|
Post by Danny on Jul 20, 2006 4:41:27 GMT -5
The New Testament Way to Meet How is it then, brethren? When ye come together, everyone of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two or at the most by three, and that by course, and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church. What! Came the word of God out from you? Or came it to you only?
If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently, and in order.
1 Co 14:26-40 (KJV)
|
|
|
Post by WhoDo on Jul 20, 2006 9:10:39 GMT -5
The New Testament Way to Meet How is it then, brethren? When ye come together, everyone of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two or at the most by three, and that by course, and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church. What! Came the word of God out from you? Or came it to you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently, and in order. 1 Co 14:26-40 (KJV) Who do you know that speaks in tongues?
|
|
|
Post by searching on Jul 20, 2006 9:54:42 GMT -5
why do the women speak in the 2X2 meetings then? It says clearly "let women keep silent"
|
|
|
Post by for on Jul 20, 2006 18:42:29 GMT -5
why do the women speak in the 2X2 meetings then? It says clearly "let women keep silent" for the information of the people replying the first post is not from the 2x2s
|
|
|
Post by quest on Jul 20, 2006 19:20:46 GMT -5
The holy spirit will guide as long as we allow it to.
|
|
|
Post by tongues on Jul 21, 2006 1:33:34 GMT -5
The New Testament Way to Meet Who do wrote: Who do you know that speaks in tongues? There are plenty of churches where people speak in tongues..
|
|
|
Post by For Danny on Jul 23, 2006 20:45:08 GMT -5
Danny,
There is no argument that New Testament Christians met in homes. Period.
Notice that the apostles wore sandals. Mark 6:9
The real question: was meeting in homes commanded or just convenient? My search of scripture revealed no place where meeting in one certain structure is commanded or some type(s) forbidden.
Beyond that, the NT format was participatory and interactive. There is no good substitute for that, but traditional churches are starting to figure it out. Small groups meeting in homes are being openly promoted.
Really
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2006 21:09:26 GMT -5
for Danny - your reference to the apostles wearing sandals. This is a typical way people mock those who say they live by the bible. We understand what is required by Jesus, ie the Sermon on the Mount, and what is not, ie wearing sandals, riding donkeys etc
The home church was neither commanded nor convenient - it was exampled. In many places in the NT the role of the physical structure is mentioned, ie Romans and Hebrews.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Jul 23, 2006 21:47:46 GMT -5
The home church was neither commanded nor convenient - it was exampled. In many places in the NT the role of the physical structure is mentioned, ie Romans and Hebrews. Are examples identified as examples by using the word example to identify them as such or do people just get to pick what they want for an example?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2006 21:52:44 GMT -5
Hi Greg, yes, we must all figure out for ourselves what is example, what is not. I feel that the broad thrust of moral arguments and broad statements on the form of NT worship are the examples we must obey.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 23, 2006 22:21:39 GMT -5
This idea of "examples" is ripe for abuse. 2x2ism doesn't even follow the clearly defined behaviours - how the heck will it get unspecified "examples" right?
Consider:
"I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works." (1 Timothy 2:8-10, ESV)
I never received an answer from Prue or Bert months ago when I referred to this passage. 2x2ism likes to point to vss 9-10 and how their women "obey" this. But they completely ignore vs 8. Why?
Whatever way one chooses to interpret vss 9-10 regarding women, exactly the same interpretive method will have to be used for vs. 8 regarding men. There is no break in context.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2006 1:20:14 GMT -5
Hi Rob - yes, the idea of examples surely is open for abuse. It all boils down to determining what is Cultural and what is Spiritual. I meant to reply about this lifting up holy hands business - but I couldn't figure out what it meant. Perhaps it referred to the way people held their hand in prayer. There's that culture/spirit thing - how one holds hands in prayer vs. the issue of anger and quarreling.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 24, 2006 20:00:58 GMT -5
Bert,
This is the heart of the issue. There are specified directives that 2x2ism does not have any understanding of, yet are content to dismiss them. But it is supposedly vital to meet in homes and not have church buildings even though there are no directives in relation to these.
This inconsistent pick-and-choose mentality is related to the filters 2x2's wear when they approach scripture. They do not go there to find meaning. They go with their beliefs in place and look for passages that might support their beliefs while ignoring reams of scripture that don't.
|
|
|
Post by wearisome on Jul 24, 2006 20:57:36 GMT -5
Bert, This is the heart of the issue. There are specified directives that 2x2ism does not have any understanding of, yet are content to dismiss them. But it is supposedly vital to meet in homes and not have church buildings even though there are no directives in relation to these. This inconsistent pick-and-choose mentality is related to the filters 2x2's wear when they approach scripture. They do not go there to find meaning. They go with their beliefs in place and look for passages that might support their beliefs while ignoring reams of scripture that don't. It seems there are scores of people lining up to criticize others, when others are just allowing the holy spirit to guide. There are countless issues that are 'only' answered by a revelation from God, by His Holy Spirit . The spirit of the service is vital, how do you ''know'' you have the right spirit guiding you, anyways?? huh??
|
|
|
Post by Bert again on Jul 24, 2006 22:33:07 GMT -5
Rob - okay, I am happy to lift up hands in prayer, but first I would have to know what it means to lift up hands. We should also lift up our eyes and lift up our hearts. Another one I am not sure about is to girt/gird our loins. I fully accept that these points of interpretation and the culture/spirit thing are the heart of the issue. But I do put issues like the itinerate ministry,and home service, on a different par to lifting up hands.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 24, 2006 22:38:58 GMT -5
Why? There is no directive in relation to when, where or how often the church should/can meet.
|
|
|
Post by Bert again on Jul 24, 2006 22:59:49 GMT -5
Hi Rob. Yes, directives are hard to find. Our church has a Sunday and week day service; several missions; a Special Meeting and a Convention. In the bible they had a Sunday service and some form of Special or Convention, that we know of. It isn't specified - we just know they did it by indirect reference. We are told to "search" our scripture "daily" because things are not given as specific instruction in size 48 font bold. How they did things precisely is not recorded, and need not be.
Bert
|
|
|
Post by wearied on Jul 24, 2006 23:00:26 GMT -5
Why? There is no directive in relation to when, where or how often the church should/can meet. Let the spirit guide you. It is impossible to list all the guidelines in scripture. Jesus said He would send the Holy spirit, and it would teach ''ALL'' things.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 25, 2006 2:56:03 GMT -5
This is exactly what I also hear from JW's and Mormons. I don't know why the Spirit should get blamed for all manner of scriptural distortions.
Bert - the Mormon and JW just know that you are wrong and that the other is wrong.
If it can't be clearly delineated from scripture, it is a tradition of men.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Jul 25, 2006 5:30:58 GMT -5
Yes, directives are hard to find. That might depend on what you want to do and not want to do. So easy to spiritualize something or discard something because such was done in that day or that culture. So easy to pick something and say "oh, we must do this....this makes us right and all others wrong." There is the directive to worship God in spirit and truth. To me this means without formality, without a set of rules and with a sincerity and honesty of the heart, doing or saying nothing of pretense. Our church has a Sunday and week day service; several missions; a Special Meeting and a Convention. In the bible they had a Sunday service and some form of Special or Convention, that we know of. Yes, they had a[/u] Sunday service. In that service Paul spoke quite a long while. And they had a meal, a real meal together. One could call any gathering that is not a regular weekly gathering either "special" or some type of "convening" (convention). That does not make the workers special meetings and their conventions the same thing as what happened in the New Testament. And that does not mean they are or are not for that matter acceptable to God. And for sure has little, if any connection to Old Testament feasts and sabbaths. It isn't specified - we just know they did it by indirect reference. This could be a good study of what is directly referenced and followed by any and all churches (believers or supposed believers). Also, of what seems an indirect reference and if such is rightly discerned and is necessary or not. We are told to "search" our scripture "daily" because things are not given as specific instruction in size 48 font bold. Maybe. And maybe one searches the scripture in order to piece together some faulty doctrine or tradition or practice. For sure one should search the scripture to determine if what one is hearing or reading of another is indeed rightly discerning the word of God. How they did things precisely is not recorded, and need not be. Likely because there was and is no need for such to be copied or deemed to be necessary. Seems odd to want to be so sure that one is accepted by God that one makes a form of fellowship and worship not specifically outlined or commanded in the Bible. And yet there is no fear that designating such as necessary or as discrediting anyone else's fellowship and worship is not displeasing God.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2006 7:50:29 GMT -5
If we have competing texts about, say worship - one is a cryptic verse and the other a full and specific chapter on the topic, we may well accept the latter.
But often, if not usually, what we know comes through a glass darkly.
There is no commandment that people meet for worship, for instance, but we know because it says " they were all with one accord in one place" when the spirit entered into their service. And in Corinthians it gives us a tiny picture of the Old Testament convocation when it says "he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once."
So here were 500 people gathering in the New Testament. And people having a service which was given the seal of God's approval.
|
|
|
Post by jxr on Jul 25, 2006 8:06:24 GMT -5
So in Acts, you can read:
So by what authority is it permitted to slack off and meet only on Sundays and Wednesdays?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2006 8:19:41 GMT -5
hmmm... I hit Back instead of Post Reply and lost everything jxr - your question is a good one. I have wondered about this text myself. The reference to the temple courts is especially interesting, particularly when we think of the Christians as being badly persecuted. Whether this "meet together" meant the same or different to the Sunday morning service with breaking of bread we cannot tell. We would not be able to meet every day in our world because of work and family committments. And certainly, the new Sabbath had to be delineated as a day of rest and worship, otherwise every day would be a Sabbath.
|
|
|
Post by jxr on Jul 25, 2006 9:03:39 GMT -5
From what Jesus taught his disciples in the last supper, I would take it that communion/eucharist should be conducted at every mealtime.
|
|
|
Post by Bert not logged on Jul 25, 2006 9:17:48 GMT -5
jxr - "breaking of bread" can be taken two ways. By using the "breaking of bread" as a daily meal time symbol we would quickly errode the symbolism of the eucharist.
When Jesus spoke to the mother of Zebedee's children he mentioned the taking of the cup. The taking of the cup also meant two things - and what Jesus meant was being willing for the privation, sacrifice and obedience of the cross.
So I don't believe the eucharist was a daily mealtime activity.
|
|
timber
Senior Member
Posts: 249
|
Post by timber on Jul 25, 2006 10:05:22 GMT -5
Rob wrote: They go with their beliefs in place and look for passages that might support their beliefs while ignoring reams of scripture that don't
It has been my experience and observation that many simply do not know how to study their Bibles. I include myself among them.
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Jul 25, 2006 10:48:52 GMT -5
One should ask every group how we should gather what will they say?They will all say that the way we are gathering is best and you know how the story goes...so stop and think for a moment what all these groups are missing out on is fellowship with one another cause there group is the best way to gather Shouldn't christians gather with Christians?Well go figure
|
|
chip
New Member
Read the Secret Sect book by Doug and Helen Parker
Posts: 12
|
Post by chip on Jul 25, 2006 10:50:07 GMT -5
I went and figured and this is the conclusion of the matter. You must read the [secret sect]
|
|