Command, Example and Necessary Inference...

[jmacvols]

That would certainly be inference, then.



On the other hand, this would NOT imply inference, leaving the original question unanswered.

I understand this is not inference, but possibly how Cain and Abel knew what to sacrifice.

EDIT: I take this back, this IS an inference.


http://www.fsop.net/harvest/2004/September%202004.htm

 

[bling]

That would certainly be inference, then.



On the other hand, this would NOT imply inference, leaving the original question unanswered.

I would think Abel got more instruction then just making an assumption.

 

[bling]

Does this fit what you're asking?

In Exo 20:5 God say not to bow down to graven images.

In Ex 32:4 they made a golden calf, which they sat before and ate and drank and played, v6, and danced, v19. God said not to bow, God never said not to eat, drink, play or dance before idols, yet they were punished, vs 33-35.

I do not know how God defines "bowing down".

 

[crawfish]

Does this fit what you're asking?

In Exo 20:5 God say not to bow down to graven images.

In Ex 32:4 they made a golden calf, which they sat before and ate and drank and played, v6, and danced, v19. God said not to bow, God never said not to eat, drink, play or dance before idols, yet they were punished, vs 33-35.

The NIV has the following translation of Exo 20:5 "You shall not bow down to them or worship them".

It seems the full implication of the commandment was greater than bowing down, but included any worshipful activity.

So, I would say, this is not inference.

 

[crawfish]

I understand this is not inference, but possibly how Cain and Abel knew what to sacrifice.

That's certainly the question. We are never told how God communicated His desires to the first family. We could imply that God told them exactly what and how to sacrifice; or it might be that Adam came up with sacrifice as a way to honor God without God's prompting and passed it onto his sons. Either way, though, goes beyond what scripture teaches and should not be assumed in an exercise such as this.

It's my opinion that it was not inference. I have looked up a few things and cannot find a single incident where someone was punished for failure to infer the proper behavior from scripture.

 

[jmacvols]

The NIV has the following translation of Exo 20:5 "You shall not bow down to them or worship them".

It seems the full implication of the commandment was greater than bowing down, but included any worshipful activity.

So, I would say, this is not inference.

God specifically said not to bow, He said nothing about standing, sitting or dancing.

 

[jmacvols]

That's certainly the question. We are never told how God communicated His desires to the first family. We could imply that God told them exactly what and how to sacrifice; or it might be that Adam came up with sacrifice as a way to honor God without God's prompting and passed it onto his sons. Either way, though, goes beyond what scripture teaches and should not be assumed in an exercise such as this.

It's my opinion that it was not inference. I have looked up a few things and cannot find a single incident where someone was punished for failure to infer the proper behavior from scripture.

It must be inference how else could Abel offered by faith? Even know what to offer? Does not faith come by hearing, Rom 10:17? Putting both together it is inference.

 

[crawfish]

God specifically said not to bow, He said nothing about standing, sitting or dancing.

Bow AND worship. All of the above can be directly derived from the "worship" clause. It is a generic form that refers to offering up praise to some false god in any form.

It must be inference how else could Abel offered by faith? Even know what to offer? Does not faith come by hearing, Rom 10:17? Putting both together it is inference.

You may be misunderstanding inference? If I say, "do this in remembrance of Me", that is a command and not inference no matter if I act on faith or not. If I look at a piece of scripture, see a historical event, and believe that I must duplicate that event exactly as it reads to be right with God, without the presence of a direct command, then that is inference.

The original question is trying to establish the scriptual-ness of looking at an event like the meeting of the saints in Acts 20 on the first day of the week to establish a command that we MUST meet on the first day of the week, in the absence of a direct command.
He wants to know if there is any OT precedent for that.

 

[- DRA -]

Could it possibly be this?

Heb 11:4 says "By faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain".

Rom 10:17 faith comes by hearing the word of God.

So at some point, though not recorded, God told Cain and Abel what type of sacrifice He wanted, both heard but only Abel did by faith what God said.

Good points.

I like the "inferences" in Hebrews 11 that follow the verse you posted. Verse 5 says, "By faith Enoch was translated ... for he had this testimony, that he pleased God" (NKJV). This conclusion is based on the simple statement of Genesis 5:24 - "Enoch walked with God ... for God took Him." From this short statement two inferences are made: 1.) Enoch walked by faith 2.) Enoch pleased God. God wraps up His points about Enoch in Hebrews 11:6.

I really don't understand what the confusion is about when it comes to inferences. The Lord used them. Therefore, they are authorized.

 

[- DRA -]

You may be misunderstanding inference? If I say, "do this in remembrance of Me", that is a command and not inference no matter if I act on faith or not. If I look at a piece of scripture, see a historical event, and believe that I must duplicate that event exactly as it reads to be right with God, without the presence of a direct command, then that is inference.

The original question is trying to establish the scriptual-ness of looking at an event like the meeting of the saints in Acts 20 on the first day of the week to establish a command that we MUST meet on the first day of the week, in the absence of a direct command.
He wants to know if there is any OT precedent for that.

As for the Lord's Supper in Acts 20, the biblical principle to consider is the wording of Exodus 20:8 - "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." The inference is the word "every." It is not in the passage, but is implied/inferred. The same principle applies to the Lord's Supper. It was commanded, and Acts 20:7 is an example of the command being obeyed. Just as every week had a Sabbath day while the law of Moses was in effect - and the Israelites were expected to obey every Sabbath day, under the gospel of Christ we should observe the Lord's Supper every first day of the week.

Aggie is looking for an O.T. example that we should follow that was not preceded by a command. I submitted Rahab's faith for his consideration. As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no command given to her to believe in God. She was of Gentile descent. The law of Moses was NOT (exited ... left the word "NOT" out)even given to her people. However, she believed in God. Not with mere lip service, but with an active faith - that we are encourage to follow in James 2:24-25.

As I have said before, I fail to see why it is under question that we should obey the commands God gives us, why it is under question we should follow the examples of those who were faithful, and why we question and make light (at least, some appear to be doing that) of necessary inferences/implications.

I suspect Aggie has something specific in mind, but we cannot know what it is if it is not shared with us. Without it, we can only speculate about what he has in mind.

 

[- DRA -]

You may be misunderstanding inference? If I say, "do this in remembrance of Me", that is a command and not inference no matter if I act on faith or not. If I look at a piece of scripture, see a historical event, and believe that I must duplicate that event exactly as it reads to be right with God, without the presence of a direct command, then that is inference.

I would call what you descibe as following an "approved example."

Anyway ...

Matthew 4:5-7.

The devil quotes Psalm 91:11-12 ... tempting Jesus to jump from the top of the temple.

Jesus responds by quoting Deuteronomy 6:16. Note the passage. Note the context. Does either the passage or context address whether or not one should jump from the top of the temple? Obviously, it doesn't. However, once we understand the principle the passage teaches, then we can see how and why Jesus applied it to deliberately jumping from the top of the temple. The inference - if you want to think of the correct application of the principle taught in Deut. 6:16 by calling it such - is that the passage applies to more than tempting God by worshipping idols. On a similar note, Galatians 5:21 says, "And the like." Obviously, we have to be careful to apply the principle(s) taught in that context accurately, but must realize that it applies to a broader scope of things than those specifically mentioned.

Agreed. "Do this in memory of me" is a direct statement or command. However, when we should observe the Lord's Supper has to be determined. According to Acts 20:7, we have to determine if the first day of the week is just incidental or if tells us when we should observe the Lord's Supper. And, we need to determine if it means "every" first day of the week, the first day of "some" weeks, or "no" first days of any weeks. And, we need to be consistent with our reasoning throughout Scripture.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[crawfish]

As for the Lord's Supper in Acts 20, the biblical principle to consider is the wording of Exodus 20:8 - "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." The inference is the word "every." It is not in the passage, but is implied/inferred. The same principle applies to the Lord's Supper. It was commanded, and Acts 20:7 is an example of the command being obeyed. Just as every week had a Sabbath day while the law of Moses was in effect - and the Israelites were expected to obey every Sabbath day, under the gospel of Christ we should observe the Lord's Supper every first day of the week.

The Sabbath comment is framed in a command; and the framing of that command suggests that the Sabbath day should be honored. The inference made about Sabbath were the tons of rules they had come up with on what constituted "work" - in other words, they inferred HOW the Sabbath was to be honored. And thus, they got it wrong.

Acts 20 does show the meeting of the Saints on the first day; but it isn't framed as the result of a command, and scripture doesn't give us more than one example. To support that we must meet on the first day of the week and that no other day is acceptable, we must infer that example as command, and that the point of the scripture was the day indicated.

Also, since in that passage the sermon stretched out into Monday and the Lord's Supper wasn't taken until then, we have to infer that doesn't matter.

Aggie is looking for an O.T. example that we should follow that was not preceded by a command. I submitted Rahab's faith for his consideration. As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no command given to her to believe in God. She was of Gentile descent. The law of Moses was even given to her people. However, she believed in God. Not with mere lip service, but with an active faith - that we are encourage to follow in James 2:24-25.

I'm still not sure that qualifies as a precedent.

As I have said before, I fail to see why it is under question that we should obey the commands God gives us, why it is under question we should follow the examples of those who were faithful, and why we question and make light (at least, some appear to be doing that) of necessary inferences/implications.

Nobody is questioning that we should follow God's commands. I think it's entirely appropriate to question the methods and reasons we use to decide which examples to follow and how strictly we should follow them, or to judge people as doing wrong who have inferred a different message.

Matthew 4:5-7.

The devil quotes Psalm 91:11-12 ... tempting Jesus to jump from the top of the temple.

Jesus responds by quoting Deuteronomy 6:16. Note the passage. Note the context. Does either the passage or context address whether or not one should jump from the top of the temple? Obviously, it doesn't. However, once we understand the principle the passage teaches, then we can see how and why Jesus applied it to deliberately jumping from the top of the temple. The inference - if you want to think of the correct application of the principle taught in Deut. 6:16 by calling it such - is that the passage applies to more than tempting God by worshipping idols. On a similar note, Galatians 5:21 says, "And the like." Obviously, we have to be careful to apply the principle(s) taught in that context accurately, but must realize that it applies to a broader scope of things than those specifically mentioned.

Deut. 16:6 refers to Exodus 17:7 "And he called the place Massah because the Israelites quarreled and because they tested the LORD saying, "Is the LORD among us or not?"

So, the comment is a fairly literal response to the temptation for Christ to make sure that God is looking after him.

I do agree with the sentiment, though. I go one step further and suggest that we must work to infer scripture based on cultural context as well. For instance, the qualification for Elders are different in 1 Timothy and Titus; they are stricter in the former. Why is that? Well, since Crete was a purely Gentile colony without a background of faith and a place where the membership had come from loose morales, the restrictions were relaxed so local leaders could be selected. What is right in one culture isn't necessarily right in another one.

Agreed. "Do this in memory of me" is a direct statement or command. However, when we should observe the Lord's Supper has to be determined. According to Acts 20:7, we have to determine if the first day of the week is just incidental or if tells us when we should observe the Lord's Supper. And, we need to determine if it means "every" first day of the week, the first day of "some" weeks, or "no" first days of any weeks. And, we need to be consistent with our reasoning throughout Scripture.

Just a few thoughts.

Agree here. It is important to understand how complex scripture can be, though; we don't always come to the same conclusions. When that happens, we need to decide if such matters are critical to the Christian faith, or simply to our own personal faith.

 

[jmacvols]

Bow AND worship. All of the above can be directly derived from the "worship" clause. It is a generic form that refers to offering up praise to some false god in any form.

But where did God specifically say not to stand and worship or dance and worship?

When God said not to bow down, they could infer that any position was wrong.

You may be misunderstanding inference? If I say, "do this in remembrance of Me", that is a command and not inference no matter if I act on faith or not. If I look at a piece of scripture, see a historical event, and believe that I must duplicate that event exactly as it reads to be right with God, without the presence of a direct command, then that is inference.

The original question is trying to establish the scriptual-ness of looking at an event like the meeting of the saints in Acts 20 on the first day of the week to establish a command that we MUST meet on the first day of the week, in the absence of a direct command.
He wants to know if there is any OT precedent for that.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

As for the Lord's Supper in Acts 20, the biblical principle to consider is the wording of Exodus 20:8 - "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." The inference is the word "every." It is not in the passage, but is implied/inferred. The same principle applies to the Lord's Supper. It was commanded, and Acts 20:7 is an example of the command being obeyed. Just as every week had a Sabbath day while the law of Moses was in effect - and the Israelites were expected to obey every Sabbath day, under the gospel of Christ we should observe the Lord's Supper every first day of the week.

The Sabbath comment is framed in a command; and the framing of that command suggests that the Sabbath day should be honored. The inference made about Sabbath were the tons of rules they had come up with on what constituted "work" - in other words, they inferred HOW the Sabbath was to be honored. And thus, they got it wrong.

True. A command was given to observe the Sabbath. The word “every” was necessarily inferred. Thus, the understanding was that the Jews were to observe “every” Sabbath. Likewise, a command was given to observe the Lord’s Supper (e.g., Matthew 26:26-27). And, Acts 20:7 is an approved example of “when” the Lord’s Supper was observed. Being consistent with Exodus 20:8, my conclusion is the Lord’s Supper should be observed “every” first day of the week.

You say: “The inference made about the Sabbath were the tons of rules they had come up with on what constituted “work” = in other words, they inferred HOW the Sabbath was to be honored. And thus, they got it wrong.”

Response: The conclusions you describe were UNNECESSARY inferences – not NECESSARY inferences. There’s a big difference between the two concepts. Granted. Unnecessary inferences do NOT result in truth - but in that which is wrong (error). As for “how” the Lord’s Supper was to be observed, I believe 1 Corinthians 11 addresses that aspect. I do not believe we need to make up rules or infer rules which have NO sound basis, but do believe we should accept God’s word for what it says and the intended meaning.

Acts 20 does show the meeting of the Saints on the first day; but it isn't framed as the result of a command, and scripture doesn't give us more than one example. To support that we must meet on the first day of the week and that no other day is acceptable, we must infer that example as command, and that the point of the scripture was the day indicated.

Assembling is commanded per Hebrews 10:24-25. Therefore, Acts 20:7 is an approved example of Christians obeying this command. One example is sufficient.

You say: “To support that we must meet on the first day of the week and that no other day is acceptable, we must infer that example as command, and that the point of the scripture was the day indicated.”

Response: I disagree. Assembling is commanded (Heb. 10:24-25). Acts 20:7 says the disciples came together (assembled) on the first day of the week. We have to decide whether the wording infers assembling on an ongoing basis on the first day of the week. I find a scriptural basis (the wording of the Sabbath observance) for concluding it means “every” first day of every week. If you disagree, please explain what it means, and the basis for your conclusion.

Also, since in that passage the sermon stretched out into Monday and the Lord's Supper wasn't taken until then, we have to infer that doesn't matter.

Acts 20:7 says Paul preached until midnight. The Roman day would have ended at midnight. However, let’s not forget how the passage starts: “Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread.” The thought is the disciples assembled on Sunday to partake of the Lord’s Supper. Therefore, the inference would be they observed the Lord’s Supper on Sunday. Skipping down to verse 11, I understand the thought to be that Paul had something to eat in the early a.m. hours of Monday, (assuming Romans time is under consideration), talked with the brethren until morning, and then departed.

Originally Posted by - DRA –

Aggie is looking for an O.T. example that we should follow that was not preceded by a command. I submitted Rahab's faith for his consideration. As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no command given to her to believe in God. She was of Gentile descent. The law of Moses was [not] even given to her people. However, she believed in God. Not with mere lip service, but with an active faith - that we are encourage to follow in James 2:24-25.

I'm still not sure that qualifies as a precedent.

Okay, why not? Rahab had faith. An active, living faith per James 2. It is an example for us to follow. However, there was no command given for Rahab to believe. No command was given to her like was given to the jailer in Acts 16:31. But, she believed anyway. I believe this example meets Aggie’s criteria. It’s an Old Testament example. No command was given. And, it is an example we would do well to imitate. In fact, I believe it’s something we have to do – and NOT just an option.

Originally Posted by - DRA –

As I have said before, I fail to see why it is under question that we should obey the commands God gives us, why it is under question we should follow the examples of those who were faithful, and why we question and make light (at least, some appear to be doing that) of necessary inferences/implications.

Nobody is questioning that we should follow God's commands. I think it's entirely appropriate to question the methods and reasons we use to decide which examples to follow and how strictly we should follow them, or to judge people as doing wrong who have inferred a different message.

Good. We should do the things God commands us. We are in agreement on that point. No problem questioning each other’s understanding of the Scriptures and how we discern “truth.” And, I agree that “all” examples aren’t binding. Examples (from Acts 20) that aren’t binding: meeting in an upper room with many lights, preaching until midnight, the preacher departing the next morning, and falling asleep during the preaching. And, I do see Aggie points about examples being either coupled or closely associated with commands (at least, I believe that is his point). In a nutshell, I firmly believe that God’s word does what 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says it does. Therefore, it shows us how to reach the truth – if we apply what it teaches. I honestly and sincerely believe this principle. I’m not really concerned about defending a concept such as CENI, but FIRMLY believe that God’s word takes us through the process of discerning truth. To me, whether or not we consider approved examples to be coupled or stand alone items is irrelevant, as long as one obtains the understanding the Lord intends in His word and applies what the word teaches. If such is the case, we will obey what the Lord commands with the proper attitude (Luke 17:10), follow the examples of the faithful and abstain from following the examples of the unfaithful (James 2: 14-26, 1 Corinthians 10:1-13), and properly understand and apply necessary inferences (Exodus 20:8, Matthew 22:23-33) as the Lord directs.

Originally Posted by - DRA –

Matthew 4:5-7.

The devil quotes Psalm 91:11-12 ... tempting Jesus to jump from the top of the temple.

Jesus responds by quoting Deuteronomy 6:16. Note the passage. Note the context. Does either the passage or context address whether or not one should jump from the top of the temple? Obviously, it doesn't. However, once we understand the principle the passage teaches, then we can see how and why Jesus applied it to deliberately jumping from the top of the temple. The inference - if you want to think of the correct application of the principle taught in Deut. 6:16 by calling it such - is that the passage applies to more than tempting God by worshipping idols. On a similar note, Galatians 5:21 says, "And the like." Obviously, we have to be careful to apply the principle(s) taught in that context accurately, but must realize that it applies to a broader scope of things than those specifically mentioned.

Deut. 16:6 refers to Exodus 17:7 "And he called the place Massah because the Israelites quarreled and because they tested the LORD saying, "Is the LORD among us or not?"

So, the comment is a fairly literal response to the temptation for Christ to make sure that God is looking after him.

God promised protection in Psalm 91:11-12. Therefore, He was looking after Jesus. However, this promise did NOT authorize Jesus to deliberately jump from the top of the temple. To deliberately jump would be to tempt God, which would be sinful – the point from Jesus’ quote of Deut. 6:16. Thus, Jesus wouldn’t jump.

I do agree with the sentiment, though. I go one step further and suggest that we must work to infer scripture based on cultural context as well. For instance, the qualification for Elders are different in 1 Timothy and Titus; they are stricter in the former. Why is that? Well, since Crete was a purely Gentile colony without a background of faith and a place where the membership had come from loose morales, the restrictions were relaxed so local leaders could be selected. What is right in one culture isn't necessarily right in another one.

As for culture, Titus 1:12 is an example of a society’s culture.

I disagree with your method of viewing the qualifications of elders per 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. First off, are you sure Crete was a “pure” Gentile colony? If so, then please explain Acts 2:11. In its context, that passage says that Jews from Crete were in Jerusalem for the Pentecost in Acts 2. Obviously, Crete wasn’t this “pure” Gentile colony you described. I suggest viewing 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 like the gospel accounts that sometimes offer four different perspectives of the same event. Each account is true per 2 Tim. 3:16a – “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” Therefore, by harmonizing the accounts we get the “whole” picture of the event that God’s word gives us. Think of salvation the same way. Mark 16:16 is an example. It is true. Both belief and baptism are required for salvation under the gospel of Christ. However, what about repentance and confession? Other passages teach they are also essential for the one initially coming to Christ. So, do we “pick and choose” which verses we apply, or do we harmonize the accounts of conversion and follow the pattern? The same principle is true for the qualifications of elders. It’s not one or the other, but it’s a matter of harmonizing and applying both texts.

Originally Posted by - DRA –

Agreed. "Do this in memory of me" is a direct statement or command. However, when we should observe the Lord's Supper has to be determined. According to Acts 20:7, we have to determine if the first day of the week is just incidental or if tells us when we should observe the Lord's Supper. And, we need to determine if it means "every" first day of the week, the first day of "some" weeks, or "no" first days of any weeks. And, we need to be consistent with our reasoning throughout Scripture.

Just a few thoughts.

Agree here. It is important to understand how complex scripture can be, though; we don't always come to the same conclusions. When that happens, we need to decide if such matters are critical to the Christian faith, or simply to our own personal faith.

I don’t think Scripture is near as complex as we make it out to be. For instance, I firmly believe per Jesus’ promise that the truth is very understandable (John 8:32).

I agree that every issue isn’t “make or break” as far as fellowship is concerned. Acts 15:36-40 is an example of brethren disagreeing. Personal judgment was exercised, and a peaceful resolution was found. And, Romans 14 deals with matters of personal judgment or one’s conscience. No need to “contend” (borrowing from Jude 3) over those matters.

As for authority concerning spiritual matters, I’m reminded of Jesus’ interaction with the Jews in Matthew 21:23-27. In a nutshell, we either have authority from God, or we have authority from men. If from God, then we ought to be able to go to His word and show the basis for our conclusions (1 Peter 4:11a). Thinking about the first-century Jews, they saw the Lord, heard His teachings, and witnessed the miracles, signs, and wondered He performed. However, they didn’t accept who He was. Therefore, they come to Him in Matthew 21 … disturbed because He is teaching in the temple without their permission. On a higher level, He has God’s permission – which is what really counts. It wasn’t that the Jews didn’t understand the need for authority, but that they didn’t like what He was teaching. Today, without realizing it, people are following in the footsteps of these unfaithful men. They don’t like the message, therefore they seek to justify their departure from God’s word by trying to redefine authority, false teachers, etc.

 

[bling]

Originally Posted by - DRA –

Agreed. "Do this in memory of me" is a direct statement or command. However, when we should observe the Lord's Supper has to be determined. According to Acts 20:7, we have to determine if the first day of the week is just incidental or if tells us when we should observe the Lord's Supper. And, we need to determine if it means "every" first day of the week, the first day of "some" weeks, or "no" first days of any weeks. And, we need to be consistent with our reasoning throughout Scripture.

Just a few thoughts.

Acts 20: 7On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight. 8There were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were meeting. 9Seated in a window was a young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. When he was sound asleep, he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up dead. 10Paul went down, threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him. "Don't be alarmed," he said. "He's alive!" 11Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate. After talking until daylight, he left. 12The people took the young man home alive and were greatly comforted.

We understand that the “breaking of bread” is in reference to the communion. In Acts 20:11 we see that there are two separate acts “broke bread” and “ate”. We know these are two separate acts because they are separated by the conjunction “and” . “And” was used different in the ancient Greek then we use it today, because it would not refer to the same act in two different ways, but would refer to two separate acts. This would go along with the idea that the early Christians partook of the Lord’s super at a meal. (the way that they did it in Corinth was condemned by Paul but not the doing of it together like Christ did with the Passover meal).

Acts 2: 46</SPAN>Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,
In this passage it says they broke bread and ate together &#8220;every day&#8221;. We again have the conjunction separating the same two separate acts &#8220;broke bread&#8221; and ate. The every day is part of the &#8220;continue to meet together&#8221; and the words that follow describe what was part of the &#8220;continuing to meet together&#8221;. So here we have an example of them &#8220;breaking bread&#8221; which is the description for the Lord&#8217;s supper, being done daily. In Acts 20 we do not know how often they &#8220;broke bread&#8221; together but they did on the first day of the week at that time and place.

Why do we not get together daily?

 

[crawfish]

True. A command was given to observe the Sabbath. The word “every” was necessarily inferred. Thus, the understanding was that the Jews were to observe “every” Sabbath. Likewise, a command was given to observe the Lord’s Supper (e.g., Matthew 26:26-27). And, Acts 20:7 is an approved example of “when” the Lord’s Supper was observed. Being consistent with Exodus 20:8, my conclusion is the Lord’s Supper should be observed “every” first day of the week.

Response: The conclusions you describe were UNNECESSARY inferences – not NECESSARY inferences. There’s a big difference between the two concepts. Granted. Unnecessary inferences do NOT result in truth - but in that which is wrong (error). As for “how” the Lord’s Supper was to be observed, I believe 1 Corinthians 11 addresses that aspect. I do not believe we need to make up rules or infer rules which have NO sound basis, but do believe we should accept God’s word for what it says and the intended meaning.

With this statement, you leave the door open for determining what constitutes a necessary inference.

Assembling is commanded per Hebrews 10:24-25. Therefore, Acts 20:7 is an approved example of Christians obeying this command. One example is sufficient.
...
Response: I disagree. Assembling is commanded (Heb. 10:24-25). Acts 20:7 says the disciples came together (assembled) on the first day of the week. We have to decide whether the wording infers assembling on an ongoing basis on the first day of the week. I find a scriptural basis (the wording of the Sabbath observance) for concluding it means “every” first day of every week. If you disagree, please explain what it means, and the basis for your conclusion.

There is question if they were meeting on the first day of the week because it was commanded, or if it was a cultural thing (after all, they still went to the temple on Sunday, and obeyed the Sabbath; could the day have been picked for pure convenience?)

It is also unclear if they always met on the first day of the week, or if that was a one-time occurrence. Did they choose that day for this instance because Paul was intending to leave on Monday?

To try and infer the first day of a week as a command in this case is to belie the fact that it is NOT CLEAR whether or not the day of the week matters here. We see this two different ways; you see the fact that a day was mentioned as enough to infer command; I see the fact that scripture is open to interpretation as indication that it is something that God doesn't want us to hold as absolute.

Acts 20:7 says Paul preached until midnight. The Roman day would have ended at midnight. However, let’s not forget how the passage starts: “Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread.” The thought is the disciples assembled on Sunday to partake of the Lord’s Supper. Therefore, the inference would be they observed the Lord’s Supper on Sunday. Skipping down to verse 11, I understand the thought to be that Paul had something to eat in the early a.m. hours of Monday, (assuming Romans time is under consideration), talked with the brethren until morning, and then departed.

Another way to look at this is: scripture puts the actual breaking of bread on the next day (bling makes a great point) to point out the fact that the day didn't matter.

Again, I feel that when scripture is unclear it is important to see it as unclear rather than to try and force meaning into it. A lack of clarity is every bit as telling as great clarity; it simply means that God is trying to remove its effectiveness as binding law.

Okay, why not? Rahab had faith. An active, living faith per James 2. It is an example for us to follow. However, there was no command given for Rahab to believe. No command was given to her like was given to the jailer in Acts 16:31. But, she believed anyway. I believe this example meets Aggie’s criteria. It’s an Old Testament example. No command was given. And, it is an example we would do well to imitate. In fact, I believe it’s something we have to do – and NOT just an option.

My problem with using it as the above answer is that it is a reward rather than a punishment. Rather than being punished for not following an inferred law, she was being rewarded for showing faith when she had not been commanded to. Of course, you could say that the inferred rule is that all people were to have faith in God rather than just the Jews, but that doesn't seem to fit, either (and the logic is a bit long so I won't go into it here).

God promised protection in Psalm 91:11-12. Therefore, He was looking after Jesus. However, this promise did NOT authorize Jesus to deliberately jump from the top of the temple. To deliberately jump would be to tempt God, which would be sinful – the point from Jesus’ quote of Deut. 6:16. Thus, Jesus wouldn’t jump.

I'm going to disagree here because I feel the scripture Jesus used specifically points to what I posted above. It wasn't about tempting God, it was about testing God to see if He would really do what he said he would.

Not to mention that Satan was deliberately misusing the Psalm, which was a hymn of praise and not a promise.

As for culture, Titus 1:12 is an example of a society’s culture.

I disagree with your method of viewing the qualifications of elders per 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. First off, are you sure Crete was a “pure” Gentile colony? If so, then please explain Acts 2:11. In its context, that passage says that Jews from Crete were in Jerusalem for the Pentecost in Acts 2. Obviously, Crete wasn’t this “pure” Gentile colony you described. I suggest viewing 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 like the gospel accounts that sometimes offer four different perspectives of the same event. Each account is true per 2 Tim. 3:16a – “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” Therefore, by harmonizing the accounts we get the “whole” picture of the event that God’s word gives us. Think of salvation the same way. Mark 16:16 is an example. It is true. Both belief and baptism are required for salvation under the gospel of Christ. However, what about repentance and confession? Other passages teach they are also essential for the one initially coming to Christ. So, do we “pick and choose” which verses we apply, or do we harmonize the accounts of conversion and follow the pattern? The same principle is true for the qualifications of elders. It’s not one or the other, but it’s a matter of harmonizing and applying both texts.

The implication in Titus indicates that the Christians there were previously of pretty low moral character. In addition, the qualifications in Titus aren't different than those in Timothy; they are just expressed in less demanding terms. Understanding that, it is easy to imply the differences between Timothy and Titus sit as culture differences and not something we necessarily need to harmonize.

I don’t think Scripture is near as complex as we make it out to be. For instance, I firmly believe per Jesus’ promise that the truth is very understandable (John 8:32).

Scripture will allow you to go as deeply as you want to. The message of Jesus is simple to understand, and that is the only truth we need; however, it's a huge book with many books written over thousands of years in vastly differing styles and for vastly different purposes. I know old theology professors who have been studying it full-time their entire lives and who admit there is still a great deal they do not know or understand.

That, to me, is a wonder about the bible; it is accessible for a mentally challenged person, yet offers enough for the most intelligent, diligent scholar to study for life.

I agree that every issue isn’t “make or break” as far as fellowship is concerned. Acts 15:36-40 is an example of brethren disagreeing. Personal judgment was exercised, and a peaceful resolution was found. And, Romans 14 deals with matters of personal judgment or one’s conscience. No need to “contend” (borrowing from Jude 3) over those matters.

I think disagreement is the key to our movement. Restoration is a moving target, something we should keep our minds on all the time. Disagreeing doesn't take away from the Christian love I feel for you or anybody else on this board I might argue with.

As for authority concerning spiritual matters, I’m reminded of Jesus’ interaction with the Jews in Matthew 21:23-27. In a nutshell, we either have authority from God, or we have authority from men. If from God, then we ought to be able to go to His word and show the basis for our conclusions (1 Peter 4:11a). Thinking about the first-century Jews, they saw the Lord, heard His teachings, and witnessed the miracles, signs, and wondered He performed. However, they didn’t accept who He was. Therefore, they come to Him in Matthew 21 … disturbed because He is teaching in the temple without their permission. On a higher level, He has God’s permission – which is what really counts. It wasn’t that the Jews didn’t understand the need for authority, but that they didn’t like what He was teaching. Today, without realizing it, people are following in the footsteps of these unfaithful men. They don’t like the message, therefore they seek to justify their departure from God’s word by trying to redefine authority, false teachers, etc.

We are challenged from both sides. There are "liberals" who are pushing us to do the wrong things for the wrong reasons; there are "conservatives" who push us to stay the same despite its ever-decreasing effectiveness, and to accept points of extra-scriptural traditional faith as law. It is tricky to navigate in between the two, but we must do so to stay vital in God's word.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA &#8211;

Agreed. "Do this in memory of me" is a direct statement or command. However, when we should observe the Lord's Supper has to be determined. According to Acts 20:7, we have to determine if the first day of the week is just incidental or if tells us when we should observe the Lord's Supper. And, we need to determine if it means "every" first day of the week, the first day of "some" weeks, or "no" first days of any weeks. And, we need to be consistent with our reasoning throughout Scripture.

Just a few thoughts.

7On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight. 8There were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were meeting. 9Seated in a window was a young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. When he was sound asleep, he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up dead. 10Paul went down, threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him. "Don't be alarmed," he said. "He's alive!" 11Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate. After talking until daylight, he left. 12The people took the young man home alive and were greatly comforted.

&#8220;Breaking of bread&#8221; has to be discerned according to the context. In Matthew 14:19-20 the breaking of bread is referring to simply eating some food and has nothing to do with the Lord&#8217;s Supper. According to Acts 20:7, the disciples came together to &#8220;break bread.&#8221; According to 1 Corinthians 11:18-34, the disciples were to partake of the Lord&#8217;s Supper when they came together &#8211; NOT to eat a meal &#8211; they could do that at home (note verse 34). Therefore, we conclude the Lord&#8217;s Supper is under consideration in verse 7.

As for verse 11, &#8220;he&#8221; seems to refer to the apostle Paul. The text says &#8220;he&#8221; broke bread and ate &#8211; NOT the disciples. Let&#8217;s be fair with the text. It does say &#8220;he&#8221; and NOT &#8220;they.&#8221;
Agree?

We understand that the &#8220;breaking of bread&#8221; is in reference to the communion. In Acts 20:11 we see that there are two separate acts &#8220;broke bread&#8221; and &#8220;ate&#8221;. We know these are two separate acts because they are separated by the conjunction &#8220;and&#8221; . &#8220;And&#8221; was used different in the ancient Greek then we use it today, because it would not refer to the same act in two different ways, but would refer to two separate acts. This would go along with the idea that the early Christians partook of the Lord&#8217;s super at a meal. (the way that they did it in Corinth was condemned by Paul but not the doing of it together like Christ did with the Passover meal).

I agree that the &#8220;breaking of bread&#8221; in verse 7 is referring to the Lord&#8217;s Supper. As for verse 11, please explain how the disciples came together to partake of the Lord&#8217;s Supper, but only Paul ate in verse 11 (assuming the Lord&#8217;s Supper is truly under consideration in that verse). If all the disciples ate, what logical reason was there to single Paul out in the verse? On the other hand, is it possible the disciples had already eaten the Lord&#8217;s Supper and Paul was hungry, got himself something to eat, discussed spiritual matters with the disciples till morning, and then continued on his way?

Agreed. Breaking bread and eating are two separate actions. My understanding is the bread of the first century was about an inch thick and what we might call a crust. It was broken into pieces and then eaten.

1 Corinthians 11 tells us the assembly (i.e., when we come together) is the place to eat the Lord&#8217;s Supper, and home is the place to satisfy one&#8217;s hunger when eating a common meal (note verse 34).

Acts 2:46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,

In this passage it says they broke bread and ate together &#8220;every day&#8221;. We again have the conjunction separating the same two separate acts &#8220;broke bread&#8221; and ate. The every day is part of the &#8220;continue to meet together&#8221; and the words that follow describe what was part of the &#8220;continuing to meet together&#8221;. So here we have an example of them &#8220;breaking bread&#8221; which is the description for the Lord&#8217;s supper, being done daily. In Acts 20 we do not know how often they &#8220;broke bread&#8221; together but they did on the first day of the week at that time and place.

Why do we not get together daily?

I suggest spending some time and ensuring your understanding of Acts 2:46 &#8220;harmonizes&#8221; with 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. That text (1 Cor. 11) declares the disciples came together to observe the Lord&#8217;s Supper &#8211; which doesn&#8217;t fit the context of what was done &#8220;house to house&#8221; in Acts 2:46.