Family of God: [Church_of_Christ] Re: Can you guess?

Gerry wrote: Beth,
How many times do you need? But I hate to disappoint you. See also 1 Cor.
16:2.

Hi Gerry,

I believe we need more than one time, of an example, for us to create a practice and command that example to be practiced by everyone.

Someone last week gave an illustration of going to a family reunion and while they were there his father had a heart attack. Then, his question was, "would anyone believe that the next year at the reunion his father must have another heart attack." You cannot make a rule of one example and create a common practice. You can list many other illustrations where this would be true, and so can I.

I have used this illustration: I went down to down Saturday and bought a new red Cadillac and parked it in my driveway. Now, with this example and your inferences used to interpret Acts 20:7, how many red Cadillacs will I have parked in my driveway one year from today. The problem that I see with your conclusion is that people would never use the same method in everyday life that they use to interpret the Bible.

Now, to 1 Cor. 16:2, that collection was not taken in church it was stored up at home. Now, you are going to ask me to product scripture to back up my statement and rightly so. I have no proof that it was taken at home. However, that is beside the point in this discussion.

The discussion started when Clay quoted, "It further emphasizes that in everything religious there must be a "Thus saith the Lord" for all that is done." The problem with my statement is that I do not have a "thus saith the Lord" to back it up. However, neither do you have a "thus saith the Lord" to back it up your statement. We have both left out "thus saith the Lord" and inserted out own interpretation.

Many people believe the collection was taken at home and not at church. I could give you my views of the collections in 1 Cor. 16:1; however, we are not discussing the collections, we are discussing how people use example to interpret the scripture that they would never use in everyday life. 1 Cor. 16:1 does not even hint that they were at church when they stored up their collection on the first day of the week. The same it true with what is said. The scripture is silent and we should not force either interpretation by trying to use another meeting of the church to prove they had to be in church.

Gerry wrote: Lest I be misunderstood. I think they met whenever they could have on any day.

Norman: No, Gerry I do not believe you misunderstood. Acts 2 tells us at the beginning they met daily. However, that is not under consideration here. What Clay is saying is that 20:7 is not "thus saith the Lord" that they met every Sunday that is inferred from outside the scripture. .

Gerry wrote: Further, outside of scripture we know from history that they met on the first
day of the week as well.

Norman: The problem I see with outside the scripture history is the method used by the church to prove that it confirms the "thus saith the Lord" already written in scripture.

I do not know where you get your historical information from outside the scripture; however, when I was growing up, the only history we had access to was a track written by members of the church and they only quoted what they wanted us to believe. If we are going to use history to prove what the Christians did from the beginning we need to be fair with the complete teaching of the writer.

In a discussion with a person last year he gave me some references to read to prove that the church met every Sunday. I went to those sources and guess what? There it was the proof that the writer said we meet every Sunday and then he also gave proof of how they were to carry out the church service. The person I was discussing it with did not tell me the whole story. The history writer said (I do not remember all the details) there cannot be a baptism except by the president of the church and the LS could not be served by anyone unless he was a servant of the president.

When confronted with the whole story he did not agree with the president concept; however, he believed the meeting every Sunday backed up what Acts 20:7 had already confirmed.

The problem with church history is that it was mostly in the second century and many churches were already headed to the catholic concept.

I appreciate you comments.

Thanks,

Norman

__._,_.___

Messages in this topic (16) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

Messages | Database | Polls

Participation guidelines: List policies are posted in the files area as listpolicies.html

We don't want to see you go, but if you must, the address is Church_of_Christ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

MARKETPLACE

From kitchen basics to easy recipes - join the Group from Kraft Foods