HOW to establish Bible Authority !

[Apollos1]

The Restoration Movement developed in the 1800’s and a single religious body of like mind and practice was forming upon the basis of “We shall speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent.” Book, chapter, and verse was demanded for all that was taught and practiced religiously – authority from scripture was requisite for everything religious!

The question came as to HOW can authority from scripture be established? Upon examination of the Bible, authority was perceived to be given in 3 ways:

1.) Command or Precept (positive statement).
2.) Example (Actions that can be seen in scripture as acceptable/proper).
3.) Inference (That which can be necessarily implied in scripture as acceptable/proper).

The Lord’s Supper can be used to illustrate all 3 ways…

Command – “This do…” - 1 Corinthians 11:24.
Example – Unleavened bread/fruit of the vine – Matthew 27:17-29.
Inference – “Upon the first day of the week…” – Acts 20:7.

Authority – Specific or Generic

Authority can be seen as specific or generic. When Christ said “Go…” in Matthew 28:18-20 the command was generic as to how to go. Therefore it is a matter of expediency as to how one will “Go” – walk, plane, train, etc. However, Christ was specific as to what to go for – go, teach all nations the Gospel (cf. Mark 16:15-16). What to preach was specified by the Lord.

The “law” of expediency…

1 Corinthians 6:12 – “All things are lawful for me; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful for me; but I will not be brought under the power of any.”

1 Corinthians 10:23 – “All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify.”

Paul is not saying that he could practice or teach anything that he wanted and that such would be lawful. What Paul is saying is that everything he practiced was lawful (in accordance with God’s will).

Within the realm of lawful things, not all of those things were expedient and not all of them edified. So in a word…

1.) All religious practice and teaching must be lawful or authorized by God.
2.) All lawful things must be expedient..
3.) AND they must edify. (All -3- points are necessary.)

Example:

Christians assemble upon the first day of the week (Sunday). All 24 hours of that day are lawful to congregate for worship. 3 AM is authorized, but to most people it would not be expedient. For most people, 3 AM would not edify either. Of those 24 authorized hours, most Christians choose times later in the day to congregate and worship. Doing such is lawful, expedient, and it edifies.

Application:

For the purpose of illustrating SPECFIC authority a chart will be used. While such a chart is limited in a non-verbal venue such as this discussion board, I am hoping it will prove to be useful to some.

Specific ---------------Generic ---------------Expedient ---------------Prohibited

Gopherwood ............Wood .....................White/Yellow ................Pine,oak,etc.


Preach gospel .........Anything ..................Radio,Newspaper ..........News,Sports

Fruit of vine............ Anydrink.................. Red/purplegrapes......... Soda,water

Sing..................... Make music ..............Tenor/Hi/Low/speed........ Instruments

Psalms/Hymns .......Songs ......................Sheets/song books ........Other songs

I want to take the first example and explain. I will intentionally (for now) not comment on the following items allowing the reader to make application. I am certain that I will have ample opportunity in ensuing discussions to expand on those points.

Gopher Wood – God told Noah to build an ark made of……… GOPHER wood! No one seems to question if any other wood could be used in the building of the ark. If there was yellow or white gopher wood that could be used to fulfill the command. Does anyone think that pine, oak, birch, or any other wood would have been acceptable? Yet in other area of work and worship in the NT church today people have no reservation to “add to” and “take away” from what God has spoken without the slightest whit of authority to do so.

Colossians 3:17 – Whatever you do in word or deed do all in the name of the Lord…

 

[crawfish]

1 Corinthians 6:12 – “All things are lawful for me; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful for me; but I will not be brought under the power of any.”

1 Corinthians 10:23 – “All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify.”

Paul is not saying that he could practice or teach anything that he wanted and that such would be lawful. What Paul is saying is that everything he practiced was lawful (in accordance with God’s will).

I've always understood this as Paul saying that just because something was "legal" in a cultural sense doesn't mean that it's right to do such a thing spiritually. The passage is discussing sexual impurity; even though such things were perfectly normal and legal in Corinth, that doesn't mean that they are activities that Christians should be engaged in. In essence, the passage says that we are held by a different standard than the non-Christians around us; we are to keep ourselves morally pure in a world that has far different values. I have trouble fitting the "expediency" argument in here.

I also have an issue with this statement:

Christians assemble upon the first day of the week (Sunday). All 24 hours of that day are lawful to congregate for worship. 3 AM is authorized, but to most people it would not be expedient. For most people, 3 AM would not edify either. Of those 24 authorized hours, most Christians choose times later in the day to congregate and worship. Doing such is lawful, expedient, and it edifies.

Reading the passage in question (Acts 20:7), you see that although they met on the first day of the week, they went PAST midnight and broke bread on Monday. Technically, if you are going to infer something from that, you'd have to assume that as long as the service start on Sunday that it doesn't matter how long you go before you take communion.

That's not my main point, however. Look at this passage:

One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord.

What one can infer from this is that the day only matters if the person believes that any other day would be sinful. You could argue that Paul is talking specifically about the Sabbath in that passage, and you would have a point; but if you can imply a more general message from 1 Cor 6:12 when it was specifically addressing sexual impurity, then should you not do the same here?

This is the major problem with the strict rule of authority you have presented. There is no guideline given for choosing when an inference should be made generically or kept specifically to its given context. I have not seen a way it has been (or can be) consistently applied without causing contradictions.

 

[crawfish]

Whoops, I forgot to address 1 Cor. 10:23.

I'll expand a few more verses here:

"Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."
If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake— the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?
So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

Given the context, this would indicate not expediency and NOT a blanket prohibition against something, but the thought that one must take other's feelings into account before their own. It implies (as an example) that If I was worshiping in your church, it would be sinful for me to pull out a guitar and belt out a hymn because it would offend you. It does not prohibit me from doing so in my own congregation, where people would not be offended.

(I must qualify that by saying there is probably very few places that wouldn't be offended by me pulling out a guitar and belting out a tune. )

Again, I must point out that in the prohibitions that speak from silence, they are often applying scripture in an inconsistent way. In my arguments, I am NOT intending to say, for example, "since you use songbooks it's OK for me to use instruments". That is admittedly bad logic. What I am calling into question is the consistency of applying said scriptures to one topic and not to another.

 

[SoulFly51]

This concept has been taken too far in Churches of Christ.

The Pharisees of the New Testament also read Scripture (the Old Testament) and formulated "godly rules of living" that God's word never specified.

They then enforced these rules (that they made up) on the general public, and used them to manipulate people.

 

[freespiritchurch]

The interpreters I find most useful agree that when Paul says "All things are lawful," he's quoting a slogan used by the people he's arguing against. He's agreeing with their slogan--but then altering its meaning in a totally new direction.

I don't know whether this affects your interpretation, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

Alan

 

[SpiritDriven]

Hello Group,

I think you will find the Bible mentions that God is our teacher..... and what ever level of understanding you do have is God given because it is God drawing you in the first place to the son.

Not everybody is going to have the same level of understanding.....this is also Gods doing....bear in mind that scripture does actualy tell us that...the spirit distributes to each individualy just as he wills.

Do not put yourselves under pressure by thinking that to be saved, you have to know the length and breadth and full depth of why you are saved from the indignation of God through Christ Jesus.....

Instead give thanks to God for what ever level of understanding you do have....because it was God who gave that to you...and he is on the hook to do any further revealing.


Peace

 

[Apollos1]

Hey crawfish –

I though that you would be the first to reply. I am disappointed that your reply was so selective as to what you would discuss.

Previously I said –
1 Corinthians 6:12 – “All things are lawful for me; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful for me; but I will not be brought under the power of any.”

1 Corinthians 10:23 – “All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify.”

Paul is not saying that he could practice or teach anything that he wanted and that such would be lawful. What Paul is saying is that everything he practiced was lawful (in accordance with God’s will). Your reply was…

've always understood this as Paul saying that just because something was "legal" in a cultural sense doesn't mean that it's right to do such a thing spiritually. The passage is discussing sexual impurity; even though such things were perfectly normal and legal in Corinth, that doesn't mean that they are activities that Christians should be engaged in. In essence, the passage says that we are held by a different standard than the non-Christians around us; we are to keep ourselves morally pure in a world that has far different values. I have trouble fitting the "expediency" argument in here.

What is it in 1 Corinthians 6:12 & 10:23 that makes you think Paul is discussing these things from a “cultural” standpoint? I find no context for that. You did not support your assumption.

Sexual impurity? Did you read the chapters [6 & 10] ? The passage [10] discusses many thing such as baptism with Moses in the wilderness, Christ as the “Rock”, the example of Israel’s disobedience, idolatry, fornication, murmuring, communion with Christ or with demons, etc. Chapter 6 covers going to trial with a brother, the major “hit” list of sins for who is not going to inherit the kingdom, as well as how they had been washed and sanctified in Christ. HOW do you determine either passage is discussing just sexual impurity? It appears you will have as much trouble with the contexts supporting this point as you will on the “cultural” point above.

(Was it where Paul says “All things…”? Was Paul saying “All (sexually impure things) are lawful for me…” ??? Do I have your take on this right?)

Expediency – You certainly found no place to “fit” a reply to this word in your reply. Quite odd, no where in your reply did you make mention of Paul using the words expedient or the word edify. Perhaps you can explain to us why Paul used these two words in these passages while you look for that different “standard” you claim Paul is talking about herein. In all kindness, it appears you have aborted all context in favor of your opinion.

I previously stated - Christians assemble upon the first day of the week (Sunday)[Acts 20:7]. You reply was…

Reading the passage in question (Acts 20:7), you see that although they met on the first day of the week, they went PAST midnight and broke bread on Monday. Technically, if you are going to infer something from that, you'd have to assume that as long as the service start on Sunday that it doesn't matter how long you go before you take communion.

Technically, this is a shallow reading of the verse. Verse 7 plainly states the disciples gathered on the first day of the week to break bread. Did the disciples do what they gathered to do or not? Perhaps the verse is wrong? In verse 11 (on Monday) it shows that Paul only – not the disciples – had something to eat and continued to preach. I wonder what you make of 1 Corinthians 16:2. Why did Paul tell the disciples there to “lay by in store” upon the first day of the week? What both passages infer is that “the first day of the week” is acceptable to have communion and a collection. What do you have?

(I presume your group at Richland Hills has communion – When? …On what day of the week? And I am wondering – do you even offer a scripture for the day of the week you partake? Do you? Or are all days the same down there – doesn’t matter?)

Romans 14:5-6 - One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord.

What one can infer from this is that the day only matters if the person believes that any other day would be sinful. You could argue that Paul is talking specifically about the Sabbath in that passage, and you would have a point; but if you can imply a more general message from 1 Cor 6:12 when it was specifically addressing sexual impurity, then should you not do the same here?

Your application here is flawed (and therefore your inference) because you wandered once again from the context of the passage.

The context of Romans 14 discusses that to do things that are acceptable/lawful, if done with doubt, is sinful. Why? Because to do such is not of faith and therefore a violation of conscience.

The example Paul offers is about meat offered to idols. Paul knows that idols are nothing – hunks of stone or wood. Meat offered there is only meat and it could be eaten by anyone. If someone eats some of that meat thinking it might be the wrong thing to do, or if eating any of that meat causes a problem for a brother, then it is wrong! Don’t violate your conscience – don’t cause a brother to stumble with something that is otherwise okay.

But beyond this, we see an example of the disciples meeting upon the first day of the week – Sunday. We know (Acts 2) that the church was established on Sunday. We know that collections were taken up on Sunday (1 Cor. 16:2). By example and inference we know Sunday is an acceptable day for such. I HAVE FAITH! What do you have?

This is the major problem with the strict rule of authority you have presented. There is no guideline given for choosing when an inference should be made generically or kept specifically to its given context. I have not seen a way it has been (or can be) consistently applied without causing contradictions.

The major problem here is that you want to have things YOUR way. You want to have freedom in religious practice to do some things that you desire. You are not content to follow any pattern and you are not content to apply Bible in all that you do.

As far as guidelines for application of “inference”, the Bible offers the guidelines with CONTEXT. It is only hard for those who can find context!

Your last statement regarding consistency and contradiction is vague and without support. Offer something to back it up.

Again, I must point out that in the prohibitions that speak from silence, they are often applying scripture in an inconsistent way. In my arguments, I am NOT intending to say, for example, "since you use songbooks it's OK for me to use instruments". That is admittedly bad logic. What I am calling into question is the consistency of applying said scriptures to one topic and not to another.

It is YOUR obligation to prove, illustrate, and show HOW I may be applying scripture(s) in an inconsistent way. It is YOUR obligation to demonstrate HOW I may be using authority or expediency improperly.

However, I would have certainly thought by now that YOU would have illustrated to me HOW you establish authority for instrumental music –AND-

That YOU would also have demonstrated from my chart above how I “improperly” PROHIBITED instrumental music from worship.

If you don’t like my chart, that is okay. Why not just go outside of the chart and tell us how YOU establish Bible authority for instruments of music in worship.

Who knows, perhaps you have changed your mind. Perhaps you no longer think we must have Bible authority for all we teach and practice in religion. Yes? No?

 

[Apollos1]

To WesWoodall -

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

This concept has been taken too far in Churches of Christ.

The Pharisees of the New Testament also read Scripture (the Old Testament) and formulated "godly rules of living" that God's word never specified.

They then enforced these rules (that they made up) on the general public, and used them to manipulate people.

I agree with you about the Pharisees. Nasty legalists who required things of others that they would not do themselves. Some of those things God never specified – you are correct. They thought acceptability before God was accomplished through strict/perfect law keeping. But I don’t believe that works – do you?

I believe that faith coupled with grace will save man – just as God designed that plan to do. But that doesn’t mean that man has nothing to do. And it doesn’t mean that God did not give man some guidance for faith and faithful living. (Psssst! I think the Bible may actually play a part in all of this. What do you think?)

Are you saying it is WRONG to follow the Bible???

Now I have presented to you some thoughts in reference to having Bible for all we teach and practice in religion. It seems you disagree with me.

Why not, instead of comparing me (?) to the Pharisees, be compassionate and show me where I am wrong. I have a chart above in my first post with a lot of words attached to it. Please guide me in the proper (?) direction – okay?

If I am trying to get you to follow man and not trying to get you to follow the Bible, set me straight! Let me have it! If I am in error, it is YOUR OBLIGATION to correct me. I am inviting it!!!

So please, do your duty!

 

[- DRA -]

This concept has been taken too far in Churches of Christ.

The Pharisees of the New Testament also read Scripture (the Old Testament) and formulated "godly rules of living" that God's word never specified.

They then enforced these rules (that they made up) on the general public, and used them to manipulate people.

If the concept of Bible authority has been taken too far, then you seem to know where the cut-off point is, right?

Please share with us exactly what we need to know about serving God and doing His will. Not too much. Not too little.

Perhaps you can start with commands? Do we have to do them, or are they optional? What about things that God specified? Are those optional, or did the people of God have liberty to substitute?

Talk to us ...

 

[- DRA -]

The interpreters I find most useful agree that when Paul says "All things are lawful," he's quoting a slogan used by the people he's arguing against. He's agreeing with their slogan--but then altering its meaning in a totally new direction.

I don't know whether this affects your interpretation, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

Alan

"All things are lawful" is found in 1 Cor. 6:12. However, looking back at the preceding verses in the chapter, one quickly realizes that all things aren't lawful. Hmmm.

I think some careful consideration of that text is in order before jumping to any rash conclusions.

 

[- DRA -]

Hello Group,

I think you will find the Bible mentions that God is our teacher..... and what ever level of understanding you do have is God given because it is God drawing you in the first place to the son.

Not everybody is going to have the same level of understanding.....this is also Gods doing....bear in mind that scripture does actualy tell us that...the spirit distributes to each individualy just as he wills.

Do not put yourselves under pressure by thinking that to be saved, you have to know the length and breadth and full depth of why you are saved from the indignation of God through Christ Jesus.....

Instead give thanks to God for what ever level of understanding you do have....because it was God who gave that to you...and he is on the hook to do any further revealing.

Peace

Thanks for your thoughts. Certainly, we all are not at the same level in spiritual development.

As for the knowledge necessary to be saved, I personally don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure things out. The Jews in Acts 2:38 were told what to do to be saved from their sins. Three thousand obeyed in verse 41. And, we have an inspired commentary that gives us every impression that what they did pleased the Lord in verse 47.

From a Bible authority perspective, those folks were given a command/direct statement of what to do to be saved. And, they obey it - and were saved. Just from that example, I determine that when God tells us what to do to be saved, then we should obey Him. And, when I consider the example of the 3,000, I consider their obedience an approved example that I should follow. Actually, I did.

Given just these few verses and applying what they teach goes a long way in helping us decide how we should handle this issue of Bible authority. Another way of looking at it is: are we going to obey God, or not?

 

[SoulFly51]

Why not, instead of comparing me (?) to the Pharisees, be compassionate and show me where I am wrong. I have a chart above in my first post with a lot of words attached to it. Please guide me in the proper (?) direction – okay?

If I am trying to get you to follow man and not trying to get you to follow the Bible, set me straight! Let me have it! If I am in error, it is YOUR OBLIGATION to correct me. I am inviting it!!!

So please, do your duty!

I made a general statement that you've taken personally. I hope you'll allow me to disagree with you and still be your friend.

My point in saying what I said is that I don't believe one should approach the Bible like its a rule book. I think its much deeper and more relevant than that, and growing up where I've grown up having the experiences that I've had I feel like my brothers and sisters in Churches of Christ have been guilty of that.

I'm not sure that there's an overarching, rational formula we should use to interpret everything in the Bible. Not everything in the Bible is rational - not everything that happened was what we would term as natural. The most important events that occurred in the Bible can often only be thought of as supernatural by our standards.

The Bible teaches that even the wisest among us are ridiculously inept and stupid when compared to God. While He has blessed us with minds and the ability to process rational thought, I will never believe that we can understand everything we read in the Bible perfectly, nor will I believe that we ever will while we're in an imperfect state.

I appreciate what you said in your initial post, and I did read it. But you know that method of interpretation didn't originate with you, and I don't personally believe it should be accepted as the gospel truth or the God-ordained method of approaching the Scriptures.

Anyway, don't take my disagreeing with you personally. I love you just like I love the rest of the people here, and its not my intention to upset you or ruffle your feathers.

 

[crawfish]

Hey crawfish –

I though that you would be the first to reply. I am disappointed that your reply was so selective as to what you would discuss.

I replied to what was necessary to get my point across.

Sexual impurity? Did you read the chapters [6 & 10] ?

Surely you must be kidding. You do realize that the Bible wasn't written with chapter and verse notations, I assume...they do not always signal a change in direction of the passage, or a completion of a thought. Read the chapter as an actual letter, ignoring the paragraph headings, chapter breaks and verses that appeared a thousand years later. Understand its flow over the breaks of the sentence.

The text in chapter five talks about avoiding associating with the sexually impure - it talks of separating the church from the influence of those outside of it (v12-13). Chapter 6 immediately goes into the wrongness of using an outside authority to judge matters between Christians. It discusses those whose activities should exclude them from the church (v9-11). Then we reach the the passage in question, followed by the exhortation that one should treat the body as if it was Christ's, not using it for sexually immoral purposes. You'll notice that chapter 7 starts in immediately about married couples satisfying each other sexually.

How is this NOT about sexual impurity? For you to universally implies this takes it out of its surrounding context. I'd really like to hear how you justify that view given the surrounding passages.

The passage [10] di scusses many thing such as baptism with Moses in the wilderness, Christ as the “Rock”, the example of Israel’s disobedience, idolatry, fornication, murmuring, communion with Christ or with demons, etc. Chapter 6 covers going to trial with a brother, the major “hit” list of sins for who is not going to inherit the kingdom, as well as how they had been washed and sanctified in Christ.

I'm going to assume that you hadn't yet read my second post in this thread, discussing chapter 10 exclusively. Suffice it to say, exegesis for ch10 does not equal exegesis for ch6.

HOW do you determine either passage is discussing just sexual impurity? It appears you will have as much trouble with the contexts supporting this point as you will on the “cultural” point above.

Perhaps you're misunderstanding my use of the word "culture". I'm referring to the fact that Paul was demanding that they separate themselves from the prevailing culture by morally holding themselves to a higher standard. 5:12, 6:1-6, and 7:12-16 (somewhat) justify this view. Again, if you pull the single passage out of context with its surroundings, you need to justify why you CANNOT do this in all cases.

(Was it where Paul says “All things…”? Was Paul saying “All (sexually impure things) are lawful for me…” ??? Do I have your take on this right?)

In fact, if you read ANY translation of 6:12 outside of the KJV, you'll see the "everything is permissible to me" is in quotes. Paul, in this case, is quoting what the Corinthians are saying. The TNIV and NLT phrase this the clearest:

"I have the right to do anything," you say—but not everything is beneficial. "I have the right to do anything"—but I will not be mastered by anything.

You say, “I am allowed to do anything”—but not everything is good for you. And even though “I am allowed to do anything,” I must not become a slave to anything.

When the passage is properly translated, it cannot POSSIBLY have the meaning you imply.

Expediency – You certainly found no place to “fit” a reply to this word in your reply. Quite odd, no where in your reply did you make mention of Paul using the words expedient or the word edify. Perhaps you can explain to us why Paul used these two words in these passages while you look for that different “standard” you claim Paul is talking about herein. In all kindness, it appears you have aborted all context in favor of your opinion.

I have no problems with expediency, or edification. I do have problems with your implication on how they establish biblical authority given the verses you provided as evidence, because you are taking the verses out of context.

Technically, this is a shallow reading of the verse. Verse 7 plainly states the disciples gathered on the first day of the week to break bread. Did the disciples do what they gathered to do or not? Perhaps the verse is wrong? In verse 11 (on Monday) it shows that Paul only – not the disciples – had something to eat and continued to preach. I wonder what you make of 1 Corinthians 16:2. Why did Paul tell the disciples there to “lay by in store” upon the first day of the week? What both passages infer is that “the first day of the week” is acceptable to have communion and a collection. What do you have?

I'm guessing that if God didn't want us to infer that we couldn't break bread on another day, then He wouldn't have plainly stated that they took communion on Monday.

(I presume your group at Richland Hills has communion – When? …On what day of the week? And I am wondering – do you even offer a scripture for the day of the week you partake? Do you? Or are all days the same down there – doesn’t matter?)

We offer it on Sunday. And during our instrumental Saturday service. I can provide you with a link to Rick's sermon on the topic when we introduced it last year. He can explain better than I.

Your application here is flawed (and therefore your inference) because you wandered once again from the context of the passage.

The context of Romans 14 discusses that to do things that are acceptable/lawful, if done with doubt, is sinful. Why? Because to do such is not of faith and therefore a violation of conscience.

The example Paul offers is about meat offered to idols. Paul knows that idols are nothing – hunks of stone or wood. Meat offered there is only meat and it could be eaten by anyone. If someone eats some of that meat thinking it might be the wrong thing to do, or if eating any of that meat causes a problem for a brother, then it is wrong! Don’t violate your conscience – don’t cause a brother to stumble with something that is otherwise okay.

I notice you avoid the "day of the week" verse in your reply. I ask again - if we can pull a verse out of its context and universally apply it (and I think I've justified my 1 Cor:6 context above), then why can you not pull THIS verse out of its implied Sabbath context (implied because Paul was talking to Jews)? Don't avoid the question.

But beyond this, we see an example of the disciples meeting upon the first day of the week – Sunday. We know (Acts 2) that the church was established on Sunday. We know that collections were taken up on Sunday (1 Cor. 16:2). By example and inference we know Sunday is an acceptable day for such. I HAVE FAITH! What do you have?

Because it COMES from inference, we must balance it against other passages in the Bible. Romans 14 provides a conflicting view; thus, I cannot possibly infer what you do because the bible won't conflict with itself. I cannot infer something from one verse if the opposite is inferred elsewhere.

The major problem here is that you want to have things YOUR way. You want to have freedom in religious practice to do some things that you desire. You are not content to follow any pattern and you are not content to apply Bible in all that you do.

I don't worship with instruments. I don't take communion on Saturday. I must, however, be honest with myself; and my study has shown me that the strict "authority-based" argument towards worship has serious flaws and contradictions that I cannot support.

As far as guidelines for application of “inference”, the Bible offers the guidelines with CONTEXT. It is only hard for those who can find context!

Your last statement regarding consistency and contradiction is vague and without support. Offer something to back it up.

Contradictions. God supported the use of instruments in the OT, but now we assume he no longer does because he didn't talk about them in the NT. We are restricted to Sunday for communion, but the bible clearly states that the early church took it on Monday. Not to mention, Paul says that it is ok for some that "any day is holy". Taking some passages out of context and other passages in full context to support our view; in other words, we let the desires guide the exegesis, rather than the other way around.

It is YOUR obligation to prove, illustrate, and show HOW I may be applying scripture(s) in an inconsistent way. It is YOUR obligation to demonstrate HOW I may be using authority or expediency improperly.

I think I've done so above. If you want to refute it, be detailed and logical. I look forward to it.

However, I would have certainly thought by now that YOU would have illustrated to me HOW you establish authority for instrumental music –AND-

That YOU would also have demonstrated from my chart above how I “improperly” PROHIBITED instrumental music from worship.

If you don’t like my chart, that is okay. Why not just go outside of the chart and tell us how YOU establish Bible authority for instruments of music in worship.

We disagree about "authority", for one thing. We disagree on how to use the OT. We disagree on how to interpret scripture within context. Until we can find some common ground, this ain't happening.

Your chart makes no sense. News, sports prohibited? Can you justify this? Can we preach the Word as a movie or a drama, or is that prohibited as well? I'll admit, I have no idea how you justify the line drawn here.

Who knows, perhaps you have changed your mind. Perhaps you no longer think we must have Bible authority for all we teach and practice in religion. Yes? No?

That strawman is looking pretty ragged right now.

There are two reasons why legalists like to push the "strict authority" point of view:

1) To control others. By setting strict guidelines they can make others conform to what they want them to do, and threaten their salvation if they don't. This is a trait common to cult leaders, although it doesn't apply to most CofC'ers.

2) Because we're insecure with grace. This is the most common reason. Many of us are uncomfortable with the fact that God has offered to forgive us no matter what we've done; and as long as we stay faithful to Him, he'll forgive us no matter what we do. People want to save themselves; they want to DO enough to justify their own salvation. This is patently unbiblical.

Take my dog. He likes to crawl under our bed to sleep, even though he can barely fit. He prefers the cramped security below the bed to the freedom of sleeping on top of the bed, because, quite frankly, he's more secure when he feels the boundaries around him.

Don't be my dog. Accept the FREEDOM of God's grace, and rest easy in His arms. There is no reason to fear with God on your side.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The Restoration Movement developed in the 1800’s and a single religious body of like mind and practice was forming upon the basis of “We shall speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent.” Book, chapter, and verse was demanded for all that was taught and practiced religiously – authority from scripture was requisite for everything religious!

The question came as to HOW can authority from scripture be established? Upon examination of the Bible, authority was perceived to be given in 3 ways:

1.) Command or Precept (positive statement).
2.) Example (Actions that can be seen in scripture as acceptable/proper).
3.) Inference (That which can be necessarily implied in scripture as acceptable/proper).

The Lord’s Supper can be used to illustrate all 3 ways…

Command – “This do…” - 1 Corinthians 11:24.
Example – Unleavened bread/fruit of the vine – Matthew 27:17-29.
Inference – “Upon the first day of the week…” – Acts 20:7.
...............
...............
...............
Yet in other area of work and worship in the NT church today people have no reservation to “add to” and “take away” from what God has spoken without the slightest whit of authority to do so.

Colossians 3:17 – Whatever you do in word or deed do all in the name of the Lord…

Who added (the rome authority)? And when (I don't know exactly when; about 100 to 300 a.d. I think) ?

So, should what was 'added' be continued ? (even though contrary to Scripture?)

Or, as I simply know and believe is true, shouldn't we simply stick with what Scripture says, avoid what Scripture says to avoid, depending always on the Master Jesus daily to lead us and always in accordance with God's Word ?

 

[Apollos1]

Wes –

Thanks again for your reply. I can see how by my reply that you thought I had taken a remark of yours to me personally, but I assure you that I did not take it personally. Although we disagree I am happy to discuss matters to come to a mutual conclusion – based on the truth of God’s word.

My point in saying what I said is that I don't believe one should approach the Bible like its a rule book. I think its much deeper and more relevant than that, and growing up where I've grown up having the experiences that I've had I feel like my brothers and sisters in Churches of Christ have been guilty of that.

Then what is your “approach” to God’s word and why do you have this approach? Is your approach is based on scriptural application and God’s guidance through the word – or something else?

The word of God is “deep” (Heb. 4:12), but there is nothing more “relevant” for life than following what God has said. Life experiences (good or bad) and the failure of men to follow God’s word does not change what God and said in His word and what God wants us to do.

I'm not sure that there's an overarching, rational formula we should use to interpret everything in the Bible. Not everything in the Bible is rational - not everything that happened was what we would term as natural. The most important events that occurred in the Bible can often only be thought of as supernatural by our standards.

Those events are written for our learning and that we may believe. It seems you are attempting to say that we can not be certain how to follow and serve God. If that is what you are saying I must disagree. Jesus said we can know the truth and it will set us free. And my favorite verse (in this context) is Ephesians 3:4. Paul tells the reader that we can understand what he knew by revelation – when WE read it! The verse gives me no little comfort!

The Bible teaches that even the wisest among us are ridiculously inept and stupid when compared to God. While He has blessed us with minds and the ability to process rational thought, I will never believe that we can understand everything we read in the Bible perfectly, nor will I believe that we ever will while we're in an imperfect state.

I hope you are not offering “excuses” to not obey God. We can understand the Bible. The Bible is adequate (2Tim. 3:16). Through inspiration and the power of God (2Pt. 1:3) man can be saved! It sounds as if you need to get your “want to” fixed! Do you “want to” obey God? Do you want to GROW (Eph. 4:15, 2Pt. 3:18) closer to God and His understanding or concede to your human inadequacies?

I appreciate what you said in your initial post, and I did read it. But you know that method of interpretation didn't originate with you, and I don't personally believe it should be accepted as the gospel truth or the God-ordained method of approaching the Scriptures.

No, it did not originate with me. The outline will not be found per se in scripture. But as I have studied, I realized that within scripture that these are the ways that faithful servants obeyed the God of the universe.

Please look at this… faithful men and women OBEYED God’s commands. Faithful people are given as examples to others to perpetuate faithfulness, and such is recorded in scripture. And in all of this, there are those things that are inferred, that in doing, we are considered faithful ourselves. If you have any suggestions, improvements, or other contribution, I solicit you to share them with me. As of yet it seems you have only offered uncertainty and excuses. God has equipped the faithful with more than that!

Anyway, don't take my disagreeing with you personally. I love you just like I love the rest of the people here, and its not my intention to upset you or ruffle your feathers.

Your frank discussion coupled with honesty will always be welcome to me, and I will count you as a friend for doing so. Please don’t let your emotions override rational, logical thought in the application of scriptures.

 

[Apollos1]

Crawfish –
I am not going to spend much more time off the main topic on 1 Corinthians 6 & 10. But I wan to address a couple of your more spurious comments before moving on.

When Paul says “All things…” are lawful to me in 1 Corinthians 6:12, he wasn’t talking just about sexual impurities as you attempt to claim. You still have the verse stating that all of Paul’s (?) sexual impurities were lawful for him to do – uncial manuscripts not withstanding. Did you choose to overlook all of the context or did you just close the book at that point?

Second, I see that you needed to redefine “cultural” for us. Sin is sin before God regardless of which “culture” is committing it. So Paul’s comment of “All things…” was not made to the Corinthians due to their “cultural” acceptance of “sexual impurity” – it was made because Christians should separate themselves from SIN! Sin is a problem to every “culture”. Therefore “All things…” is not made specifically about sexual impurities.

So what is Paul saying in 1 Cor. 6:12, 10:23? What the Christian does should be lawful, expedient, and edify. This is not limited to only “sexual impurities”, it applies to all sins. It is not said dependent upon “culture”, it is given to all Christians.

Given all of your claims that I have taken these 2 verses out of context, I would certainly think that YOU would have explained to us HOW the words…
1.) Expediency… 2.) Edify…
fit into YOUR application of these 2 passages. Your reply was, “I have no problem with expediency, or edification.” LOL!
Okay, but you won’t tell us HOW edification and expediency apply in YOUR application of the passages. Is expediency only involved with “sexual impurities”? Is edification only for the Corinthian “culture”?? OR, are these two values applied to ALL (things) in Christian living. It appears YOU need to deal with the CONTEXT issue!

I'm guessing that if God didn't want us to infer that we couldn't break bread on another day, then He wouldn't have plainly stated that they took communion on Monday.

I am not willing to bet my soul on a “guess”. And again you have mis-read yet another passage. The verse (Acts 20:7) states the disciples came together on the FIRST day of the week to break bread. I infer Sunday is acceptable. It also says Paul ate a meal early on Monday morning. Oh – by the by, what passage do you have for ANY other day? Allow me to ask… again! What scripture do you offer for ANY other day of the week?

What scripture do you offer to authorize instruments of music in NT worship? I keep asking and I keep getting no response.

Last time I said - The context of Romans 14 discusses that to do with things that are acceptable/lawful, if done with doubt, is sinful. Why? Because to do such is not of faith and therefore a violation of conscience.

The example Paul offers is about meat offered to idols. Paul knows that idols are nothing – hunks of stone or wood. Meat offered there is only meat and it could be eaten by anyone. If someone eats some of that meat thinking it might be the wrong thing to do, or if eating any of that meat causes a problem for a brother, then it is wrong! Don’t violate your conscience – don’t cause a brother to stumble with something that is otherwise okay. You said…

I notice you avoid the "day of the week" verse in your reply. I ask again - if we can pull a verse out of its context and universally apply it (and I think I've justified my 1 Cor:6 context above), then why can you not pull THIS verse out of its implied Sabbath context (implied because Paul was talking to Jews)? Don't avoid the question.

There is no problem addressing the “day” issue here. Paul uses this example of observing days to strengthen what he already said. Some Jews were still observing days (Passover, Pentecost, etc.) as they had been taught from the OT – “as to the Lord”. Those who knew the truth did not observe such days as they knew OT had been “nailed to the cross”. Each was to “prove” in his own mind what the truth of the matter was. This can only be done from God’s word which would teach them that the need for such observances had passed.

But crawfish does not observe another “day” “as to the Lord” – he doesn’t believe God teaches him to do so from the OT or the NT. He observes another day(s) because God has not “plainly” forbidden other days. Therefore, it is not “as to the Lord” for crawfish. Crawfish has no scriptures – old or new – to go by. The same is true for his instruments – he has no scriptures for IM in NT worship. This is quite the dichotomy!

I don't worship with instruments. I don't take communion on Saturday. I must, however, be honest with myself; and my study has shown me that the strict "authority-based" argument towards worship has serious flaws and contradictions that I cannot support.

Indeed! Yet you can not show me how the set-up of my authority chart it is wrong. You won’t even attempt to “plug-in” your practice on my chart to SHOW ME how you are right. You can not illustrate how the application of command, example, and inference is flawed. You can quibble about the context of 1 Corinthians 6 & 10 and how it applies to MY application of expediency, but you can not explain what expediency and edify mean in the context of those verses for yourself! You claim silence does not authorize, yet argue in favor of a practice (from silence) when something is not “plainly” stated in scripture. By all means, be honest with yourself.

And while you are in the artery of honesty, please SHOW ME how you go about creating or establishing what you will and won’t do religiously. Is it time YOU show me and other readers how YOU established your religious practices. It is past time! Lay it on us. Hoo-ah – here we go!! Okay?

-God supported the use of instruments in the OT, but now we assume he no longer does because he didn't talk about them in the NT.
No assumptions have been made. God fully detailed and gave a NEW covenant for man to follow today (2Tim 3:16, 2Pt1:4). You are not happy with the details. You want to be a spiritual adulterer (Romans 7:1-4) and live with 2 covenants! (You certainly don’t lust after any other OT practice than instruments – do you?)

-We are restricted to Sunday for communion, but the bible clearly states that the early church took it on Monday.
Clearly? This “exegesis” means that ONLY Paul had communion in Acts 20:11! Lol! Would you care to attempt to harmonize your “exegesis” with Acts 20:7 ??

-Paul says that it is ok for some that "any day is holy".
This certainly is out of the context of acting “as to the Lord” and “by faith” isn’t it! It is hard to “lay by in store” on Tuesday “by faith” don’t you think? But then, perhaps YOU have a solution. When are YOU going to share how YOU establish YOUR religious practices with me?

From my last post…
However, I would have certainly thought by now that YOU would have illustrated to me HOW you establish authority for instrumental music –AND-

That YOU would also have demonstrated from my chart above how I “improperly” PROHIBITED instrumental music from worship.

If you don’t like my chart, that is okay. Why not just go outside of the chart and tell us how YOU establish Bible authority for instruments of music in worship. Your reply was…

We disagree about "authority", for one thing. We disagree on how to use the OT. We disagree on how to interpret scripture within context. Until we can find some common ground, this ain't happening. - - -

Your chart makes no sense. News, sports prohibited? Can you justify this? Can we preach the Word as a movie or a drama, or is that prohibited as well? I'll admit, I have no idea how you justify the line drawn here.

This doesn’t answer anything. You are getting better every time at this – reply without an answer.
Crawfish, I am the 5th of six children in my family. I know when I am being fed a bunch of “bull” and I know when I am not getting answers to my questions. For all of your lip-service and all of your sophistry, it is way PAST TIME for you to show me HOW TO ESTABLISH religious practices for the NT church today. Are you going to do that, or are you going to continue to quibble and do the liberal two-step? Hmmmm?

That strawman is looking pretty ragged right now.

Nothing like using the word “strawman” as your “strawman” – lol!

There are two reasons why legalists like to push the "strict authority" point of view...

1) To control others. By setting strict guidelines they can make others conform to what they want them to do, and threaten their salvation if they don't. This is a trait common to cult leaders, although it doesn't apply to most CofC'ers.

2) Because we're insecure with grace. This is the most common reason. Many of us are uncomfortable with the fact that God has offered to forgive us no matter what we've done; and as long as we stay faithful to Him, he'll forgive us no matter what we do. People want to save themselves; they want to DO enough to justify their own salvation. This is patently unbiblical.

Actually, there is some good info there. But…

God is the one in control. So I will let Him do the controlling in the way He so chooses. I can not save myself, regardless of what I do or how hard I work. My salvation will be on His terms. Grace is God’s part – faith is man’s part – Ephesians 2:8 – this is how God set it up. ALL of the faithful DID SOMETHING on God’s terms to be “reckoned” faithful – Romans 4, Hebrews 11. Does this “earn” salvation – no! Does it meet God’s terms – yes! Does it make those who obey God legalists? Nope!

I took note that you require faithfulness to maintain salvation. Oh my. It this enough to justify your salvation – is this how you “earn” it? Tongue in cheek aside, it seems we both believe we must DO SOMETHING for salvation - we are sparring about what we are need to do and how we determine that. So please, share that with me. I still don’t know how you determine your practices.

Religious liberals (ei. liberal with the application of God’s word) are typically never happy with what God offers in His word. Liberals usually need many things that God “left out” and exercise the use of silence to grant permission for what they need. The thought of the all-sufficiency of scripture is bane to them. These claim to be progressive and pro-active while giving lip-service to the authority of scripture and to the Christ as “King”. Pragmatism (the end justifies the means) authorizes the Liberal’s religious practices and they throw open wide the door of innovation – which can never be closed – as if they ever would close it. Some Liberals own Bibles, and other than for appearances, I am not certain why. As for keeping their company, I try to remain patient with them, but I had rather crawl under the bed and sleep with the dog. Dogs know how to obey commands and respect their master.

 

[crawfish]

I'm on vacation and just checked in...perhaps I'll reply more completely when I'm back. However...

Crawfish –
I am not going to spend much more time off the main topic on 1 Corinthians 6 & 10. But I wan to address a couple of your more spurious comments before moving on.

When Paul says “All things…” are lawful to me in 1 Corinthians 6:12, he wasn’t talking just about sexual impurities as you attempt to claim. You still have the verse stating that all of Paul’s (?) sexual impurities were lawful for him to do – uncial manuscripts not withstanding. Did you choose to overlook all of the context or did you just close the book at that point?

You're not reading the verse properly. If you were to translate that verse into "message-board speak" it would read:

All things are lawful for me;

but not all things are expedient.

All things are lawful for me;

but I will not be brought under the power of any.

Apart from the KJV and its derivations, every other translation agrees on this point. Again, read the TNIV, NLT or the Message for a clear translation. that

You can choose to not "argue" on the meaning of these verses, but the point is that if they can be proven to mean other than what you say, then your entire point falls apart.

Following that, if we can pull the above verses out of their context (I'm the one evaluating them in terms of the chapters/verses surrounding them, by the way), then to not pull Romans 14 out of ITS context would be inconsistent.

Sorry, I'm out of time. Off to a 10-mile hike. Have a good week!

 

[Apollos1]

crawfish -

I once again wonder if you think you made a point. I am certainly looking for it.

So take a hike. Maybe you can make yourself clearer when you return.

Who knows, maybe you will answer some questions and tell me how you attempt to establish any religious practices you may have.

Caio!

 

[Loveaboveall]

I made a general statement that you've taken personally. I hope you'll allow me to disagree with you and still be your friend.

My point in saying what I said is that I don't believe one should approach the Bible like its a rule book. I think its much deeper and more relevant than that, and growing up where I've grown up having the experiences that I've had I feel like my brothers and sisters in Churches of Christ have been guilty of that.

I'm not sure that there's an overarching, rational formula we should use to interpret everything in the Bible. Not everything in the Bible is rational - not everything that happened was what we would term as natural. The most important events that occurred in the Bible can often only be thought of as supernatural by our standards.

The Bible teaches that even the wisest among us are ridiculously inept and stupid when compared to God. While He has blessed us with minds and the ability to process rational thought, I will never believe that we can understand everything we read in the Bible perfectly, nor will I believe that we ever will while we're in an imperfect state.

I appreciate what you said in your initial post, and I did read it. But you know that method of interpretation didn't originate with you, and I don't personally believe it should be accepted as the gospel truth or the God-ordained method of approaching the Scriptures.

Anyway, don't take my disagreeing with you personally. I love you just like I love the rest of the people here, and its not my intention to upset you or ruffle your feathers.

Wes,

I think you have hit the nail on the head! We will NEVER on this earth fully understand/comprehend all that is contained in the Bible and the mysteries of God. There is just some things we will have to wait to get to heaven to find out, and even then who knows it may take a millenia for us to understand! To think that one understands scripture completely and perfectly is utter foolishness. To believe in the Gospel is wisdom!

 

[Loveaboveall]

Reading the passage in question (Acts 20:7), you see that although they met on the first day of the week, they went PAST midnight and broke bread on Monday. Technically, if you are going to infer something from that, you'd have to assume that as long as the service start on Sunday that it doesn't matter how long you go before you take communion.

you bring up an interesting point...

On a side note...Some would argue that it was actually a Saturday night that they had their assembly and Paul left at daybreak on sunday. A question for another thread... Should we partake of the Lord's Supper on a saturday night, which would be the 1st day as reckoned by the Bible(as some would say), or does it matter whether it is at night or during the day? Not wanting to hijack the thread but this would be a good question for a new thread.