"What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you...Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat (the Lord's Supper), wait for one another. But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come" (1 Cor. 11:22, 33-34).
Based on this one verse, as well as the pattern of scripture, how can we justify the incorporation of social and recreational activities into the local church's work? Where is the New Testament authority for the local church's sponsoring of chicken dinners, pizza parties, softball leagues, basketball nights, gymnasiums, fitness centers, etc?
I think a lot of people forget what the church is... I got to thinking about this sometime ago... So often on Sunday after services a lot of us at Providence would go to quail park and have a potluck, play softball etc...
ReplyDeleteHowever this is a church activity... because what is the church? Its the individual people that make up the body... thus when we all come together for a potluck 15 mintues after services is over the church is still together, the building doens't do anything to make us a church thats just a place to meet.
So technically the church does do those things... when you look at Acts 20:7-11 we see Paul eats after preaching in vs 11. I've heard people say this is the Lords Supper however I don't think that can be the case Paul preached until midnight... so if thats the case he partook of the Lords Supper on Monday.
I think something we over look is there was no such thing as a church building or a meeting house during the start of the church. They met in various places but mostly in peoples homes... so did they board up the kitchen and never eat in their houses again? Of course not.
That passage in 1st Cor 11:22, 33-34 is often taken out of context... is he saying we can't eat together as a group of Christians the church? No... actually if you read that passage he never condemns them for eating at all. Starting in vs 18-ff he condemns them for this... in vs 21 they are taking their own suppers and shaming those that have not... they had divisions because of it... it was customary in the 1st century to have a love feast with the Lords Supper.
However doing in the manner they were it was doing it was once again shaming those who had nothing, and causing division. So to stop that Paul stated if you're going to do that then eat at home, but if you do eat together tarry for one another vs 33.
Its apparent the church at together often for that was even on of the punishments of 1 Cor 5:11 also see Acts 2:42-46 notability 46...
In closing I think the main problem(perhaps the problem) was that they were not waiting each other an the division this represented. Paul starts by saying that the problems that they were having with the Lords Supper caused him to believe their were divisions among them vs 18-20. It was the not waiting and the "haves" feasting in front of the "have-nots" that reflected division. Not waiting for each other is the problem that Paul specifically mentions the reason that what they were doing was not the Lords Supper. vs 21. The idea that they were making a common meal out of it is not stated but only infered in vs 22, 34. However is is not a necessary inference leaving it up to personal opinion. Finally as noted earlier the solution Paul offers is in vs 33 and it address the problem of not waiting for one another. But in no way does this address the perceived problem of turning the Lords Supper into a potluck of sorts. At no point does Paul correct them for adding additional food to the Lords Supper. In fact no food is mentioned at all accept for the bread and the fruit of the vine. We've become so accustom to using this passage to using this passage as a proof-text for condemning fellowship halls it colors our judgement and we see what we expect to see.
Regarding Acts 20:7-11, I agree that the "breaking of bread" in verse 11 is a common meal, but take note that this was separate and apart from the previous spiritual assembly (in which they took the Lord's supper and had preaching). This passage, however, in no way justifies "church-sponsored social meals."
ReplyDeleteYes, it is also true that the church is comprised of individuals, but that is not to say that every time Christians (plural) get together that the church is gathered. Was Paul gathered with the Ephesian church when he met with the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:17? No. There is a difference between a few Christians getting together for basketball at the park versus the church building a gym or participating in a league. One is an individual effort and the other a church-sponsored effort.
Finally, regarding 1 Corinthians 11, the fact remains that Paul tells us to eat at home. He clearly draws a distinction between common meals or social meals and the purpose of the church assembly. If the Corinthians were coming together for a common meal, Paul certainly tells them not to do that anymore in this text. This text irrefutably instructs the local church to leave social and common meals at home, and not to bring those activities into the church's work.
Ultimately, we get back to the question: what is the church's work? And, what is the local church authorized to do?
It's that simple.
I think it has to do a little bit with word play. Perhaps having a meal together and having fellowhip isn't a "work". However it is something the church does... together in fellowship... otherwise you come up with this... when Christians come together when do they become the church? Is it when you have half the congregation together, or just ten of them. I see your point about Paul doing it after the preaching... however everyone was still there... because he continued to talk till day break... vs 11-12 then they went home... my point is we can eat in the meeting place after services are over... as long as we seprate it from the Lords Supper and services. Otherwise you are making a building or a field or someones house holy or sacred when its not.
ReplyDeleteI would also like to take a moment to invite you to bible-talk.net and you can look through and comment on any of the topics there. It'd be great to have another great mind there, a lot of people from the church of christ discuss variouss topics there such as Josh McKibben, Eddie Lawrence, Mike Ward, Steve Burdine, etc...
ReplyDeleteIf you search you'll find some older topics on "Do you not have houses to eat in" etc... Also a preacher from Somerset is on there but his name doesn't come to mind... anyway you should take a look.
Eric, you're missing the point. Clearly, there are things that the church is authorized to do and things that the church is not authorized to do. There are scriptural works of the church and there are unscriptural works of the church. With that in mind, here is the question: is it scriptural or unscriptural, authorized or unauthorized, for the local church to sponsor social and recreational activities? Here's another way of asking the same question: can the church use its funds to support social meals and recreational activities? The answer is either "yes" or "no."
ReplyDeletePaul tells us to eat our common meals (to fill our bellies) at home and not when the church is assembled together. He draws a clear distinction between individual and church activities. You can say that he was only telling the Corinthians that because they were perverting the Lord's supper, but the fact remains, he still said it...eat at home, not when you come together.
Questions about "when the church becomes the church" also misses the point, and in my humble opinion, this line of reasoning only complicates what should be a simple issue.
Think about it, if you are having social meals in a building that the church owns (and maintains using the Lord's money), are the social meals church-sponsored or individual-sponsored? What impression will be left in the minds of visitors when they see you having chicken dinners in the new "fellowship hall?"
The Bible is clear that the local church's focus was the proclamation of the gospel and the subsequent salvation of souls...not recreation.
As far as Acts 20 is concerned, it is my conviction (and I'm sure it is yours as well), that the "upper room" was owned by an individual, not the church in Troas. If that is the case, then your whole argument is invalid. I agree that if the church meets in an individual's home, that common meals can simultaneously be enjoyed in that person's home. There can be potlucks and baby showers, etc...because it is an individual's home. But when the church purchases a building, that building is to be used for activities and functions that are assigned to the local church. Again, this goes back to understanding the difference between what the church can do and what the individual can do, a point that is irrefutable in the scriptures.
Eric, I may check out that website some day. I just don't have any time now. Keep the comments coming, though. I'm enjoying the conversation.
Hi Casey,
ReplyDeleteI'm a friend of Eric's. Hope you don't mind if I offer a comment or two.
I'd like to ask a question. What scripture teaches that there is a difference between what the church can do and what an individual can do?
I do have one thought to mention because this statement striked me as odd. "Yes, it is also true that the church is comprised of individuals, but that is not to say that every time Christians (plural) get together that the church is gathered."
ReplyDeleteLets define church - the term church literally means "the/a group of called out ones." So when you say a group of Christians get together its not the church... when you look at what the term means you are in a sense making one of the two following statements.
1. That some how these Christians(plural) isn't a group. Which doesn't make sense since two or more people make up a group by proper definition of the word group.
2. That somehow in this moment of time these people aren't Christians(Call out ones)...
We know neither of these two statements are true... thus when Christians plural get together they are a group and they are called out ones... thus you have the very definition of church.
Note: I actually responded over the weekend to this but my PC crashed after wrote a lot and I was tired and decided not to type it all again... but I think this is an important point and will try to write more later.
Eddie, you are more than welcome to comment. That is the whole purpose of this blog, to kickstart discussion and debate regarding the word of God.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your question, the burden of proof, I believe, is on you or Eric or whoever to prove that what the individual can do the church can do.
I think we all recognize that the Bible speaks of the local church as a unique entity. Paul tried to join the local church in Jerusalem according to Acts 9:26. Paul himself spoke of things that could be done in private versus things that could be done in the church assembly in 1 Corinthians 14. There were/are elders that rule over the local church (see 1 Tim. 3:3-4). Furthermore, the apostle draws a clear distinction between the church and the individual in places like 1 Cor. 12:27.
Here's the point. If we are to seek New Testament authority for all that we do, and if the New Testament distinguishes between the local church and the individual (in the sense that the local church is a unique entity), then it is essential for us to seek NT authority for what the church does apart from what the individual can or can't do.
Of course, this isn't taking into account Acts 5 as well as 1 Timothy 5:16, both of which further illustrate the difference between the church and individual. And what about the Lord's supper, or the collection of 1 Cor. 16. These are commands to the church.
Eddie, let me ask you a few questions: in the OT, could the Jewish people do all the same things that the priests did? Or can we as citizens do the same things that the civil authorities have been given authority to do (as in Romans 13)? Can the wife fulfill the same role and responsibilities of the husband (after all, they are one flesh)? The point is that when there are distinct entities (even though one entity might be in some way related to another; i.e. the church comprised of individuals), we must also understand that there are different blueprints, so to speak. Authority for what the church does is separate and apart from what the individual is commanded to do, for they are distinct entities.
And Eric, yes, there is a difference between a group of Christians that meets on an odd occasion versus the assembly of the local church. The local church has government (i.e. elders, deacons). The local church has distinct obligations (i.e. the Lord's supper and the collection, for example). There are different rules governing the church assembly that don't necessarily apply to random gatherings of Christians (i.e. the command for woman to remain silent, per 1 Cor. 14:34).
ReplyDeleteWhen Paul met with the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 (see vs. 36-38 especially), was he gathered with the church? Was it a "church gathering?" I'm sure countless other examples could be cited where a plurality of Christians were together, but it was not a church assembly.
Yes, the term "church" means "called out ones," and it sometimes refers to an assembly of the called out ones (1 Cor. 14:28), but what you're saying is that anytime there is a plurality of Christians together in one place that there is a church activity. Eric, this reasoning ultimately says that ANYTHING individual Christians can do the church can do. Building basketball gymnasiums, operating businesses for profit, landscaping services, political involvement, opening a bank, etc. If that's the case, then there is no point seeking authority for anything regarding the church, and furthermore, if that's the point, then I guess the individual can do what the church can do (i.e. observe the Lord's supper apart from the assembly, take up his own collection on the first day of the week, etc), and this begs the question: why even bother joining ANY local church (i.e. I AM THE CHURCH).
If we don't understand the distinction between the local church and the individual, and if we don't understand the difference between the church assembly and random gatherings of Christians, then not only are we in error regarding what the Bible teaches, but we're headed down a very dangerous path...an extremely slippery slope, that will ultimately take us (and if not us, our children and grandchildren) to a place that we never dreamed of going (i.e. the organ in Catholic church services back in the 7th century to rock and roll bands).
By the way, how could we condemn the use of instrumental music in church if what you're saying is true? Or do you accept that as well?
Hi Casey,
ReplyDeleteI guess I don't see the local church as an entity of some sort. It is simply a group of Christians in a particular area who have decided to work together.
Regarding Acts 9:26, all it says was that Paul was attempting to join the disciples. The word "join" is from the Greek word "kallao" (Strong's #2853) and according to Thayer it means:
kollao kol-lah'-o
1) to glue, to glue together, cement, fasten together
2) to join or fasten firmly together
3) to join one’s self to, cleave to
He wasn't trying to place membership in the church at Jerusalem, he just wanted to keep company with the saints in that place. The word church isn't even mentioned in the verse. He just wanted to associate with the brethren there.
In a sentence, you can substitute the correct definition of a word for the word itself and it won't alter the meaning. Try that in the passages which use the word church which means a group of called ones (or a group of God's people, etc.). If we have a proper understanding of what the church is, then this substitution shouldn't change the meaning of the passage. However, most people have an institutional concept of the church so it might be a real eye opener to go through the substitution exercise.
I don't think the Bible supports the institutional concept of the church nor do I think it supports the idea that the church has some work or responsibility that is separate from the individuals that compose it. If all the individual Christians are doing the works which God expects, then the church is doing the works which God expects. As a matter of fact, the only way the church can do anything is if the individuals are doing it.
Regarding your questions, I agree that there are "entities" in all walks of life. Civil government is one, although I'm not sure I'd classify the Jewish priesthood as such. Sure, only the tribe of Levi could perform priestly duties but this fact doesn't constitute the priesthood as an entity. The priesthood was made up of individual priests. Just because entities or institutions exist, it doesn't mean that the church is one of them.
There is an article about this issue at http://creedrehearsal.com/is-the-local-church-an-institution that you might find interesting.
If you'll indulge me I'll ask another question in closing. Will the church, as a corporate entity, be held accountable for anything on the day of judgement?
Thanks for the discussion Casey. :)
Regarding your question, I do know that Jesus spoke of churches losing their candlesticks in Revelation 2:5. This verse reaffirms my previous point concerning the church as an entity. But, no, the local churches will not be judged on the final day of judgment. That says nothing, however, about whether or not the church is an entity.
ReplyDeleteAgain, 1 Corinthians 14:34 establishes a difference between the church and the individual (specifically, the assembly versus the home). Paul's point in 1 Timothy 5:16 about widows also affirms that there is a difference between the church and individual.
I personally don't see how anyone can deny this distinction. The church appoints elders and deacons. Can a few individuals, apart from the local church, appoint elders and deacons (say, members of different congregations)? The church is given specific commands regarding the Lord's supper. Can the individual observe the Lord's supper on his own apart from the local church? There is no authority for such in scripture!
Again, I come back to this point. If there are no differences between the church and individual, then we certainly cannot condemn someone who chooses to avoid the local church altogether. He can take the Lord's supper himself, take up his own collection, etc.
But setting all of this aside, again I ask, where is biblical authority for the local church to sponsor social meals and recreational activities, especially in light of 1 Corinthians 11:22, 34? Where is just one example of the local church having a "fellowship dinner" or "Greco-Roman Wrestling for Christ?"
You have yet to address these questions and points. All you have done is lessened the significance of the local church and basically argued that the church can do anything the individual can do...anything (including opening a business for profit).
I guess my question would be is when is a group of Christians considered the church and when are they not? I don't know of any passages that make this distention. I know it’s not the building because they "church" could meet anywhere. I know it’s not a time because it’s not like when the group assembles at 8am on Sunday that time frame makes them the church.
ReplyDeleteI also don't understand how the "church" could be assembled at 8am - 12 noon and then when that same group of people meet in the parking lot, or a park and have a potluck at 12:15 and say that same group of people isn't the church any more...
Is it the # of people that are assembled? I don't think that is the case because at some local congregations I have been a member at we couldn't call Wednesday night a assembly of the church since less than half have showed up for a Wednesday night service.
If you could show any passages that show the distention of when this group of people is just a group of people one min and then the church the next that'd be helpful. 1st Cor 14:34 is about women keeping silence... I see how you’re trying to use that passage to show the different between the church and individual you’re saying if that group is the church then at the potluck they couldn't speak.
However this isn't using the passage in the correct context... if that’s the case women couldn't make a comment in Bible Class or make an announcement to request prayers for someone at the end of services. This is passage is a set of rules when the church is doing certain actions, not at all times or the above would be considered wrong... we could no longer allow a woman to make an announcement or make a comment in Bible Class. Unless of course we are not the church before we sing the first song, and we stop being the church after we sing the invitation hymn.
I'm not trying to be facetious but just trying to make a point... I think scripture shows the church just isn't the church on Sunday morning, Sunday evenings and Wednesday nights. Scripture time and time again shows that when a group of people do something such as evangelism then the church is doing it. And we all know evangelism is an individual responsibility.
Had to split my response into two posts due to character limit.
ReplyDeleteIf there is not an indication in scripture that a "church entity" will be judged (i.e. held accountable), then there is nothing that it is responsible for. If there is anything in the Bible that is clear, it is that where responsibility is given, there will be accountability. Therefore, there is no work assigned to any church entity. If there was, it would have to be judged. The Bible says individuals will be judged, but doesn't teach any such judgement for a church entity. You are correct that this, in and of itself, doesn't prove that the church isn't an entity. On the other hand, it does place all the responsibility upon the individuals. This is further evidence that whatever the individual Christians do, the church automatically does. When the individuals work, the church works. Not the other way around.
Removing the candlestick means that the congregation would cease to exist. The text says they had left their first love and that in order to repent they must "do the deeds you did at first". If we stop working (deeds), wouldn't the natural course be that our commitment would falter and eventually we would just give up meeting together? If everyone in a congregation fell into this condition, the church in that place would be no more. The candlestick goes away because the Christians in that place stopped being disciples, not the other way around.
I'm not certain that we in the churches of Christ have traditionally interpreted 1 Cor 14:34 correctly. Our interpretation leaves a few questions that I think need to be answered. On the face of it, this appears to be an absolute prohibition against women speaking in the assembly. Most people that I know say that it is not absolute; women are allowed to sing because of passages such as Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16. However, while these two passages could apply to an assembly, nothing in the context would limit them to the assembly. If the wives are to ask their husbands for explanations about spiritual matters at home, what about single women or wives whose husbands aren't Christians? Can women that fall into these categories speak up during the assembly? Only wives are addressed so are we to conclude women whose marital status was anything other than "married" can speak up? I don't think we can bind a whole lot in this regard until we can positively answer these questions.
Lets look at the verse but replace the word church with the definition of the word church...
women should remain silent in the assemblies of the called out ones. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says
What about this hints at an entity? The most you can say is that women (wives?) can't talk when Christians are assembled together.
It is said that based upon 1 Tim 5:16 that the church has a work to do. I agree with this if by the word "church" you mean a group of individual Christians. However, this doesn't prove that an entity is assigned to the work. Individually, Christians could assist the widows financially and in other ways. As a matter of fact, not all of their needs can be met by money! I agree that it is probably more expedient to take up a collection, but it doesn't have to be done by means of a group collection. Widows could be supported collectively, individually or in combination. How does this passage prove the "group of called out ones" is an entity?
The same holds true regardless of whether you speak of appointing elders, partaking of communion or anything else. These things happen amongst a group of Christians. Not in some entity. It is individuals who are carrying out these things. Again, the only way that the church can do anything is if individuals do it. Why? Because that's what the church is; individual Christians.
ReplyDeleteGod most certainly will hold someone responsible for failing to assemble. Heb 10:24-25 clearly shows that God expects Christians to meet together for mutual encouragement. No entity is required for this command to be carried out.
Is it really meals that you object to? If a local congregation has a potluck at a park, no one that I know of thinks this is a sin. However, if this same group of people eat at the church building, now it is unacceptable. Isn't this just binding the place where a meal can (or can't) be eaten. How can the same people, doing the same thing be sinning in the church building but not at the park?
Where do I see authority for a local congregation eating together? Individuals have a God given right to eat. Since the church is simply a group of saved individuals, why couldn't they eat together?
This link might be helpful regarding eating in a church building.
ReplyDeletehttp://creedrehearsal.com/eating-in-the-church-building
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEric and Eddie, you guys are ignoring the obvious. My whole point has been that there is a difference between what the church can do and what individual Christians can do. You guys can argue about what exactly some of these verses mean, but these verses STILL prove the distinction. Women (whether they are married are not...whatever it means) can't speak in the assembly, but they can at home (1 Cor. 14:34). The Lord's supper and collection, again are spoken of as being acts of the church assembly. We see the command in 1 Corinthians 5 to withdraw from the erring brother, while assembled. I could go on, but I'd just be repeating myself.
ReplyDeleteYes, the church is made up of individual Christians, but you cannot escape the fact that the church as a unit is special.
Let me ask you guys this question: are we to seek authority for all that we do in our service to God? Is the old "speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent" saying accurate or not?
Please answer this question before we go any further.
Hi Casey,
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean to give the impression that I was ignoring your question. What I was trying to convey is that a local congregation isn't an entity but instead a group of people. By implication, this is the same as saying that there isn't a distinction. If all the individuals meet together and do something, then the church is doing that thing no matter what that activity is. How can it be any other way? This is the point I was trying to make.
The group of called out ones (i.e. the church) is not like a business corporation. If I start a business and incorporate, my business is recognized as a legal entity. There are people who serve as officers, board members and employees but none of these people make up or compose that corporate entity. If all of the above mentioned people cease doing anything with the business, a legal entity still exists. It doesn't go away just because the people do. Legally, it would still have to file tax returns, submit government mandated paper work, etc. There would have to be legal proceedings to dissolve the corporate entity.
The group of called out ones (the church) isn't like this. If all the people in a local congregation fall away, what would be left? Nothing! The church in that place would cease to exist.
Yes I do think that we must submit to God's authority in all matters of life.
Is the old "speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent" saying accurate or not? I think it is a good principle. However, as I was reminded of recently, this is a man made rule to help keep us from obeying man made rules. I think the saying is excellent advice, but we haven't done a very good job in the churches of Christ of keeping it. Like the Pharisees of old, when God is silent we have a tendency to say, "God didn't tell us what to do in this situation so let me tell you what He meant".
For example, lets notice a few things that 1 Cor 14 is silent about. The passage does not say anything about a common meal. The passage doesn't say they were turning the Lord's Supper into a common meal. The passage does not say they were adding food items to the Lord's Supper (in fact, bread and wine are the only food and beverage that are mentioned). The passage never mentions a church building. Could they have been doing some or all of these things? Perhaps, but it would be merely an assumption on our part and we cannot validly conclude that any of these things were happening.
We aren't content to be silent where the Bible is silent in this matter. What does it actually say?
Notice that some were taking their supper ahead of others. While some were still hungry, others had already had more than enough! Simply put, there were the "haves" and the "have-nots" and the "haves" were treating their poorer brethren shamefully by not waiting to eat with them and share with them. So we can factually state the problem and the cause at this point.
ReplyDelete* The problem: Paul states they are corrupting the Lord's Supper.
* The cause of the problem: They were mistreating one another by not waiting for others before partaking of the Lord's Supper.
* The solution to the problem is found in verse 33 when Paul said, "Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another."
All they had to do to fix this problem was to wait for one another when it was time for communion. In what way were they corrupting the communion? Were they substituting something else for the bread or the wine? Had they turned the Lord's Supper into a common meal? No, Paul says it was simply that they weren't waiting on one another.
What did Paul mean when he said to eat at home? If you are too hungry to wait on your brothers and sisters when you gather around the Lord's Table, then satisfy your hunger at home before arriving. Don't arrive so hungry that you give in to the craving to eat ahead of the other Christians. When Paul speaks about eating and drinking in houses, he was not contrasting that with eating and drinking in church buildings.
There are a number of inferences/assumptions that one can draw about the rest of the passage but none of them are necessary inferences. The fact that one can draw different reasonable inferences means that there are none that are exclusive and therefore binding.
If we are going to be silent where the Bible is silent, this would be as good a passage as any to start in.
Humbly,
Eddie
As Eddie pointed out we weren't trying to say that each individual makes up the church but the group does... in the example of the potluck the same group of people are together so therefore the church is still together.
ReplyDeleteThe other point was everyone doesn't have to be present... so if half of the local congregation was doing something such as a local community evangelism effort it could be said the church is doing it.
One thing I would like to point out is I don't think silence is prohibitive. I prefer this statement "God gave instructions or he didn't give instructions" in that statement if God gave us a set of instructions we are to follow those to a tee... if he did not give us instructions we are free to do as we please.
I have yet to find any passage where God punishes someone for doing something he didn't give instructions for or was silent about. I'd go into further detail but I don't want to derail the thread so I'll end there but if you think about it my statement holds true to scripture, and is more accurate.
I'll not go over everything Eddie just said as that would be fruitless. I did however notice you stated this "We see the command in 1 Corinthians 5 to withdraw from the erring brother, while assembled." I don't think that is the case... if a brother fell away and came back to services I would not ask him to leave or treat him with any less respect... I would hope that he'd come forward and try to encourage him to come back to the fold. In 1 Cor 5 that passage says not to keep company / associate with him. Which means be friends with him... you don't hang out with him, have him over dinner, or encourage his bad behavior as treating him as he had don't nothing wrong.
When it says not to eat with such as one... its not talking about the Lords Supper or the assembly... its talking about as a friend, associate, companion. If the brother in error were to assemble we should hope they'd repent, granted until they did so I wouldn't let them take part in the service but they could come.
I'll stop here for now... I'd like to make some points on other things but I don't want to derail the thread and have going 10 different ways. So I'll refrain from doing so until we move on to another topic or its more applicable to the discussion.
Eddie, again, all I'm saying is that the local church is given certain commands that are specific to the church. This, coupled with a common sense interpretation of scripture, tells me that the local church is an entity separate from the individual. Yes, it is a group of individuals, but it is still something different than the one individual.
ReplyDeleteRegarding 1 Corinthians 11, I've never said that they added items to the Lord's supper and in that sense made it a common meal. But they did make it common. They turned a sacred observance into a feast, an opportunity to "fill up." Ultimately, they were told to "fill up" at home. This is my point here in this chapter. I don't see how we can read this and then say that it is okay to promote "filling up" as a work of the church (when in fact it is said to be a work of the home). The church building, is maintained using the Lord's money, so again, if the church is not to promote social and recreational works, then we most certainly cannot use the Lord's money to host fellowship dinners and potlucks.
This is all so simple in my mind. I don't see any examples of first century churches engaging in what we see churches today engaging in: building gymnasiums, hosting social feasts, etc. It just isn't the work of the church, and I believe 1 Corinthians 11 bears that out.
And this whole thing about how many people have to be present in order for the church to be assembled and so on is just an intellectual point that ignores the obvious. WE KNOW when the church is gathered. WE KNOW when something is a work of the local church vs something that is the work of individuals.
ReplyDeleteEric, I agree that 1 Corinthians 5 includes individual obligations regarding the erring brother, but you can't actually argue that there are no "assembly" obligations there in that passage. It is clearly stated in verse 4.
ReplyDeleteEric, your statement about silence not being prohibitive is also interesting, and I wonder where that logic will take you.
ReplyDeleteAccording to your logic, is it not true that the church can operate a business for profit? If not, why not?
According to your logic, is it not true that the church can build a gymnasium and operate a fitness center? Or what about "bikers for Christ" and so on?
Doesn't the Bible teach us not to add or take away from God's word? Are you not adding to God's word when you invent things that God never authorized such as church-sponsored basketball leagues and so on?
The statement "God gave instructions or he didn't give instructions" is more accurate. Take this passage for example.
ReplyDeleteMark 16:15
"He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation."
Lets look at the term Go... tell me if the following statements are T/F
T/F God is silent on how to Go?
Therefore we can go by car, by horse, by foot, etc....
If silence was only prohibitive it would be impossible to obey the command to Go because God was silent on how to go.
We so often hear the example of Nadab and Abihu, or that of Uzza... we hear the story that they tried to do something with good intentions but they broke Gods silence et... etc... etc...
Actually that isn't the case in either of these examples... see below
Lev 10:1-2
"And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. 2And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. "
Notice in this passage they didn't break any silence granted we don't have the commands recorded for us to my knowledge but its apparent from the text that God had told them what he did want... so he had given them some set of instructions to follow. If God ask that burnt offerings only come from Pine trees and they offered Maple then that was their problem... There wasn't any silence there, God gave them instructions to follow and they didn't follow them.
Same thing with 1st Chron13 with Uzza most people state his good intentions of trying to save the Ark and broke Gods silence... once again not the case God was not silent on the matter. We see later in 1st Chron 15 that David himself realises that God had a specific command, which was the tribe of Levi was to carry it and mentions is error in verses 11 - 13 of chapter 15 noting that God had set a due order in how it was to be done.
So once again in neither of these passages that are so often us.
Here are some other things to consider... if silence is always prohibitive then we couldn't have a church building... God was silent about that... we couldn't have song books God is silent about that...
In the OT they couldn't have synagogues, there was never a command or anything written about them in the OT yet no one was ever punished for building one or them meeting there... even Christ met in them during his time here...
If silence was always prohibitive then all the things above would be wrong to do.
I think what this leaves us with if God gives us a command then we are to obey it to the tee... if we break that command then we sin...
When there is no command we can do as we please... for example there is no command, NI, or example of how we are to conduct our services... thus since God is silent about it... we can Sing 2 songs partake of the Lords Supper, sing some more have a lesson, etc... etc..
Or we could sing, have bible study, sing, preach, then partake of the Lords Supper... since there is silence around it was can do it how we see fit... we can sing 10 songs or 5...
One last example is Noah building the Ark God said to do it with gopher wood... God was very specific he was not silent about the matter thus Noah didn't have a choice... However for example lets say God just said build a ark... and left it at that... since God was silent on building materials then Noah could have built it out of anything he had available such as pine, cedar, etc...
Hopefully that shows and proves my position... if you have questions about this let me know.
As for 1 Cor 5 I agree the assembly is mentioned and he tells them to deliver such a one to Satan... I think we are on the same page on that particular topic... in that we would withdraw from that person until some form or repentance took place... thus limiting them in contact outside of the assembly as well as limit what they can or cannot do while in the assembly.
ReplyDeleteI have a simple question regarding a statement you made. "I'm saying is that the local church is given certain commands that are specific to the church."
Can you give examples of these things what are some commands that is given to the church, that the church is to carry out? Also if these commands are not carried out will the church be judged on these things or each individual be held accountable?
I think you'll see only each individual is held accountable and not the church... for if that isn't the case then I'm not only accountable for myself but for the actions of my fellow breathern... which could be good or bad, depending.
Since this is the case then no Command is given to the church other wise the church would be held accountable meaning I would be held accountable for what my brother or sister was doing... because where there is responsibility there is accountability.
Now we're making progress.
ReplyDeleteAs in nearly all disagreements, there is a fundamental difference in the way we view the authority of scriptures.
Eric, you have a flawed view of the "silence" of the scriptures. You believe in the concept of specific authority, but you miss the concept of generic authority. You see the importance of obeying the commands of scripture, but you fail to recognize the validity of necessary inference and expediency. Let me explain.
The command to "go" in Matthew 28:19 is a generic command. It is specific in the sense that we are to actively GO and preach the gospel, but we are not told HOW to go. It is necessarily implied that we MUST go somehow, and because God doesn't tell us specifically how to go, it is left up to us. This is where expediency comes into play. Expedients would be walking, or riding a bike, or driving a car. These are all actions that aid us in fulfilling the command to go (which, again, implies that we must go somehow).
The same is true with singing. We are instructed to sing in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, among other passages, but we are not specifically given instructions as to HOW to carry this out. It is necessary implied that we must have some means to unite the congregation in singing, but the means is not specified. So it is left up to us. We could engage in call and response, or we could have song books, or we could project the words and notes up onto the wall using a projector. These are all authorized expedients, because they aid us in fulfilling the command to sing (and keep in mind that none of these things add to the command).
You made the point, Eric, that we have no authority for church-owned buildings. Let me make this clear. If we have no authority for church-owned buildings, then it is wrong for us to have them. Simply put. But I believe we absolutely have authority. We are commanded to assemble in places like Hebrews 10:25. But never are we told WHEN to meet on Sunday, HOW to structure the services, or WHERE to meet. It is necessary implied that we must meet at some time, so it is left up to the congregation to decide what time to meet. It is necessary implies that we must have a structured service (orderly), so it is left up to the congregation to determine its own structure. And finally, it is necessary implied that we meet somewhere, whether in a rented hall, someone's house, or a building owned by the church.
These things are all authorized because they aid us in fulfilling God's commands. Without necessary inference and expediency, we couldn't fulfill any of God's commands. But even though these things are not specifically mentioned in scripture, it is wrong for us to then conclude that we can do anything that is unauthorized so long as it doesn't blatently contradict what God does tell us.
Again, I ask you, do you believe in church-owned gymnasiums, or what about the church's promotion of basketball and other sports leagues? What about a church-owned business?
My point is this: we need to seek the authority of God in all that we do. Like Nadab and Abihu, if we serve God or worship God in a way that He hasn't commanded or authorized, then we are guilty and will incur God's wrath.
Either we say that it is unnecessary to seek authority for everything we do, or in seeking to justify or condemn something, we make biblical arguments and do our best to remain within the confines of what the New Testament authorizes.
But we can't have it both ways.
Eric, I fear that you're on a very dangerous path that will lead you to places that you never intended to go.
Casey,
ReplyDeleteI understand Generic and Specific all to well and am very familiar and know every doctrine of the Church of Christ inside and out. The statement I made doesn't change Generic and Specific in anyway shape from or fashion.
With my statement of God gave instructions or didn't pretty much comes out the same way. But is more accurate.
As stated before if you have instructions we are to follow them to a Tee... so if God says do this and only this... then that's what we do. If God did not give us instructions such as "Go" then just like your idea of Generic authority its the same we know to go but since God was silent on how we are to go we have freedom.
The point is this... the truth is God is silent on how to Go... thus is you make the statement that all silence is prohibitive then how can the above be true. Its impossible for all silence to be prohibitive...
In the same way you take silence to say "God didn't say not to..." is wrong. The same is also true in "God didn't say how to..." thus we have freedom.
For example if God said build and ark from gopher wood... and someone said we'll he didn't say not to use pine. In your mind he broke God's silence and is wrong. I agree with this... because God gave a very specific instruction to use gopher wood thus it must be followed. God gave instructions.
However if God said Build and ark... in this example Gods silence is permissive in that he didn't say what building materials to use thus silence and its permissive... we could use cedar, pine, whatever we wanted.
So the point is saying all silence is prohibitive is wrong... because if all silence is prohibitive as stated we couldn't Go because God was silent on how to go it would be impossible to obey that command if silence is ALWAYS prohibitive.
Thus our conclusions are the same just my statement is more accurate in that silence can both be permissive and prohibitive as shown in the two examples above with the ark.
For if we say that all silence is prohibitive then we fall in to the trap that if that statement is true then all the things God never mentioned would be wrong... such as a Church building etc...
Note I never said Church buildings were wrong but if you took the stance that all silence is prohibitive then that's the only option you have since God was silent about it.
Anyway this little derail got us off topic, but I think I've made my point that silence can be both permissive and prohibitive thus making the statement all silence is prohibitive is false... and to say God gave instructions or did not is a bit more accurate.
Anyway back to the topic at hand I'm still waiting on a answer to the following questions.
1. I have a simple question regarding a statement you made. "I'm saying is that the local church is given certain commands that are specific to the church."
Can you give examples of these things what are some commands that is given to the church, that the church is to carry out? Also if these commands are not carried out will the church be judged on these things or each individual be held accountable?
I'm glad to hear that we're saying basically the same thing. I thought you were saying before that God's silence is generally permissive. Thank you for clarifying.
ReplyDeleteAs to your last two questions, I believe I answered both of them already. The church is given many commands that are particular to the church: the Lord's supper, elders/deacons, the collection (1 Cor. 16:1-2), women to be silent in assembly (1 Cor. 14:34), etc.
As to whether or not the local church will face judgment, again, Revelation 2-3 speaks of churches losing candleticks (the idea of a church ceasing to be a church in God's eyes), but no, I'm not aware of any text where the local church as an entity will stand before Christ on the day of judgment. Individuals will be judged. I have never disagreed with this. I don't see what this proves, though.