21, 2005 7:51 PM
Does anyone else find this ironic:
----------
Anonymous said...
It is interesting that every one who espouses false doctrine uses an alias or anonymous. "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will SECRETLY bring in destructive heresies" (2 Peter 2:1)
----------
July 21, 2005 8:09 PM
Ironic but truthful!
July 21, 2005 8:35 PM
You did not want an honest answer for yourself. This is probably why you didn't get a quick reply.
I do want an honest answer. I did not however ask you to be my teacher as the Lord is my teacher and I am His disciple. I do want all of you who espouse this notion of disfellowshipping all who disagree with you to provide an exhaustive list of fellowship issues so we can all know the exact pattern we must follow.
It is interesting that every one who espouses false doctrine uses an alias or anonymous. "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will SECRETLY bring in destructive heresies" (2 Peter 2:1)
I have not said anything that espouses false doctrine. I have simply called men to account for their words and expect them to be able to back them up by showing where they stand on all issues of fellowship. As of yet I have just gotten condescending statements, accusations, and the run around.
Also, you condemn yourself as you post anonymously. Plus you take a passage out of context and use it as a proof text to throw into a discussion that has not even gotten into doctrinal issues.
I am still waiting for you all to enlighten us to all of these fellowship issues you use to label us as departing from the faith. How can we agree if you won't tell us the issues we must investigate to come around to your view.
July 21, 2005 9:36 PM
Christian Baptist stated,
"I do want an honest answer. I did not however ask you to be my teacher as the Lord is my teacher and I am His disciple. I do want all of you who espouse this notion of disfellowshipping all who disagree with you to provide an exhaustive list of fellowship issues so we can all know the exact pattern we must follow."
You have been given answers but you ignore them. I gave you a very lengthy post and you did not deal with any of the meat from that post. Do you not understand what I wrote? Anonymous posted a list of several things which are fellowship issues. I agree with his list even though it is not exhaustive. Again I will say anything that is contrary to the apostle's doctrine is a fellowship issue.
July 21, 2005 9:48 PM
Unity is difficult because most people are not willing to sacrifice what it takes to be truly unified
In other words everyone but you all must sacrifice in order to be unified. I doubt anyone disagrees with the idea of following the teachings of Jesus and the apostolic instruction of the NT. However, following what they specifically say and creating law through inference are two different things. The apostolic doctrine is clear and unified. Where the trouble starts is when Christians begin making inferences about passages and then elevating those guesses to the level of apostolic doctrine. Let the Bible speak for itself, and when it does not directly address the issues we want it to we should not make inferences in order for it to say what we want.
You have been given answers but you ignore them
I have not been given answers. Most of the disagreements have been over peripheral issues and not core matters of the faith. I believe that most of the people commenting on these blogs agree on all of the core matters of the faith, but this is never good enough as there are always other issues brought up to exclude people from fellowship. That is why I keep asking you to provide a list of all of these fellowship issues. It seems like everytime someone says something on these blogs it breaks some fellowship issue that is only known by you all. Tell us the exact pattern we must follow and all of the fellowship issues otherwise how can we sacrifice to achieve unity.
July 21, 2005 10:48 PM
Christian Baptist- these are core matters of faith as you put it.
Baptists do not believe baptism is for the remission of sins, it is because of remission of sins and a public show of faith. This cannot be gainsayed. It is fact.
Baptists have earthly headquarters. They believe in the tenants of John Calvin, those 5 things that I have posted earlier. Those 5 things are contradictory to God and his nature.
They throw out the authority of God and add to his worship with instruments in the worship service.
Baptists cannot be part of Christ's body because of these reasons, they teach things not found in the bible, things that change the actions of people and make them lost.
I know you don't believe this. Your 'answers' to this are "Well, I don't believe that" or "I have been baptised". Maybe you need to get out of the baptist religion then. Because the things stated here are things that Baptists believe and their conventions teach and vote on! And that is fact.
July 22, 2005 3:57 AM
Christian Baptist has not made an unreasonable request. Infact, the answers given show a great deal about those who have answered. These exhaustive lists contain some points of truth based on biblical command, yet contain much that is based on HUMAN inferences.
Secondly, many are saying that the truth has been put out there with clear logic, but some fefuse to accept it. The same has happened across the board on this one. Others have explained the actuall viewes of Quail Springs based on first hand knowledge as well as first hand knowledge of folks in Churches not called a CoC that believe AND PRACTICE the same way on baptism. Yet many continue to ignore those points because of their currently held beliefs based only on a small portion of the facts. What I refuse to accept is a legalistic approach based on HUMAN inferences used to condemn others. If scripture shows something clearly, I will gladly stand for it as absolute truth, but when it has to be proped up by a string on inferences and logical hoops, them I am not willing to disfellowship others over it. Re-read the book of Phillipians, it talks in very real terms with how to solve disagrements on these issues. Each of us should put the interests of others above ourselves. That is not being done much today by either side and we should all examine our words and actions a little more closely.
Lastly, I want to encourage others who become disalusioned by this type of rhetoric to not use these blogs as your sole basis for informaiton on issues of scripture, or your oppinion of any group. There are many Churches of Christ out there that do not have the same approach.
July 22, 2005 9:27 AM
So your advice is to leave people in error and not try to teach them God's Word.
If this is your advice then we must stop sending missionaries to live among unbelievers and fellowship with them.
Look at Paul, the first place he went when he entered a city was the synagogue to proclaim Jesus to those who knew Scripture but did not understand it. Time after time they rejected the message but Paul never gave up. Now you tell me to give up on people who know Scripture but do not fully understand it. I am sorry I cannot do that, and if that means you do not consider me to be a brother then I accept that and will continue to follow the example set by Jesus and Paul.
Look at Paul again, he went to all of the Gentile congregations gathering a collection for the church in Jerusalem. This congregational cooperation would be condemned by many in your brotherhood today even though it is a biblical ideal.
You fail to realize that the baptist convention really has no authority over the autonomous baptist congregations. The convention is an attempt to bring like minded people together to pool resources and do the greatest amount of good in this world in the name of Jesus.
Plus, you fail to realize that a crack is beginning to appear in the SBC because of the direction it is heading which is away from its roots. There will most likely be a split in the SBC in the near future because those 'running' the convention are liberal and have abandoned the baptist tradition which is one that sought to be the NT church.
They throw out the authority of God and add to his worship with instruments in the worship service
This is based on an inference which you have been taught carries apostolic authority. Nowhere is the NT does it say this. In fact the passage (Ccol 3.16) most often cited contains three distinct words:
psalm = a song usually accompanied by instrument
hymn = a song of celebration
spiritual songs = a safe definition would be a chant or a capella
So we have three different authorized forms of singing to be used in worship of God. To say these all mean the same thing is to deny word meaning and to deny the apostolic intent to make distinctions about our songs of worship.
July 22, 2005 9:42 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
July 22, 2005 10:04 AM
"So your advice is to leave people in error and not try to teach them God's Word."
No one has ever stated this or implied this. I try to teach people God's Word daily. My job as a gospel preacher is to bring the lost to Christ. Several people on this blog and on other blogs have tried to teach you the truth but you have refused to honestly look at what has been said. Paul and Barnabas came across a group of people like this in Acts 13. In Acts 13:46 we can read "Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said 'It was necessary that the Word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold we turn to the Gentiles."
Christian Baptist you have been shown the Word of God and you reject it.
Because those who Paul and Barnabas spoke to rejected the Word of God Paul and Barnabas "shook off the dust from their feet" and went on their way.
July 22, 2005 10:06 AM
The role of women in the church is a fellowship issue. Do you follow the Biblical teaching on this issue? Do you fellowship those who break these commands in the New Testament?
July 22, 2005 11:22 AM
No one has ever stated this or implied this. I try to teach people God's Word daily. My job as a gospel preacher is to bring the lost to Christ. Several people on this blog and on other blogs have tried to teach you the truth but you have refused to honestly look at what has been said. Paul and Barnabas came across a group of people like this in Acts 13. In Acts 13:46 we can read "Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said 'It was necessary that the Word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold we turn to the Gentiles."
Christian Baptist you have been shown the Word of God and you reject it.
Because those who Paul and Barnabas spoke to rejected the Word of God Paul and Barnabas "shook off the dust from their feet" and went on their way.
Scott, you do not know me. I have said that I am trying to show people who know scripture a better understanding of Scripture. I am a Christian and nothing you say or believe can change the fact that Christ died for me, and that I accepted His sacrifice by being baptized into Him.
I do not reject the Word of God at all. None of it. I accept the full and complete revelation of God in both Testaments. I do reject the traditions of men that you pass of as having apostolic authority. Like I said your guesses are not binding law.
You constantly accuse us of rejecting truth, departing from the faith, etc. but when asked to give a specific account of the exact pattern you expect everyone to follow, and all of the fellowship issues that you use to separate yourself from the rest of God's children you refuse and tell us it would be a waste of your time. Then you try to turn the attention away from our requests which are trying to hold you accountable for your words and then accuse me of rejecting the Word of God when I have done no such thing. You said I surmised evil against you by stating the fact that you erased comments, and yet you pass judgment on a brother in Christ whom you do not know. I ask which of us is really surmising evil against the other?
July 22, 2005 1:03 PM
The role of women in the church is a fellowship issue. Do you follow the Biblical teaching on this issue? Do you fellowship those who break these commands in the New Testament?
I never attend a congregation that allows women to be in leadership positions. However, women are members of the one body and therefore they have been given roles to fulfill that ensure the body is healthy. Do I think women can serve in the church? Yes, and the NT backs my position. Do I think women are to have leadership positions over men? No and the NT backs my position.
Even my wife understands that this is the way God intended the church to operate and she gets uncomfortable if she turns on one of the charismatic channels and sees women preaching as do I. WE both recognize that is not what God intended or authorized
July 22, 2005 1:06 PM
Christian Baptist why have you completely ignored my list of fellowship issues which you requested?
July 22, 2005 1:17 PM
Since you demanded the list will you now tell me whether you will accept everything on that list. If you will not accept it please explain why.
July 22, 2005 1:22 PM
Rhetoric? Ok. For all serious questions and study purposes, lets ALL quit chasing rabbits.
First, lets pick ONE issue and nail it down. ONE issue at a time, until it is decided.
Since Christian Baptist has brought not himself to this discussion, but the Baptist religion, we will discuss what they believe is bible truth.
Our first topic is Baptism.
Christian Baptist, what is its purpose and place?
According to Baptist conventions and Baptist teaching, it is for a public show of faith in Jesus after salvation has been attained due to faith in Jesus and asking him into your heart.
Is this in accordance with bible teaching on baptism?
July 22, 2005 2:18 PM
Christian Baptist will you please address the fact that the Baptist denomination believes that you are saved before baptism. In Acts 19 some brethren had to be rebaptized because they were not baptized for the right reason.
July 22, 2005 2:54 PM
Christian Baptist why have you completely ignored my list of fellowship issues which you requested?
I will quote Andrew as an answer:
What I refuse to accept is a legalistic approach based on HUMAN inferences used to condemn others. If scripture shows something clearly, I will gladly stand for it as absolute truth, but when it has to be proped up by a string on inferences and logical hoops, them I am not willing to disfellowship others over it.
Your whole rant was based on the premise that everyone MUST AGREE WITH YOU. Scott said in his post that unity can only come when people make sacrifices. You are telling us we have to sacrifice everything you disagree with in order to be fellowshipped, yet I do not see willingness to sacrifice on your part, and since many of the things you list are based on your opinions and tradition and not Scripture agreeing with you does not mean being obedient to the NT.
July 22, 2005 3:30 PM
Christian Baptist will you please address the fact that the Baptist denomination believes that you are saved before baptism. In Acts 19 some brethren had to be rebaptized because they were not baptized for the right reason.
This is not a completely accurate statement as every baptist congregation is autonomous just as your congregations. I know baptist preachers who preach the plan of salvation as put forth by everyone of you on these blogs. So to characterize all baptist congregations as believing and practicing exactly the same thing shows a lack of knowledge on your part.
Josh, I responded to your comments about baptists and while I am affiliated with them the name I use on this blog is actually a tribute to Alexander Campbell's attempt to bring the baptists to more fully understand Scripture which is why he published the Christian Baptist. Furthermore, his attempt worked as the baptist convention he was associated with recognized they were wrong and disbanded. So you see I am not operating in a vacuum of ignorance of Scripture and history although many of you have accused me of that very thing.
July 22, 2005 3:36 PM
Why did you seek a list of things which are fellowship issues and now you refuse to look at the list. Please be a loving Christian and explain to me why those things on that list are wrong.
July 22, 2005 3:41 PM
I still have not recieved the information I have requested. I have answered numerous times about baptism and other issues so there is no need to rehash what Scripture says on this matter.
When you all come up with the exact pattern we must follow in every detail including all fellowship issues then post it on your blogs and I will gladly discuss it in every detail. Until that happens I will assume you are either trying to hide something about what you actually believe, or you just do not really have a complete picture to back up your claims. I will be content to fellowship with those brothers and sisters in Christ who have a deeper understanding of what it means to be the church and are respectful of the fact that there are somethings that we can disagree over as long as we do not abandon the core doctrines of the faith.
I look forward to seeing you post the pattern and fellowship issues when you figure it all out. Until then I must separate myself from you as these discussions are not building a dialogue that will lead to unity since you will not tell me all of these things we must agree on.
July 22, 2005 3:44 PM
Christian Baptist you are unfair. Some have attempted to answer your questions and you refuse to look at their answers and discuss them. It seems we can only have a discussion if we abide by your rules. I am glad you are deciding to "seperate" yourself from these discussions. You have demonstrated an unwillingness to have an educated discussion where both parties look at the issues.
July 22, 2005 3:52 PM
You have accussed us of being unloving when some have refused to answer your questions but now you are guilty of the same thing. It seems that you do not love us enough to explain why our conclusions are wrong. These are the very answers you asked for and now you refuse to even discuss them. This has been nothing but a waste of time.
July 22, 2005 3:55 PM
Issue #1: The Identity of Jesus
John 8:24 "unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins" -- Jesus
Jesus of Nazareth
a. conceived and born of a virgin
b. lived a sinless life
c. died a vicarious death to atone for man's sins.
d. was bodily resurrected
e. ascended bodily to the Father
f. will return in the air to take us home
g. he is the Christ/Messiah
h. he is Lord
i. he came in the flesh
j. he is the Son of God and as such is God in the flesh; as deity is worthy of worship
July 22, 2005 9:19 PM
"The role of women in the church is a fellowship issue. Do you follow the Biblical teaching on this issue? Do you fellowship those who break these commands in the New Testament?"
Christian Bapitist, you never answered my second question about fellowship. Do you fellowship those who break the commands on the role of women that we are given in the Bible?
July 23, 2005 7:01 AM
Christian Baptist-
The Baptist religion DOES teach what I have claimed and this is a fact that CANNOT be gainsayed!
So, You issued the challenge. I am answering. Lets being our talks on baptism and its purpose.
Next we will discuss Total Hereditary Depravity.
Then Limited Atonement.
Then Perserverance of the Saints.
Then Irrisistable Grace.
Then Unconditional Election.
Everyone on this blog is eagerly awaiting your defense of Baptist doctrine.
Lets begin.
July 23, 2005 9:39 AM
"I want you to give a detailed list of everything we must agree on to have true Christian unity. Do not leave anything out because if we must all completely agree on every matter then you must tell us everything that we must agree on. I am sincere in this request and will post it on all your blogs. I look forward to your answer so we can be unified as brothers.
Please do not respond by giving generic: everything in the NT or everything Jesus and the apostles taught."
Christian baptist has tried to put those on this blog who disagree with him in a dilemma. This is an old trick that was employed by the Pharisees many times. They would try to conjure up some question that they thought Jesus could not answer.
Christian Baptist wants a detailed list of every issue which is a fellowship issue and he has limited the question by demanding that no easy answers be given. The fact is this is impossible. Anything that is contrary to the "apostle's doctrine" is a fellowship issue. There are things that we don't know about which could become fellowship issues. The only person who could answer this question would be an omniscient person. They would have to know everything including the future. The only person who is omniscient is God.
Christian baptist states "I am sincere in this request" but he has proven otherwise. When some have attempted to answer his impossible question he has merely blown them off and refused to look at what they wrote. This is not a very "sincere" way to act. In fact this shows that one is not "sincere" when they act in this kind of manner.
I suggest that looking at each issue individually would be a great way of discussing these matters. You only need to disagree on one fellowship issue to withdraw fellowship so if we find one in which we disagree it does not do us any good to talk about the rest until we settle that one issue. I wonder if Christian Baptist will be reasonable, Christ-like, and "sincere" and agree to these terms of discussion. If not he will show himself to be one who is stubborn and only wants things if he can have it his way. By the way he has been one that has empsasized that we must "make sacrifices." Christian Baptist will you make a sacrifice for the sake of unity and discuss each issue or is unity not that important to you?
July 23, 2005 3:09 PM
Christian Only,
Very well said. We will soon see the charactor of Christian Baptist.
July 23, 2005 4:20 PM
Some have attempted to answer your questions and you refuse to look at their answers and discuss them. It seems we can only have a discussion if we abide by your rules
I am using the same rules that those who say things you disagree with have been held to.
You have accussed us of being unloving when some have refused to answer your questions but now you are guilty of the same thing. It seems that you do not love us enough to explain why our conclusions are wrong. These are the very answers you asked for and now you refuse to even discuss them. This has been nothing but a waste of time.
That is not correct as I am not asking you to say everything you disagree with others about. I am asking you to take a stand and proclaim in detail all of those things you hold to that cannot be compropmised on. This is not about me as I have already been condemned as living in error, not a Christian, and one who has departed from the faith. Enlighten me as to what you really stand for not what you oppose.
Josh, that goes for you to. I have never claimed the baptists are correct on every matter. That is not the issue I want to address. I want you to tell us what this allusive pattern is and what these allusive fellowship issues are, not what is wrong with everyone else. Look at yourselves for once and articulate your complete position instead of pointing out everyone elses incorrect theology.
You only need to disagree on one fellowship issue to withdraw fellowship so if we find one in which we disagree it does not do us any good to talk about the rest until we settle that one issue
I suspect that is why there is so much hesitancy to provide a complete picture of the pattern and fellowship issues. If someone does attempt this then if that person accidently leaves one thing out that another feels is important it will lead to disfellowship. That is the heart of the problem with this 'anti-' everything theology. It leads to division because the focus is always on what other people believe that is wrong in the eyes of some instead of looking for what the NT portrays as true unity.
I will give you my list of the basics that unify all believers, and maybe we can start thers since you obviously want to focus on what is wrong about others where I want to find the common ground first and then work on the problems.
Eph 4:4-7: "There is ONE body and ONE Spirit, just as also you were called in ONE hope of your calling; ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM, ONE GOD AND FATHER OF ALL who is over all and through all and in all. But TO EACH ONE OF US GRACE WAS GIVEN ACCORDING TO THE MEASURE OF CHRIST'S GIFT."
As to baptism. When a person believes that Jesus is Lord, confesses that before men, then is baptized INTO CHRIST for forgiveness of sins; that person is born again to live a new life in Christ for all his or her days.
I came to the Lord in this manner, and have repeatedly said that but some refuse to accept this because to accept that my conversion is biblical is to admit that there are Christians outside of the 'brotherhood' of the 'churches of Christ'.
July 24, 2005 1:24 PM
This is an old trick that was employed by the Pharisees many times. They would try to conjure up some question that they thought Jesus could not answer.
This is not a trick. I hear from many on this blog that they are correct in all matters of doctrine and the rest of us are wrong. I simply as you to put your money where your mouth is by articulating in detail what it is you stand for.
Also, the Pharisees erected a hedge of tradition around the law so that when one violated the hedge of tradition they equated it with violating the law itself. I suspect the reason why there is a refusal to put forth your complete view of these fellowship issues is because we will see that many of them are a hedge of tradition that has been passed down to you in which you hold them to be equal to law.
July 24, 2005 3:28 PM
Christian Baptist,
Thank you for replying to me.
You wrote,
"I suspect that is why there is so much hesitancy to provide a complete picture of the pattern and fellowship issues. If someone does attempt this then if that person accidently leaves one thing out that another feels is important it will lead to disfellowship. That is the heart of the problem with this 'anti-' everything theology. It leads to division because the focus is always on what other people believe that is wrong in the eyes of some instead of looking for what the NT portrays as true unity."
This is wrong and purely an assumption. We should not assume things about others. We should only state facts. I draw fellowship lines based on the Bible. If the Bible teaches some then I am obligated to accept it whether I like it or not.
You also wrote,
"I will give you my list of the basics that unify all believers, and maybe we can start thers since you obviously want to focus on what is wrong about others where I want to find the common ground first and then work on the problems."
I do not always want to focus on the wrong with others. In fact when I go out to have a Bible study with someone in a denomination I always begin with something we agree on. On these blogs different men post articles and you and those who side with you are usually the first to post something about how you disagree with what was written but this does not matter. Christian Baptist instead of attacking each other in this way let's focus on the issue instead because that is what really matters.
You quoted,
"Eph 4:4-7: "There is ONE body and ONE Spirit, just as also you were called in ONE hope of your calling; ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM, ONE GOD AND FATHER OF ALL who is over all and through all and in all. But TO EACH ONE OF US GRACE WAS GIVEN ACCORDING TO THE MEASURE OF CHRIST'S GIFT."
I assume this is your "list of the basics that unify all believers." I would agree with this statement. We must agree with this list in order to have fellowship but fellowship goes beyond this list as well. Let me give you an example.
Would you fellowship someone who
has never repented
is a practicing homosexual
is a practicing murderer
is in an adulterous relationship
is a drunkard
beats his wife
molests little children
believes and publicly preaches you will go to hell if you have Sunday School
believes you should only use one cup
believes you must have the miraculous measure of the Spirit in order to be saved
believes everything in Ephesians 4:4-7 but has always been a member of the Mormon church and never plans on changing
believes that sprinkling is the correct way to baptize
believes that pouring is the correct way to baptize
has never partook of the Lord's supper and who never will
forsakes the assembly
has plenty of money but will never give any to the church
believes Jesus never came in the flesh
You could go on and on with the list. As I stated before the list you ask for is impossible to give. Someone could event a doctrine that is contrary to the apostle's doctrine tomorrow that would not be on the list. If something is contrary to the apostle's doctrine then it is a fellowship issue. It is as simple as that.
I will now ask you a question. Could you answer the question you gave to us. Could you give us a detailed list of everything you believe to be a fellowship issue without saying everything in the Bible or anything contrary to the apostle's doctrine?
Thanks again for replying and I look forward to your next reply.
July 25, 2005 3:43 PM
To answer simply: I would associate with all of those who do the things you listed not because I agree with them but because I would want to show them the true Way. Jesus fellowshipped and ate with sinners. The people of His day despised Him because He reached out to those they viewed as the 'undesirables' of their society. If I were to take the position of those who opposed Jesus by condemning people outright before giving them the opportunity to turn to God then I really could not say I am following Jesus and the example He expects His disciples to follow.
I do not view things in terms of fellowship issues like you all. That is why I asked for you to give me the information. If I looked at everything everyone believed I would find at least one thing in every person's theology that I disagreed with as I would expect everyone to find at least one thing they disagreed with me over. If I view everything as a fellowship issue then I could not in good conscience fellowship anyone. I do not believe anyone alive today lives perfectly nor do they obey the apostolic doctrine perfectly. By the standard held by some on this blog when a person does not hold to the apostolic doctrine that person is not to be fellowshipped. The logic of that argument is flawed because no one obeys the apostolic doctrine 100% all the time and therefore no one is really a Christian. That is why I questioned your approach to 'fellowship' issues, not because I do not think it is a noble ideal, but because if the logic of the position is carried to its conclusion then one who is honest must admit the logic is flawed, unless we have people in the church who live perfectly everyday and never deviate from apostolic doctrine. If those people exist then Jesus did not need to die for them because they are perfectly obedient in all matters of faith.
July 25, 2005 4:52 PM
The logic of that argument is flawed because no one obeys the apostolic doctrine 100% all the time and therefore no one is really a Christian.
Should conclude:
"therefore no one is really a Christian based on this logic"
July 25, 2005 4:58 PM
Matt 13:24-30
"Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?' And he said to them, 'An enemy has done this!' The slaves said to him, 'Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?'
But he said, 'No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, 'First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."
I think we can learn something from this passage. WE must understand that there will be 'enemies' of Christ planted in and among God's people. Jesus told us it would be so. However, the quickness with which some move to condemn and disfellowship may get rid of some of the 'weeds', but there will also be casualties of 'wheat' that were unjustly targeted or caught in the process of removal of the 'weeds'. I have seen this happen to often to good men who are sound in faith and doctrine. That is why in the NT the process of removing someone from fellowship took time and was deliberate with the whole purpose being restoration of the wayward brother. I do not see this in the actions of those who cast out these labels against other brothers and sisters in Christ. So this whole notion of marking and disfellowshipping does not follow the prescribed 'pattern' given to us in the NT by Jesus and the apostles.
July 25, 2005 5:09 PM
Christian Baptist wrote,
"I would associate with all of those who do the things you listed not because I agree with them but because I would want to show them the true Way. Jesus fellowshipped and ate with sinners."
I want to show people the true way also. I am not saying we are not to teach people the gospel. Jesus taught sinners but He did not have fellowship with them. We are commanded in the New Testament to not have fellowship with certain people. This does not mean that we are not to try to convert them. I have given you the Greek definition of the word koinonia which is the word fellowship. I have also listed some Scriptures which refer to fellowship.
koinonia (fellowship) - partnership, joint participation, communion, intercourse
"Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness?" (2 Cor. 6:14)
Can you have true Christian fellowship with unbelievers according to this passage?
"and have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather even reprove them;" (Eph. 5:11)
Are not murder, rape, child molestation, and homosexuality unfruitful works of darkness? If they are then can we be in fellowship with someone who is actively engaged in these sins?
"but as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat." (1 Cor. 5:11)
According to this verse can we have fellowship with a Christian who is actively involved in fornication, covetousness, idolatry, revilery, drunkeness, or extortion?
"If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house, and give him no greeting: for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works." (2 John 1:10-11)
July 25, 2005 5:30 PM
Christian Baptist,
You quoted the parable of the tares (Matt. 13:24-30) and then you made this statement
"I think we can learn something from this passage. WE must understand that there will be 'enemies' of Christ planted in and among God's people. Jesus told us it would be so. However, the quickness with which some move to condemn and disfellowship may get rid of some of the 'weeds', but there will also be casualties of 'wheat' that were unjustly targeted or caught in the process of removal of the 'weeds'. I have seen this happen to often to good men who are sound in faith and doctrine. That is why in the NT the process of removing someone from fellowship took time and was deliberate with the whole purpose being restoration of the wayward brother. I do not see this in the actions of those who cast out these labels against other brothers and sisters in Christ. So this whole notion of marking and disfellowshipping does not follow the prescribed 'pattern' given to us in the NT by Jesus and the apostles."
I don't want to sound unkind but you have misapplied this parable. Look at what Jesus says in Matthew 13:36-43. This is where He explains the parable to His disciples. A lot of people have mistakenly thought that Jesus was talking about church discipline in this parable but that is not the case. If you notice in verse 38 Jesus states "the field is the world." He is not talking about the church but the world.
Brother H. Leo Boles makes this statement in his commentary on Matthew "To suppose that Jesus meant to teach that good and bad men must be permitted to live and work together in the church with no discipline by withdrawal is a perversion of the simple meaning of this parable. He does not say the field is the church, but that the field is the world. There is no hint in the parable that his thought is upon church discipline."
"I have given them thy word; and the world hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." (John 17:14)
July 25, 2005 5:56 PM
The first situations you describe deal with unbelievers who are outside the fellowship of Christ and therefore are not our brothers or sisters in Christ. However, we must associate with these types because the Gospel is for all people to accept or deny. It is not up to us to determine who is worthy to hear it or not, we must just proclaim it and let them decide.
Jesus did fellowship with sinners, and that is why the Pharisees and others despised Him. Fellowship in its simplest definition is 'to associate with'. Jesus associated so much with 'sinners' that His enemies began to view Him as the people He associated with. Jesus even said as much (Matt. 11:19).
________________________
According to this verse can we have fellowship with a Christian who is actively involved in . . . SIN
Those who have put on Christ and continue to live in real sin (as defined in Scripture) without remorse or repentance have removed themselves from fellowship with Christ. Therefore, I do not have to disfellowship. I do however have to be willing to forgive seventy times seven, and try to restore them according to the principles set forth by the Lord.
All of these passages refering to fallen brothers must also be viewed through the teachings of Jesus and the apostles which tell us to make every effort to restore a brother, pray for him, and forgive Him as often as necessary. (Matt. 18:15-17, 18:21-35; 2 Cor. 2:4-8; Gal. 6:1; 1 Tim. 1:18-20; 1 John 5:16). If that brother remains unrepentant even when brought before the entire church then we must withdraw ourselves from that relationship, but even that is meant to bring the brother to repentance and restoration.
This principle has not been practiced by some who have commented on this blog, instead they skip right to disfellowship and 'marking' (which is a poor translation of the word skopeo = pay attention to, be concerned about, watch out for, be careful of. NOT meaning to 'label').
He is not talking about the church but the world.
Yes, but then He makes this statement in v. 41:
The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness . . .
So it seems the two are intertwined. Jesus often refers to His kingdom being mixed in the world (Matt. 13:33) so that is what I base my interpretation of the parable and the explanation on. Plus, I never said this parable was about church discipline. I merely said we can learn that there will be weeds mixed in with the wheat, just as Jesus taught about the intertwining nature of the kingdom and world. Those who take it upon themselves to remove the weeds from the church have also intentionally or unintentionally destroyed wheat in the process.
July 25, 2005 8:58 PM
Christian Baptist, Am I obligated to speak to the pope before I withdraw felloship from him? Matt 18? Am I obligated to speak to Billy Graham? Just curious. What makes any other false teacher different?
July 26, 2005 1:52 PM
Anyone who proclaims to be a follower of Christ must be given proper respect, and we have no right to nullify what Jesus taught just because we feel someone is a false teacher. If I had the opportunity to speak to either of those individuals I would in the hopes of understanding their position and then articulating why they may need to reevaluate what they believe. If they believe things contrary to Scripture and are shown those things and still refuse to change their ways then I have been obedient to Christ and am no longer obligated to them as a brother in Christ.
This whole business of disfellowship was never intended to be easy. It was never intended to cast people out of the church. THe whole purpose was to bring those who had stumbled to repentance and restoration.
What makes any other false teacher different
It is not about them. It is about you being obedient to the teachings of your Lord. Some condemn others quickly for not following apostolic doctrine or the teachings of Jesus, yet when I say we need to be obedient to the Lord's instruction regarding removing fellowship from another justifications are made in order not to be obedient to the Lord. It is not negotiable. Jesus commanded His people to behave in the manner prescribed, and we have no authority to change that.
July 26, 2005 2:59 PM
How does the teaching of Matthew 18 apply to false teachers?
Does not Jesus say "if your brother SINS AGAINST YOU"?
Is teaching false doctrine publicly a sin against me?
How does privately marking a false teacher protect the flock?
Was Paul's instruction to the Romans in Rom. 16 only meant to be an individual watching out for a false teacher internally?
A false teacher teaches 1000 people and I cannot correct him before those 1000 people without speaking to him privately? What if it is not possible for those 1000 people to know that he was privately corrected? Perhaps he will not tell them. Does anyone have a duty to those 1000 souls to teach them properly, and do I have to do that without saying this teacher was wrong?
Just a few questions for your consideration.
July 26, 2005 4:05 PM
"This whole business of disfellowship was never intended to be easy. It was never intended to cast people out of the church. THe whole purpose was to bring those who had stumbled to repentance and restoration."
Christian Baptist, I think everyone on this blog would agree with that statement. No one on this blog believes in "kicking out" just for the sake of kicking out. We do believe these things should be done for the good of the Church and the salvation of that individual in that they will repent.
July 26, 2005 4:07 PM
How does marking someone on a blog lead them to repentance? How does talking to other people about someone lead that person to repentance? I have yet to see any of those who 'mark' people as false teachers actually go to those people first, instead they use these blogs as a way to 'write up' fellow brothers in Christ.
What many have done goes outside of what Jesus taught and what the apostle's taught. The matters described in the NT that lead to removing fellowship were done in community, face to face if you will; not from the privacy of a home or office on an internet blog, not through periodical publications, not through sermons in front of people of identical views. It is easy to stand from a far and pick people off, but Jesus instructed us to do it differently: face to face with all attempts being exhausted before removing fellowship. I would also bet that many within your own congregations who have been marked as false teachers actually are not false teachers, but since no effort was made to discuss grievances face to face were made their disfellowship was unbiblical which means those who disfellowshipped based their decision of 'false doctrine' created by them not taken from the mouth of the Lord.
A false teacher teaches 1000 people and I cannot correct him before those 1000 people without speaking to him privately? What if it is not possible for those 1000 people to know that he was privately corrected? Perhaps he will not tell them. Does anyone have a duty to those 1000 souls to teach them properly, and do I have to do that without saying this teacher was wrong?
Go to him privately, if he does not repent take two or three witnesses, if he does not repent go before the church. That is Jesus' instruction to us and we have no authority to change that just because we believe it should be done another way.
July 26, 2005 4:50 PM
"I have yet to see any of those who 'mark' people as false teachers actually go to those people first, instead they use these blogs as a way to 'write up' fellow brothers in Christ."
How many people have been marked as false teachers on these blogs (please provide evidence)?
These blogs have been used to teach the truth and not to mark false teachers. How many have marked people in the articles that they write?
If you believe that you cannot mark a false teacher before speaking to him then you cannot read 1 Timothy 1:20 in public. You could not read that verse in a private Bible study either because you have never spoken to Hymenaeus and Alexander.
July 26, 2005 5:29 PM
We only go to the person privately if they have sinned against us, Matt. 18. If they sin publicly by teaching false doctrine, we are to mark and avoid them. We do such to protect the flock and bring shame upon the one teaching error in hopes that they will repent. We do not have to go to a false teacher in person.
To my knowledge, not one article on any of these blogs has marked anyone. Some of the comments may have.
July 26, 2005 5:32 PM
If someone has already gone to these false teachers and they have not repented may I mark them? Or do I still have to go to them?
July 26, 2005 5:42 PM
Christian Baptist, just in case you missed my questions here they are again.
How does the teaching of Matthew 18 apply to false teachers?
Does not Jesus say "if your brother SINS AGAINST YOU"?
Is teaching false doctrine publicly a sin against me?
July 26, 2005 5:44 PM
If you believe that you cannot mark a false teacher before speaking to him then you cannot read 1 Timothy 1:20 in public. You could not read that verse in a private Bible study either because you have never spoken to Hymenaeus and Alexander.
The purpose of what Paul did was to discipline those two men to bring them to repentance. I never said we cannot remove fellowship or declare a person to be a false teacher, but there is a big difference between casting someone out of fellowship and trying to bring them to repentance. If I 'mark' (again this is a poor translation of skopeo) someone and then refuse to associate with them ever again how am I trying to bring them back into repentance and fellowship? Where is the forgiveness that Christ expects His people to practice?
We only go to the person privately if they have sinned against us, Matt. 18. If they sin publicly by teaching false doctrine, we are to mark and avoid them. We do such to protect the flock and bring shame upon the one teaching error in hopes that they will repent. We do not have to go to a false teacher in person.
If someone has already gone to these false teachers and they have not repented may I mark them? Or do I still have to go to them?
These are both reasonings to not obey what the NT teaches. These are loopholes to take the easy route instead of following the Lord's teaching. Anyone who has been baptized into Christ is a brother and if they teach something that is blatantly false then that does not nullify the teachings of Jesus about how to deal with a brother.
To my knowledge, not one article on any of these blogs has marked anyone. Some of the comments may have.
You are right that none of the articles 'mark' anyone outright but anyone who has paid attention to these discussions over the last three or four months knows what is implied in some of the posts. Most of the 'marking' has come in the form of comments on these blogs which is what I am refering to.
How does the teaching of Matthew 18 apply to false teachers?
Does not Jesus say "if your brother SINS AGAINST YOU"?
Is teaching false doctrine publicly a sin against me?
Anyone baptized into Christ Jesus is a brother and if they intentionally teach what is false then they sin against the church which means they sin against you and me. This does not mean that we can refuse to obey Jesus' teaching on how to discipline a brother who sins against us. If you witness someone teach false doctrine in the name of Christ then you are obligated to go to them
privately and if they refuse to listen you take two or three witnesses,and if they refuse you take the matter before the church and if they still refuse to repent then the church removes fellowship from that person. That is what Scripture teaches, why do you seem to have such a difficult time accepting it.
July 26, 2005 6:39 PM
"Anyone baptized into Christ Jesus is a brother"
Does this include Mormons?
July 26, 2005 8:16 PM
"That is what Scripture teaches, why do you seem to have such a difficult time accepting it."
Christian Baptist, do you believe you are right about this and everyone else is wrong?
Jesus is dealing here with a personal sin between two brothers.
How do I know? Mat 18:15 "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother."
The word "thee" is significant. "Thee" in the KJV and the word in the greek means "you" singular. If this were a sin against the whole church this verse would say "you".
July 26, 2005 8:22 PM
Jesus is dealing here with a personal sin between two brothers
Do you belong to the church? Are you part of the body?
If someone sins against you then they sin against the body of Christ unless you do not view yourself as part of the church. If someone teaches you something false then they sin against you. If a Christian teaches something false to a brother or sister (a sin) then don't you have an obligation to confront that person in the manner perscribed since that person is a brother caught in sin? Again, why do I sense such a hesitancy to just accept what the NT teaches about this? Is church discipline a fellowship issue itself?
Does this include Mormons
That is a trick question and you know it. Study a little about the Mormons view of the Gospels, their view of the book of Mormon, their view of God, and their view of who Jesus is and then tell me what you think.
_____________________________
Again, why do you want to focus on others instead of articulating what you stand for rather than what you oppose in everyone else? WE can follow these tangents all you want but I am still waiting for any of you to present your position in a well thought out and complete manner so we can look at your beliefs and practices to make sure they are consistent with the apostolic doctrine.
I think I have shown that the NT teaching about removing fellowship has not been followed by some who profess to be followers of apostolic doctrine. Labeling someone a false teacher on a blog is not following the teachings of the NT as I have discussed in my previous comments which so far have been ignored and instead I have been asked to chase rabbits.
July 26, 2005 10:07 PM
As far as folks being "Marked" or called out a "false teachers" to be disfellowshiped and marked.
Curt Nicum
Mark Henderson
The Entire Quail Springs CoC
Glenn Pemberton
Everyone who worships at a Baptist building
Everyone who worships at a Christian building
James (former poster called a false teacher numerous times)
That is a pretty good start.
A pre-requisite for disfellowship would be existing fellowship. What is being done (including the poor examples of the Pope and B. Graham) is not disfellowshiping erring brothers, but some are refusing to enter into fellowship with them. That is an entirely different issue. The example of the Pope is a mute point because likely none of us will ever even have the opportunity to fellowship with him any way.
However, there are those on these blogs that have received a biblical baptism into Jesus' name that are being denied fellowship because of the name on their buildings or the decisions of a convention hundreds of miles away, not base on the issues at hand.
Perhaps we should study the difference in a physical fellowship (Acts 2:42, I Cor. 5:2) and a spiritual one (I Cor. 1:9, I John 1).
P.S. I'm only listing names because it was asked. Let's not revisit those discussions please.
July 27, 2005 8:00 AM
Christian Baptist (??) wrote in part:
"Where is the forgiveness that Christ expects His people to practice?"
=====
Forgiveness and restoration of fellowship is readily available upon repentance (acknowledgement of and turning away from sin).
July 27, 2005 8:11 AM
It amazes me that some would apply the statements of "church discipline" to those who are not even part of the Lord's church.
We are not to have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness. So if one is not even a true NT disciple, we have never been in fellowship. Marking one like that as a false teacher is not the same as brother in Christ who has begun to espouse error.
Billy Graham for instance teaches a false plan of salvtion. As such there is no salvation in it. As such there has never been fellowship established. As such there is none to withdraw. But he can be exposed as a false teacher.
July 27, 2005 8:17 AM
It amazes me that some would apply the statements of "church discipline" to those who are not even part of the Lord's church
Please tell us exactly what it takes to be part of the Lord's church in every detail. Making statements like this without supporting them is not going to work anymore.
As many of those listed by Andrew have been baptized into Christ in accordance with the apostolic doctrine and therefore belong to the church. So please tell us what is a true NT disciple in your view.
July 27, 2005 8:23 AM
I would also add that the "Unfruitfull works of darkness" Johnny alludes to (Eph 5) have nothing to do with false teachers. It is talking about very spacific sin including imorality, idolitry, greet and others listed. We should not lump poor understanding of scripture in with these sins, to do so would be to go beyond what the Bible says. We should defend our faith against error, but using this and other verses that talk about spacific sin or denying that Jesus is God's son to justify the actions of calling out, naming, or marking is not only unproductive (as it only drives wedges and does not reconcile), is it not found in scriptures.
July 27, 2005 9:14 AM
Acts 2:47
"The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." (KJV)
"The Lord added to them day by day those that were saved." (ASV)
John 3:16 = faith
John 8:24 = that Jesus
-1 is the Christ
-2 is the Son of God
-3 is Lord
-4 came in the flesh
Luke 13:3, 5 = repentance
Mark 16:16 = baptism
-1 right authority-in Jesus name
-2 right method-immersion in water
-3 right candidate-penitent believer
-4 right purpose-unto forgiveness
Rev. 2:10 = remain faithful
July 27, 2005 2:40 PM
So how is one disqualified from being a Christian when they meet that standard? If they remain faithful to the Lord, and when they stumble they repent and seek forgiveness what makes them not a Christian?
Is it because they do not accept your inferences about certain matters that are not addressed by the apostles?
July 27, 2005 2:51 PM
Christian Baptist writes "If a Christian teaches something false to a brother or sister (a sin) then don't you have an obligation to confront that person in the manner perscribed since that person is a brother caught in sin?"
Christian Baptist, why have you not gone to those who are teaching the doctrine you oppose in private just as you accuse them of not doing?
July 27, 2005 2:59 PM
There is a difference between disagreeing and teaching false doctrine.
I understand the biblical description of what constitutes false teaching based on 2 Peter, and when someone meets that standard I will confront them in that way, but I believe there is room for differing opinions on matters not involving the core doctrine of the faith. That is the difference, I do not 'mark' people as false teachers on these blogs, nor have I told anyone that they teach error. I do wish you all would actually present a complete picture of your view of things so we can compare it to the NT to see if there is any error in your view, but as of yet no one has done this and instead the attempt has been made to keep the focus outward on everyone else rather than inward on your own doctrines and practices.
July 27, 2005 3:37 PM
So I can disagree with someone publicly calling them wrong and impungning motives but a false teacher must be dealt with privately?
July 27, 2005 3:48 PM
Christian Baptist, the post section of these blogs is the way the writers show their view of what they believe. Those who disagree with the post are the ones who need to prove their case. That is why there is a comment section. We have been showing our reasons for what we teach since April on these blogs. Just because you are a late comer does not mean we have not presented our case, and just because it hasn't convinced you or others does not mean it is wrong. We have dealt with instrumental music in a kind way, those in favor of this innovation are the ones who brought about the disagreement. We have already dealt with authority for buildings, song books, Sunday School, microphones, etc. and it would be an utter disaster to go back to such a discussion. If you don't think these things are fellowship issues then you shouldn't be arguing about it.
July 27, 2005 3:59 PM
So I can disagree with someone publicly calling them wrong and impungning motives but a false teacher must be dealt with privately
Disagreeing with someone is not a sin, nor is believing someone to be wrong a sin. When it becomes personal, condescending, angry, etc. then it becomes sinful. I know it is difficult to tell someone's attitude by reading their posts. None of my comments have been written out of anger, malice, or a condescending self-righteousness. I truly want those who have condemned me and others who hold similar positions to look at themselves and articulate their view of pattern and fellowship issues so we can investigate what they believe just as they claim to have done with us when they declare us to have departed from the faith. I am not afraid to answer the tough questions because whether you like it or not I base my beliefs of what is the core of the fiath that cannot be compromised on direct commands and examples, and not on my guesses about things that the apostles do not address.
Those who disagree with the post are the ones who need to prove their case
Most of the posts are slanted to show that you are always right in all matters of faith, yet when someone tries to get you to present your entire platform you divert attention away from yourselves and try to keep us answering your questions while in most cases ignoring our questions.
There have been numerous comments that articulate everything that is wrong with everyone outside the 'churches of Christ' yet very few present their own views in detail for investigation. Furthermore, the majority of my comments are ignored and never addressed becaues they require reflection on your views and not a focus on what is wrong with everyone else.
Just because you are a late comer does not mean we have not presented our case
You assume too much. I have seen these discussions unfold and I have seen people provide biblical evidence on both sides. One side just wanted you to admit they had biblical authority for their position which you all discounted and rejected outright based on your own guesses about things not found in the NT.
I addressed the musical instrument issue as well.
In Col. 3:16 there are three authorized forms of songs to be used in worship.
psalms = songs usually accompanied by instrument
hymns = songs of celebration and praise
spiritual songs = the safest definition would be a chant or acappella.
To infer that these three distinct words all have the same meaning (i.e. acappella only) is to deny word meaning and apostolic intent. If Paul just wanted to authorize one way of singing why would he use three different words describing three distinct forms of worship, why not just stick with 'spiritual songs'?
July 27, 2005 6:08 PM
"I addressed the musical instrument issue as well.
In Col. 3:16 there are three authorized forms of songs to be used in worship.
psalms = songs usually accompanied by instrument
hymns = songs of celebration and praise
spiritual songs = the safest definition would be a chant or acappella.
To infer that these three distinct words all have the same meaning (i.e. acappella only) is to deny word meaning and apostolic intent. If Paul just wanted to authorize one way of singing why would he use three different words describing three distinct forms of worship, why not just stick with 'spiritual songs'?"
Christian Baptist, your arguements do not prove anything about musical instruments. You merely define one(psalms) "as songs usually accompanied by instrument"
You neglect the entire definition
Strongs definition is:
psalmos
psal-mos'
From G5567; a set piece of music, that is, a sacred ode (accompanied with the VOICE, harp OR other instrument; a “psalm”); collectively the book of the Psalms: - psalm. Compare G5603.
Notice it does not say accompanied with the voice, harp AND other instrument.
The definition does not demand a mechanical instrument
Thayer defines it this way:
psalmos
Thayer Definition:
1) a striking, twanging; a striking the chords; a pious song, a psalm
Thayers commentary mentions instruments but his definition(which is in italics)only says the above.
The use of the words "psallo" and "psalmos" both in their context beg the question "psallo what?" and Ephesians 5:19 answers that question and it is not a mechanical instrument.
The most plausible meaning for "psalm" in Colossians 3:16 would be a "pious song"
"teaching and admonishing one another in pious songs, hymns, and spiritual songs singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord"
A psalm in the Old Testament might have been accompanied by an instrument on occasion but there is no proof that such was done after the cross by Christians.
July 27, 2005 7:32 PM
No one denies that these 3 words(psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs) are different, but we do deny that the difference is that one is sung with an instrument and the others are acappella.
July 27, 2005 7:43 PM
This is a prime example of a situation where we must interject human interpretation and infererence into scripture. Agreeing that all three words mean to sing and or to pluck, directed at the heart (debatable, but I'll give that for the sake of discussion), we must then make a decision based on what we know of God from unrelated passages as to what we will do. Some say that nothing is menioned about the spacifics of playing instruments in the NT so I do not do it. Another says that God smiled upon them in the OT, and never specified any different, so it must still be okay. Both are based on a HUMAN aspect of intrepreting and infering from unrelated passages to define the general command to sing, sing and sing (differently or the same, it matters not). How is it that these then become doctrine and fellowship issues? We do not have to worship in the same way to have a spiritual fellowship with one another (a fellowship based on our like relationship with God, not on our own ideals). If you feel it is sin, worship with those who agree with you, but do not step beyon scripture to bind your laws on others. If you feel it is okay, worship with those who agree with you, but by no means demand that others do the same. Do not even condecend their view.
July 27, 2005 8:35 PM
The definition does not demand a mechanical instrument
Nor does the definition exclude them. The definition merely states a psalm is a song that can be accompanied by an instrument.
Do not take my position to be telling everyone they must use instruments. I am merely pointing out that the choice of words used by Paul leads to an inference that musical instruments may be used in worship. I do not bind this as law on everyone, I am merely pointing out that this is the most striking evidence in the NT against the acappella only position.
I will worship where instruments are used based on my study of Scripture both OT and NT, but I will also sing acappella with my brothers. However, I would never ask or expect anyone uncomfortable with the idea of instruments in worship to participate in that because to do so would place a stumbling block in my brother's way, and I would never intentionally do that.
I know many will not agree with me, and I accept that, but in all honesty I have just as sound a position on this matter as those who hold to acappella only position, and my position is based on my study of God's Word, just as yours is.
July 27, 2005 9:36 PM
See my comments on Josh's latest article. - Robert
July 27, 2005 11:42 PM
I am curious as to where folks are acquiring their definitions for "psalm".
The etymology for the English term often goes back to classical Greek without taking into account its use in Koine Greek, in which the NT was written.
Though the term at one time appears to have carried the idea of accomaniment there is not evidence for such with its use in the NT. There is no direct statement of the use of instruments, nor is their any precedent exhibited. Both music and church historians are unanimous about the absence of instrumental music in Christian worship for 100's of years from the beginning of the church onward.
Interestingly some argue that the use of instruments, while common among most denominations in the USA, is not that common worlwide and may in fact be the minority practice even in the 21st Century.
July 31, 2005 3:34 PM
Both music and church historians are unanimous about the absence of instrumental music in Christian worship for 100's of years from the beginning of the church onward
There are a few hostile sources but other than biblical and extrabiblical writings there are no records from the 1st century churches throughout the Roman world to support this claim. If you can provide conclusive evidence that this was the case in all congregations throughout the Roman world in the 1st century then you have information that the rest of the world is not privy to.
Though the term at one time appears to have carried the idea of accomaniment there is not evidence for such with its use in the NT
The fact that Paul used the term psalm would point the early Christians to their Holy Scripture at that time (the OT) where many Psalms were meant to be accompanied by music and say just that, and other psalms tell God's people to worship Him with their voices and instruments (ex. Ps. 150). If you believe the Psalms to be inspired by God, how then can the psalmist tell God's people to do something that is sinful to the Lord? (I am getting tired of asking all these questions and never having anyone answer them).
I know you reject the normative use of the OT by Christians but that view is not consistent with what we are taught in the NT by the apostles and the other non-apostolic authors who not only used the OT to teach Christians but also much of the ethical and moral teaching of the NT is a continuation of what the OT taught.
psalmos: a song of praise (in the NT probably a reference to an OT psalm) see Col. 3:16
from the root:
psallo: to sing songs of praise with the possible implication of instrumental accompaniment (in the NT often related to the singing of OT psalms)
These definitions come from Louw & Nida and are based on common usage in the Koine period.
These definitions are also consistent with Strong's definitions.
This seems more like an attempt to make all three words mean the same thing to prove acappella only than to actually respect the apostle's use of three distinct words each having distinct meaning. That is the problem with binding inferences on others as law. The inferences are based on guesses and the inferers own lense of tradition that color his or her interpretation of a passage.
August 01, 2005 11:48 AM
Christian Baptist wrote in part:
"The inferences are based on guesses..."
This is absolutely erroneous notion about inferences. An inference is a conclusion warranted by evidence. If the evidence is sufficient and the implications are clear then the inference is necessary.
Jesus used such to prove the doctrine of the Sadducees about life after death was error.
One thing you fail to comprehend as that we are not justified by the keeping of the Law. No one is denying the legitimate use of the OT. But it is NOT our pattern for worship.
Even the Jews in the first century ONLY used instruments in relation to TEMPLE worship. There were organized and dedicated singers and players for just such purposes. But the synagogue services apparently did not use instruments, nor offer sacrifices, or any other thing limited to the priests or Levites.
Our worship is distinctly different. The organization of local churches is very parallel to the synagogue. And the church is the temple and each believer is a priest.
Our pattern for what to do in work and worship as a church comes not from the Law of Moses for Israel with a physical temple and a tribal priesthood. It comes from the apostles' doctrine.
Paul as an apostle gave us the Holy Spirits will on the issue of music in the church. The only clear indication is singing. Speaking, teaching, admonition, and expressing thanks all through the use of words. None of which can be accomplished by an instrument.
Instruments are not needed, not stated, not exemplified, nor necessarily implied...they are without NT or historical precedent in early Christianity. They are unauthorized and have been a serious source of division for centuries, even long before the "restoration" movement. To bring them into the corporate worship of a congregation is divisive and on that point alone is sinful.
August 02, 2005 9:46 AM
An inference is a conclusion warranted by evidence
I have infered based on evidence, word meaning, and biblical examples. Yet you reject my inference. Why? Because you think your inference is law and all others are wrong. Yet I am honest and recognize that my inference is simply my best guess based on my understanding of the unified message of Scripture (both OT and NT) and word meanings. I do not bind my inference on others as Law even though my inference has much more biblical and semantical weight. What authority do you have to bind your best guess on all others as law when the very law you claim is found no where in Scripture?
Jesus used such to prove the doctrine of the Sadducees about life after death was error
Jesus is the Son of God and therefore what He said or taught carries much more weight than a mere man two thousand years later.
Psalm 150
Praise the LORD!
Praise God in His sanctuary;
Praise Him in His mighty expanse. Praise Him for His mighty deeds; Praise Him according to His excellent greatness.
Praise Him with trumpet sound; Praise Him with harp and lyre. Praise Him with timbrel and dancing;Praise Him with stringed instruments and pipe. Praise Him with loud cymbals;Praise Him with resounding cymbals. Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.
Praise the LORD!
This Psalm does not refer only to the Temple or the religious life of Israel. It is a call for all to worship the Lord throughout His creation and even says that instruments can be used.
Is this an inspired text?
The book of Psalms was collected hundreds of years after Moses gave the Law and therefore cannot be called part of the Law. It is a reflection of God's people and their life of prayer and song. It must be viewed as such. To view it any other way is to deny its genre.
To bring them into the corporate worship of a congregation is divisive and on that point alone is sinful.
I have yet to hear anyone say that those who do not use instruments are to be excluded from the church. The divisiveness is from those who say that God changed His mind about instruments and voided what the people He inspired to write in the OT said about instruments being used, and then without explcitly telling us in the NT He made it a sin that we have to figure out by guessing and denying the meaning of words.
And the church is the temple and each believer is a priest.
Yet we cannot use the examples of the temple and priesthood in the OT in a normative manner. Interesting theology: you call us by titles found in the OT, but say we cannot use the principles and examples from the origin of those titles:Our pattern for what to do in work and worship as a church comes not from the Law of Moses for Israel with a physical temple and a tribal priesthood
I am really beginning to understand why no one can provide me a detailed synopsis of beliefs, practices, pattern, and fellowship issues. The books that would have to be written would make the Bible look like a short story. Your movement has built quite a hedge around the NT over the last two centuries, so much so that you now equate that hedge with Scripture and apostolic doctrine.
August 02, 2005 12:57 PM
"The book of Psalms was collected hundreds of years after Moses gave the Law and therefore cannot be called part of the Law."
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods?
Psalm 82:6 I said, Ye are gods, And all of you sons of the Most High.
August 02, 2005 4:43 PM
There is a distinction between the Law of Moses i.e. the Pentateuch/Torah/Nomos/Law and the instruction/torah/nomos/law i.e. the entire OT.
My statement is accurate since the book of Psalms was not given to Moses by God. Is the book of Psalms torah/instruction/nomos/law? Yes, in fact it is divided into five parts just like the Torah/Law of Moses.
This does not change the fact that the book of Psalms is a reflection of the prayer and worship life of God's people, and not a book of Law/Commandments. It is inspired by God, and since God does not change like shifting shadows (Jas. 1:17) then since there are no direct command from Jesus or the apostles saying that state the form of worship exemplified in Psalms is now sinful, the acceptibility of instruments in praise to God is authorized (not commanded for all songs all the time, merely allowed). To claim anything else is to turn God against His own Word and presents Him as changing like shifting shadows which is contrary to what Scripture teaches.
_________________________
I notice you pick out one thing I said that you could try to make me look like I do not know what I am talking about, yet over the last few weeks you all duck my questions, do not address the meat of what I write, and all around evade my requests to examine in detail what it is you stand for, this pattern you claim to follow, and these fellowship issue by which you exclude people from the church.
You all have spent months pointing out what is wrong with everyone else's theology and doctrine, yet when I ask you to look in the mirror you refuse. I guess you do not want those you condemn to examine your beliefs in detail, or maybe like I said it is so complex and convaluted that it would take so many books to explain that the Bible would seem like a short story in comparison.
August 02, 2005 5:51 PM
If that is the case then Gentiles were never given the commandment to use instrumental music and therefore could not use them because they were never commanded to.
If we are still under the old law then Jesus could not be our high preist because He is not a Levite. Do you think Jesus is our high priest? How do you explain that?
"For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these things are said belongeth to another tribe, from which no man hath given attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests."
(Heb 7:12-14)
August 02, 2005 8:07 PM
Christian baptist, I was merely pointing out that Jesus called the Psalms law.
It stands to reason that if Psalms are law and we are no longer under law then we are no longer under the Psalms.
If the Psalms are law(and they are) and we are still justified by the Psalms then we are obligated to use instrumental music. Each person is also commanded (if psallo means to play)and is also obligated to play instruments in worship. Ephesians 5:19 is a command and we cannot deny that. Either you must(not only you but everyone) play or you are disobeying Paul and Psalm 150.
August 02, 2005 8:21 PM
If that is the case then Gentiles were never given the commandment to use instrumental music and therefore could not use them because they were never commanded to.
Read Psalm 150: it is to all people.
If we are still under the old law then Jesus could not be our high preist because He is not a Levite
It stands to reason that if Psalms are law and we are no longer under law then we are no longer under the Psalms
I never even said anything about that. You seem to have a distorted view of what is the Law and what is instruction. The entire OT is not Law (i.e. Law of Moses = the 1st five books of the OT) it is instruction. Learn the Hebrew language and the history of how they viewed their Holy Scripture and then come back and talk to me about the Law (Torah) vs. instruction (torah)
Ephesians 5:19 is a command and we cannot deny that
Yes, and the same words are used there that are used in Col. 3:16 which I have already discussed by pointing out the true word meanings not the created ones where they all mean the same thing.
Why are you all so set on declaring something a sin that is never declared that in Scripture by God or any of the men He inspired to write? Are you not adding to Scripture something based on the tradition you inherited?
August 03, 2005 11:03 AM
"I never even said anything about that. You seem to have a distorted view of what is the Law and what is instruction. The entire OT is not Law (i.e. Law of Moses = the 1st five books of the OT) it is instruction. Learn the Hebrew language and the history of how they viewed their Holy Scripture and then come back and talk to me about the Law (Torah) vs. instruction (torah)"
This is a great way of avoiding the question.
You have suggested that we can go back to the Old Testament and the laws provided under it. In fact this is how you get your authority for instrumental music because you cannot find authority for it in the New Testament.
Are you suggesting that priests could have come from any of the twelve tribes or were they only to come from the tribe of Levi?
August 03, 2005 11:40 AM
Christian Baptist wrote in part:
"You seem to have a distorted view of what is the Law and what is instruction. The entire OT is not Law (i.e. Law of Moses = the 1st five books of the OT) it is instruction. Learn the Hebrew language and the history of how they viewed their Holy Scripture and then come back and talk to me about the Law (Torah) vs. instruction (torah)."
=====
Perhaps we can let Jesus decide the accuracy of this dispute.
John 10:34, Jesus quotes from Psalm 82:6 and calls it Law
John 12:34, Jesus quotes from Micah 4:7 and calls it Law
John 15:25, Jesus again brings forth from the Psalms (35:19, 69:4, 109:3-5) and calls it Law
Hmmm! I think I will take Jesus' view of things thanks!
August 03, 2005 1:20 PM
You have suggested that we can go back to the Old Testament and the laws provided under it. In fact this is how you get your authority for instrumental music because you cannot find authority for it in the New Testament.
I have provided that evidence from the NT where Paul chose to use the word psalmos from the root psallo which I then provided definitions for and also showed that this usage by Paul pointed to the OT pslams which I then quoted one of them. I am just tracing the intent of the apostle and not using a tool of postmodernism to create word meanings that suit my lens of tradition.
I am not going to chase your rabbits about the priesthood as I have never claimed that we are under the Law of Moses which is distinct from the instruction of the OT. If you disagree with me fine but do not mischaracterize my comments in a dishonest manner.
Like I said learn the distinction between Torah (Law of Moses) and torah (instruction of the OT) both of which are translated law. Jesus was not saying that the Psalms and the Prophets were the Law of Moses because both came hundreds of years later. Do not read your interpretation into those passages to draw a conclusion that the Jews in the first century did not make.
Hmmm! I think I will take Jesus' view of things thanks!
Jesus said in Matt 5:17-20 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
How come you do not take Jesus' view of things when it comes to this statement?
August 03, 2005 2:14 PM
This is where the Modern versions fail. They have Jesus saying he didn't come do do something and Paul saying he did. The Law and Prophets were fulfilled. They were a shadow, the NT is the real thing. Instruments shadow, Instruments real thing??
August 03, 2005 2:40 PM
The opinions of Jews in the first century mean little to me.
The fact is Jesus called all three parts of the OT canon Law, period.
Jesus used the same term for all three. In Greek it is "nomos".
===
The way anyone could surpass the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees was two-fold.
First, they were not to be hypocrites.
Second, their righteousness must come by a superior means. That means was not through the blood of bulls and goats, but by the atonement of Christ.
August 03, 2005 3:52 PM
Christian Baptist wrote in part:
""Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."
=====
Jesus was not abolishing it in the sense of destroying it or breaking it. But the promise was its endurance until it was all accomplished. Once accomplished it would no longer be valid. The assurance he gave was that heaven and earth would pass first before the law was destroyed...UNTIL it was all accomplished.
Jesus fulfilled ALL that was in the Law and Prophets...period. He established a new and better covenant with better promises.
Paul wrote in Romans 7 using an illustration from the law that a woman could not have two husbands at the same time or else she would be an adulteress. The point is that we cannot be under the Law and the Gospel at the same time. This is the heart of the dispute with the Judaizers and the issue of circumcision being added to the plan of salvation. This Paul called a different gospel and pronounced an anathema on those who taught so.
August 03, 2005 3:57 PM
In Greek it is "nomos".
You are correct, but there is a distinction between the Law of Moses (nomos) and the instruction of the OT (nomos). Nomos comes from torah which means teaching, instruction, and/or law/commandment.
The opinions of Jews in the first century mean little to me.
Jesus was a first century Jew. The apostles were first century Jews. They all saw the value in the OT and used it extensively in their teaching. Don't you think when you begin to discuss the issue of the Law of Moses and the instruction of the OT you must consider the world in which Jesus and the apostles lived and the view of God's people regarding their Holy Scripture.
Jesus used the same term for all three
So now you want to look at word meaning, yet when I show you the word meaning of Col. 3:16 you ignore the meanings of the words Paul used. And when I tell you there is a distinction between Nomos meaning the Law of Moses and nomos meaning the instruction of the OT you also ignore it. I am speaking out of my knowledge of these issues which have been researched thoroughly by reading the work of top biblical scholars in their fields who looked at 1st century Judaism under which Jesus and the apostles lived and the early church existed until around 90 AD. You say you don't care about what the Jews thought but you claim to be part of the restored NT church which existed under the umbrella of Judaism until a couple decades after the destruction of the Temple. If this were not the case Christianity would have been crushed by the Roman empire before it even had a chance to move beyond its infancy. So where you don't care about the real origins of Christianity, I do and want to better understand the world in which Jesus lived and the church was born so that the church can truly be restored based on the 1st century picture, not on 19th century thought which is where the group of men on these blogs draw their perspective.
August 03, 2005 4:42 PM
Christian Baptist wrote in part:
"Jesus was a first century Jew. The apostles were first century Jews. They all saw the value in the OT and used it extensively in their teaching. Don't you think when you begin to discuss the issue of the Law of Moses and the instruction of the OT you must consider the world in which Jesus and the apostles lived and the view of God's people regarding their Holy Scripture."
=====
The opinions and interpretations of UN-inspired first century Jews is worth little. In contrast, the statements of Jesus and the apostles are the very words of God. Big difference.
In the sermon on the mount Jesus often contrasted what had been said by them of old, with what he was then teaching. This clearly shows a difference in the common perspective of the day and His own. The beatitudes themselves stand against the common thinking of that day and ours.
August 10, 2005 8:21 PM
Christian Baptist wrote in part:
"To say otherwise is to reject how the OT was viewed by the Jews from which the church was born in order to force a modern interpretation by uninspired men upon everyone."
========
This is a false conclusion...the NT was not written from the perspective of how the Jews viewed the OT. Jesus and the Holy Spirit through the writings of the apostles give us the proper interpretation of the OT where needed. To say otherwise is to deny the very inspiration of scripture.
It is very presumptive to accuse someone of forcing a modern interpretation. The scriptures are self-contained and fully inspired by God and contain everything we need for life and godliness. They are sufficient for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.
History and geography are only a few of other disciplines which can help inform us, but they are not the final authority in what the Bible teaches. We draw conclusions based on the evidence of what God has said in his Word.
August 10, 2005 10:19 PM
The scriptures are self-contained and fully inspired by God and contain everything we need for life and godliness. They are sufficient for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.
What Scriptures are you talking about? Because the passage you are summarizing was talking about the OT since the entire NT had not been collected together and circulated to the Christian churches throughout the Roman world. I do believe the NT as we have it is Scripture and therefore that passage applies to all Scripture OT and NT, but in the context of the first century it means something a little different.
August 11, 2005 9:21 AM
Christian Baptist wrote in part:
"So the OT itself is not inspired? Only those passages interpreted in the NT are inspired? Is that your position?"
=========
I am not sure what you read, but I never stated such. And nothing I did say would have implied such.
Your inference must have been drawn from thin air.
Jesus rebuked the Sadducees stating, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures".
He also accused the Pharisees of violating God's word to keep their traditions.
Given these two examples, gives cause to question the interpretation of un-inspired men (even Jewish) during the first century.
August 11, 2005 8:37 PM
Christian Baptist...you keep saying this--
"My point was that there was a distinction made by the Jews in the first century between the Torah (Law of Moses) and torah (instruction of the OT)."
====
Could you please give the resources that you appeal to as the authority for your assertion. To me you seem to be creating an artificial distinction between a Big T and little t... Torah vs. torah. I believe this is flat out bogus. There is no evidence for such in the preaching, teaching, and writing of Christ or the apostles.
August 14, 2005 8:48 PM
Hey CB, have you done much research in the use of the definite article and the term faith...ie, faith vs. the faith.
That is a study which might surprise you.
August 15, 2005 9:33 PM
More Gospel Preachers?
I thought you Christians believed it was everyone's duty to preach the gospel.
August 30, 2005 11:51 AM
Brother Phil ..........read John chap. 14 ver.23&24 consider what it says.
March 27, 2006 6:30 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home