[Church_of_Christ] Re: The Melting Pot
Greetings Norman, ED replying
> ED: You are right. All I know who are trying to "practice primitive Christianity" mean simply to duplicate the things that they reason were intended to be duplicated in that way.
>
Norman: TRYING to duplicate the THINGS they REASONED were INTENDED, are of not value unless they knew how they were intended to be duplicated. Then, most of what the church does today is making law of their reasoning and binding them on Christians.
ED: God reveals; man reasons. You and I can't get around it. To reason that God revealed this or that to be done by Christians today does not constitue making law and binding it when and if God indeed intended it to be followed.
Norman wrote previously: Most to the acts we perform in worship come from our traditions, not from the NT. Someone said 80% of everything you do in worship is tradition and not found in the NT. I believe the honest student of the NT will come to the same conclusion.
ED before : I believe this statement is nonsense!
>
Norman: You are entitled to your opinion; however, that also comes from your reasoning of what you believe was intended for the church to do, not what was practiced.
ED before wrote: This year is the 200th anniversary of T Campbell's Declaration and Address. In those 200 years ten of thousands of honest, open minded, often at first skeptical, students of the Bible have worked to "speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent."
>
Norman: TRYING to duplicate the THINGS they REASONED were INTENDED does not speak where the Bible speaks and silent where the Bible is silent. If it does, why has there been disagreements on what is Bible and what is not?
ED: I disagree with your first statement. As for the question, the same reason there are differences between denominations, political parties, engineers, doctors, plumbers, electricians, students, committees, on and on.
ED before wrote: What you call "traditions" were reached through years of dialogue and discussion, review and testing, questioning and reasoning, over generations with every generation raising the same questions and after carefully studying arriving at generally the same conclusions. The process continues even now!
Norman: I agree! What I call traditions was reached years ago and they have studied and questioned and revised the process still continues today. Now, what does that tell us? They started out with the Bible and nothing but the Bible and they continued over the years to look and re-look at speaking where the Bible spoke and silent was the Bible was silent and 2000 years later they are still changing what it means to speak where the Bible and silent where the Bible is silent. Yes, that is what I call the traditions of men. What does that say about the subject, "MUST I do exactly as they did and why or why not?" What is the answer? Yes or No? Why are there still divisions?
ED: Go back and read again; you missed it. What you are calling "traditions" that have been reviewed and tested over and again have been proven to withstand the testing and review and proven true, not false. Here is what happens; think about it; it is common sense. Very early on after the apostles an "issue" arose. One of the first was the "form" or "substance" of Jesus. It was discussed and studied and after a long time there was general agreement. They even put it into a creed (the Apostle's Creed). From time to time it has been reviewed and tested but shown that they were right in their conclusion (just wrong in making a creed other than the Bible itself). The point is another "issue" came up and then another than another. Thru the centuries, the focus shifts from one thing to another; it is discussed thoroughly and eventually a consensus is reached. From time to time new generations question and test it and realize the reasons a consensus was reached was sound biblical interpretation and thus it is proven. Move forward into the RM. The same thing has happened to us because it is the way people do things. "Issues" for whatever the reason arise. Before an issue arose, nobody paid a lot of attention to it because they were focused on nsome other issue. We can't help it; we're made this way, whether we admit it or not. One of the first issues were unity and the rejection of creeds for following the Bible alone. Then immersion became an issue, then "remission of sins", then mission work and church oversight (brotherhood wide), then organs, then HS, on and on.
ED before wrote: It is an insult and disrespect of previous generations to claim that 200 years of Restoration scholarship is based on dishonesty. To suggest that those great men, who cannot defend themselves having moved on to their rewards, were dishonest is a thing too mean for me!!!
>
Norman: For one who claims to accept everyone's opinion and allow everyone to have their interpretation of the Bible, you sure do not show much respect to others when you disagree with them. You call me silly, idle talker and you said I could not prove what I said before I gave the proof and in this post you call my statement nonsense. At this writing I can still defend myself; however, I do not believe I should have to defend myself against what I believe against what you believe.
ED: I may call something written silly or nonesense. It is intended to express disagreement, not disrespect. If it caused the latter, then I apologize for it did what I did not intend. But to call someone of a previous generation who spent their life in service to the Lord and his people; to call such a one "dishonest"; as if a mind-reader, as if knowing what God alone can know, is a practice beyond what I choose to do.
Norman: I make an effort not to insult or disrespect anyone; however, I do not believe it is an insult to question the honest intentions. Consider Calvin; do you hold his teaching on a level with Campbell? Calvin's ability speak where the Bible speaks and silent where the Bible is silent has been discussed, tested and carefully studied and they have repeatedly came to the same conclusions. There are many more that were honestly mistaken and their doctrine causes division in the body of Christ today. I suppose those who have the truth, the whole truth and noting but the truth are those reformers that agree with your interpretation of the Bible.
ED: You statement is gobbledy-gook! It is a mix of contradictions. First you offer Calvin as an example of being dishonest with the Bible; then you turn around and say "many more that were honestly mistaken"! Norman, it is one or the other; not both! I choose to believe in Calvin's honesty. I think he was honestly mistaken. If he was honestly mistaken; then he was NOT DISHONEST!
ED BEFORE wrote: Moreover, I am quite ready to give scriptural basis for those things I believe and practice you say 80% of are "traditions"
Norman: The statement that I made was a quote made by a visiting teacher at the church where I attend. He was talking about the COC as a whole. I do not know exactly what you do in your congregation; therefore, I cannot list those things; however, I was not referring a single congregation. Remember the discussion is whether I MUST do exactly as they did and why or why not.
ED: You qouted it. You entered it into discussion. If you are not willing to back it up, why quote it and proceed to argue on the basis of it?
Norman: I have already listed two and I am assuming you practice greeting one another with a hand-shake and you pray with your hands below your head. I assume you meet three times a week with different practices at every service. I assume you take the LS on Sunday morning without a meal. I assume you have a paid preacher, a song leader, use a song book to sing
from, have an invitation song and a closing prayer. I assume you have a Bible class separate from what you call the worship service where everyone teaches one another including both men and women. I assume you build and maintain a church building from the collection of the saints every Sunday. OK! I am ready for you to list them one by one. I have more and I will supply more when you give me BCV for the above practices. Then, after you prove from scripture that the NT church did EXACTLY the things above, then, you have right to call my statement *nonsense*.
ED: Due to the time involved, I will address these one by one as you ask. I believe there is a biblical basis in regard to each. I suspect you will not agree with my biblical basis. So I answer one time providing what I believe is a basis. I do not intend to pursue it further; not because it cannot but because of the time restraints involving such a lengthy list. You may feel free to accuse me of not answering your further replies in regard to this, as you have in the past. But know right now, it will be a misrepresentation if you do, because I am now setting these parameters for our discussion necessarily by my own time restraints. Now to your list (incidentally, since you list these first, they must be a fair representation of your complete list and I will treat it as thus, and when answered, will have answered an example of what you indlude in your list and therefore find no further need to answer other things that may occur on your list):
- "hand shake greeting" - has no religious implications at all, it is the normal way I greet anyone, Christian or not. If you mean "greet one another with a holy kiss", I practice this as well. It is not a kiss on the lips, but the standard light hug as is still practiced in the East. So I get at least a B+ on the first one.
- "pray with hands below your head" - guilty! However I lift holy hands to the Lord when I pray. I suggest that the lifting of holy hands to the Lord is nothing more that the practice of placing one's hands together in front of one in the motionn of prayer - it has been a customary posture of prayer for centuries. Looks like a passing grade to me.
- "meet 3 times a week" - guilty! Sometimes even more. But it is not treated as a "thus says the Lord" in the sense of a law. To do so is to go beyond that which is written. Still a passing grade.
- "LS on Sunday without a meal" - guilty (generally; on 5th Sundays we have a meal after worship). When the Corinthians tried to make a meal out of the LS, Paul rebuked them. That's Bible. Looks like an A.
- "a paid preacher" - indeed we support those who labor in the gospel on a full-time basis, 1 Tim 5:18. Looks like an A.
- "a song leader" - guilty! Without authority? No. Singing praise is authorized as worship and all that enables one to do that is thus authorized. A passing grade!
- "a song book" - guilty as charged! But also authorized in the instruction of singing praise. Another passing grade.
- "an invitation song" - Now that is really getting picky! But guilty as charged! Yet authorized to seek and savew the lost and authority for an invitation song is inferred in the process; thus I pass another test!
- "a closing prayer" - guilty again! And an "opening prayer" too! I'll just throw that one in for free. Prayer is authorized and certainly a part of assembly worship. "closing" is simply a descriptive term distnguishing one prayer from another. Common sense stuff! Pass again!
- "Bible classes" - you got me here! We do have Bible classes. Tradition or fulfilling the command to study the scripture? Having the command to study the scripture authorizes anything expediate to helping carry out the command. It is inferred in the authority of the command. Got by another! Thought you had me, didn't you? But A+
- "a church building" or "collection" - which or both? Don't know but guilty of both! The first is authorized in both statement and command and the most used term for the disciples "assembly". All that is involved in doing what God reveals is the assembly is authorized by its instruction, including the money needed to get it done. Passed again!
ED before wrote: As for your Love Feast. It is simply false to suggest this has never been discussed thoroughly the last 200 yrs. The fact is so little is said about it, we are left to speculation.
Norman: I agree! However, you are building your doctrine on the assumption that the Greek Scholars are not correct. I am giving you speculation that if these speculations are correct, then, we can question the infallibility of the reformers.
>
ED: Huh? The Greek scholars admit that they are speculating!
ED wrote before: I appreciate Thaye'rs and Vincent's efforts to identify the Love Feast of Jude 12 with the meal of 1 Cor 11 and evidently even with the daily meals of Ac 2. But it is little more than a guess.
Norman: And you are not guessing when you say the NT church met for a 5-part worship every Sunday?? Remember the question, *EXACTLY*; are you saying we do not know EXACTLY what they did? How can you mimic something EXACTLY if you do not know exactly what they did?
ED: Norman, "exactly" is your word, not mine! What I have said is I try to follow biblical belief and practice. You insert "exactly"; I state that we are fallible men trying to do what is right!
ED before wrote: Neither 1 Cor 11 nor Ac 2 provide any evidence they are a Love Feast.
Norman: But Acts 20:7 provides evidence that the NT church was NOT only a Love Feast, but a 5-part worship, is that what you are saying? With two trays of crackers and grape juice passed to the congregation by several men while they were in silent remembrance of the death of Jesus. I am looking for evidence of what you teach as scripture. Are you saying 20:7 proves that it was NOT only a Love Feast?
ED: Frankly, I don't know what the Love Feast was. There simply isn't enough information given. Some speculate it was a meal connected to Ac 2 or 1 Cor 11; others speculate it is a reference to the LS. I simply do not know. I do believe Ac 20:7 provides a record of the LS as the principle purpose for assembly on the first day of the week. And some of the other things that were invovled as well.
>
ED before wrote: Moreover, in 1 Cor 11 it is not entirely clear what was going on.
>
Norman: Then, how can we duplicate it EXACTLY? (It is clear what was going on in Acts 2 and 20?) Certainly the LS was involved. (At least, they claimed to be meeting for the LS) But also an abuse that involved "factions" (Yes, we learn later there was partially) v 19; some eating before others arrived, (they did not understand the LS) v 21, some even getting drunk, (On an 8 ounce bottle of Welch's grape juice? Why would they have gallons of alcoholic beverage if they only came for a 5-part worship to take the LS as we take it today?) v21. Whether this involved another meal or not and whether, if it did involve another meal, it was a Love Feast, is simply untold. (It was NOT the LS only.) In this discussion, it is not important, because the discussion is whether I MUST do exactly as they did and why or why not? My point is that we must know exactly what they did and we agree that we do not know. Therefore, we need to look at other scriptures to determent if they are facts or traditions. Acts 2: 42, 46 and Acts 20:7. The scripture is not followed in these verses (when we come together to worship), traditional beliefs dictates what we teach as scripture.
ED: "EXACTLY" is your term not mine. I try my best but I fall short. Some got drunk. That was the abuse. Some ate to fullness. That wwas the abuse. The LS was never intended to be such as that. You write "It was not the LS only"! Of course, that was the abuse, but whether it was another meal or enlarging the LS so as to be drunk with wine and full of bread fits more clearly with the context, as I believe. "whether I MUST do exactly" - Norman, you have a way of telling me what I believe that I don't believe and have never held. All I believe is I am trying to the best of my ability to do what the first century Christians did because I believe they were under apostolic supervision and therefore I am confident it was right.
ED before: If anything, it actually appears that the LS was being turned into a "meal" where some ate it all before others even arrived.
Norman: It may appear that it was the LS supper turned into a meal; however, we cannot know for sure, can we? Isn't it true that we do not know EXACTLY how and why they met? If you will look at Paul's explanation of the proper method to take the LS; you see that his illustration was with a meal and AFTER the meal the LS was taken. (1 Cor 11:25-26 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
ED: I am giving it my best shot at understanding! I looked and didn't see it! What I saw is that Paul referred to the institution of the LS by Jesus at the Passover. It has nothing to do with what was happening at Corinth other than what Paul referred it to - their abuse of the LS. Paul never mentions a meal as if he is endorsing a meal. In fact he tells them that their turning the LS into something where people get drunk (drinking more than was ever intended at the LS) and some ate to fullness his own supper ahead of others (eating all of the bread of the LS so others have none to eat) is an abuse never intended by the Lord. You may ask why I conclude that "supper" in v 21 is the LS? Becuase Paul told us that is what it was - v 20. "when you come together it is not to eat the LS" - in what sense? In the sense it was so abused (as explained in the following verses) that it could no longer represent the Lord!
Norman: To say is was the LS being tuned into a common meal come from outside sources, not scripture. Paul established this church and had already taught them how to take the Lord's Supper. He spent 1 1/2 years with them <Acts 18:11>, and a good while <Acts 18:18>. He had taken the Lord's Supper with them many times; probably about 150 times if they took it every Sunday and only on Sunday as you claim. He showed them how to take it. I am quite sure he did not show them how to remain silent while trays were past with a piece of cracker in one tray and follower by another tray with tiny cup of Welch's grape juice for 150 times and they decided later to have a common meal with alcoholic beverages and call it the LS. They didn't understand or they had forgotten the importance of it.
ED: Paul had been there 18 mo but a lot had happened in his absense. This was only one thing they had messed up. The letter is full of stuff Paul found he had to straighten out. If you don't think that people can take clear teaching and mess it up, just take a look at some of the speculation some make in regard to one single reference to a Love Feast.
Norman: If you will remember Paul said one remains hungry, or do you despise the church of God and HUMILATE those who have NOTHING (to eat)? Their intentions were to have a love feast and feed the poor. Paul did not condemn them for eating a common meal with the LS. He only said if you can't wait until the poor Christians get there eat at home. The only problem was they were despising the church of God and humiliating those who had nothing?
ED: It would be a shame for some to eat all the bread just as much as a shame for some to eat all of a meal. I understand you arrive at the conclusion that it was a meal. So be it. That is your right. I simply do not see it. That is my right.
ED before wrote: But to suggest that these passages have been dishonestly or intentionally ignored shows an unfamiliarity with Restoration history and current study.
>
Norman: I have one question on this; can a person follow God to the fullest without knowing about the Restoration history and current study or are those mandatory for a Christian to be fully in Christ through faith in only what the NT reveals? Can I be a Christian and follow Jesus without knowing and following any traditions handed down by Apostolic Fathers or traditions learned from honest men of the RM?
>
ED: Yes.
Norman: believe these are important questions. If we can, then all your arguments are moot and if we can't all my arguments are moot. Which is it? Must I have these men or can I live a Christian life without any outside knowledge to know EXACTLY what the NT church did? If it is possible to be a Christian without knowing EXACTLY what they did, of what value is honest man's interpretation of the scripture?
ED: There you go off on your "EXACTLY" again and you always capitalize it as if it is some special point and I don't even claim it. As far as reading and studying other's, I have learned a great deal from others. I am surprised that you do not realize how valuable an aid the study of other nonest Bible students can be. I suppose that means you participate in a forum like this with no intention of considering anyone else's judgment or thinking. This would explain a lot of things.
Norman wrote previously: The exact time, purpose and how these Love Feasts were carried out is what we must determine before we exactly duplicate what they did. The questions that arises is did they meet for their Agape every Sunday with their 5 part worship. Was it only a common meal and the LS (1 Cor 11; Acts 20:7; Jude 12; 2 Peter 2:13) Do we still need the *melting pot* today to bring the wealthy, Jew, gentle and the poor on the same level? I would appreciate anyone's input on the *melting pot.* Why or Why not?
ED: No comment
ED before: There is a mighty lot of speculative conclusions in the former paragraph, but it is certainly worthy of open discussion.
>
Norman: And when we completely and openly discuss it I am sure there will remain a lot of speculative conclusions, because the Bible is silent as to exactly what the Love Feast was and how and why it was carried out. That is the reason I responded to the post. "Must I copy exactly what they did in the NT church?" Again, I must know exactly what they did, before I can exactly copy what they did and the Bible does not tell us exactly what they did; neither can the honest learned men for the last 2000 years, because the Bible is silent on much of it. Most of what we do today is not from the Bible, but traditions through the years from a lot of speculative conclusions by man.
ED: I have already responded to your claim that a lot of what we do is not biblical, just tradition, so see the above.
ED before wrote: But if discussed, let us do so without a bias that declares another dishonest if they have not reached the same conclusions.
>
Norman: If anyone questions the integrity of someone, it is you not me. You seem to believe I say absurd things that I cannot backup; however, when I back them up by facts, you still will not accept them as true. IMO, that is not a Christ-like spirit, you judge first and ask questions later.
ED: I am glad you finished this way because I was going to make the following statement and you provided an excellent springboard. Yes, I will say an argument is absurd or nonsense when it seems such to me. Then I provide reasons why I believe it such. In doing so, it is an "attack" on an argument. That is a part of discussion. But it certainly is not attacking the person; charging them with a lack of integrity, of being dishonest, of assigning impure motives. That I leave to others! You say you have provided "facts". When you provide facts, I hope I will accept them. But when you provide what you call facts that must fit certain parameters that do not fit general application as if it somehow effected biblical understanding and applicatioin, then yes I do reject it. What is stated may be true if you grant the extreme "if"s, but it touches neither topside not bottom of biblical reference. So I grant you the right to feel whatever you desire to feel (as if I had the right) in proving some irrelevant IDL fact. As far as you IMO, you are free to your opinions. I also have opinions. And my opinion is that when you in posts to other people claim that Ed doesn't answer your questions, you are unfair. As a result I feel compelled to answer things I shouldn't have to answer. You roped me into it. Just leave me out, please. If you think I didn't answer this or that (though in my judgment I have), so be it. I just don't see any good coming of spreading it other than to prejudice someone against another. And that is not good, it is bad! Now, I have written this at leangth against my personal preference for fear that if I leave anything out you will once again, as you have before begin to post things about ED not answering all of my questions. Normally, I repond to a part or portion I think is timely and enjoy doing so. But I detest feeling like if I leave out some little something or other, I am going to be labeled and described and spoken against as if I am afraid to answer whatever it it. Therefore, I will state as best I can: I have to the best of my knowledge answered every thing you have brought before me. From henceforth, our discussions are at an end. I will not defame you and I ask you to please not defame me.
We don't want to see you go, but if you must, the address is Church_of_Christ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Post a Comment