 |
| Ilustration by Judith Clingan |
The Great Apostasy was the church morphing from a living body to a dead building. The Apostasy was elders leading away disciples from a functioning body to a hierarchal, positional organization (Acts 20:28-32; 1 Tim. 4:1-4). I am discussing human behavior that applies titles and positions to a practice after the practice is long established. We behave the same way denominations do, but say we don't have titles. We say we don't have denominational pastors, but we behave like them. Apostasy leftovers exist today in every institutional organization. If we can wake up to the truth about our own involvement in the institutional arrangement, rather than giving the status quo lip-service: "It doesn't matter where we meet," then we can influence others to a greater degree. We cannot continue to pretend that we have restored the perfect church when we "go to church" like every denomination--a practice which started in the government basilicas of the Catholic Church.
We are projecting military style, business-model, state run Christianity onto the Scriptures when we claim to have restored the divine side of the church. I am talking about what we do--the way we actually behave--not what doctrine we possess, institutionalize and academically teach. I went by a church of God building with ASAP (Always Say A Prayer) on their marquee one week, and two weeks later, went by a church of Christ building and read the same ASAP on their marquee sign. I know I am not the only one who is willing to admit that we behave in an institutional manner just like the denominations.
Along with Hebrews 10:25 and 13:17, First Corinthians 16:1-2 is a primary proof text for maintenance of the institutional church. Members are convinced--usually though guilt or fear--that they must give every Sunday or they have sinned. If this view was not held, then the institutional system would crumble. There would be no more salaried preachers, secretaries, associates, multi-million dollar buildings, vans and ministers of every kind. The problem with legalistically binding this verse is that the contribution which contextually was a collection for the saints is not a command of God for all churches. Paul was not commanding an act of worship that began in Jerusalem (see Acts 11:27-30). Paul is regulating a desire to give which originated in the minds of Syrian, Macedonian and Achaian Christians who loved their Jewish, Christian brethren in Jerusalem (Romans 15:25-26). The contribution that is preached today is viewed as an act of worship that faithful congregations obey, and those who don't are condemned as "unscriptural." While this strict application is well-intended and many are zealous in defending it, it has no basis in reality.
In First Corinthians 16:1-4, Paul specifies when, why, and where the allocations of personal funds were to occur. The funds were to be set aside "on the first day of the week" (when) so "that there be no collections when I come" (why). Many assume that because the laying by in store is to be done on the first day of the week, that the "where" must automatically be into the church treasury. This is not so. The phrase "by him" (par heauto) is a Greek idiom that means "at home"--not into a church treasury--a practice which did not exist at the time (see Robertson and Plummer, F.W. Grosheide and R.C.H. Lenski). Each Greek Lexicon and commentary I referenced (BAGD, Thayer, Mounce, Moulton, Robertson, Vincent, Wuest) has "at home" as the place to "lay by him in store." Some (MacKnight, Johnson) want to translate this masculine pronoun (heauto) as neuter (by "itself") in an attempt to deny the personal location (by "himself") to support its placement into a church treasury--but the grammar will not allow it. A relative pronoun must refer back to its antecedent. In this case the word "each." "Each" is masculine--not neuter, therefore the phrase cannot be translated "by itself." The phrase "in store" (thesauridzon) governs the "how" not the "where." This example of an original collection "for saints" to an extraction "from saints" is the most vivid I've found to show how the church has transformed itself from a people of personal responsibility to those under institutional control.
Love is the reason we give and we can do it anytime. It is a shame that we have relegated "faithful" giving to a metal plate with a velvet bottom on one day of the week, when we meet to partake of the Lord's Supper, to think of ourselves as faithful and condemn those who don't. A legalistic approach to the Scriptures will always produce absurdities like this. We use the specific argument that Paul says to sing "with the heart," but we don't accept his specific in 1st Corinthians 16:1-2 of where to "lay by in store." Today you are made to feel like you are a sinner, or ostracized at best, if you don't "give as God commanded on the first day of every week." It must be really exhausting trying to control everybody all the time.
Christians chose to meet in homes for 275 years before Constantine superimposed the state onto the church. What we have today are the leftovers. See Frank Viola's Pagan Christianity for a well-researched and documented examination for why we practice what we do in institutional congregations. The prime mover of institutional Christianity from the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) to the churches of Christ is top-down control. We can't do it "that way" because the elders will lose control of the congregation. In the RCC, it's the pope. In the American churches, it's the eldership which is really viewed as a rulership. This issue is behavioral--not doctrinal--and consists of looking up to clerics in an official capacity, whether they have fancy robes and titles like the cardinals and pope, or plain clothes "offices" like elders and deacons. And if there are no elders and deacons, then people will look up to the preacher and even build him a stage to stand on while they do it. This is the same behavior (apostasy) that the early church manifested that was ultimately given fancy robes and titles after the behavior was long established. Diotrophese (AD 90), Ignatius (AD 110) and Constantine (AD 325) served the main course and we are eating the leftovers. These "positions" usurp the authority of Christ in His Temple (our hearts). This is behavioral apostasy. We have entirely missed what happened concerning the Great Apostasy, because we have viewed it exclusively from a doctrinal departure in organization without ever asking if the organization should exist. Apostasy is a behavior, not a doctrine.
The institutionalized congregation is the problem. The church met in small groups designated by city in the NT. There were elders functioning throughout "every city" (Titus 1:5) in real life situations as shepherds overseeing and serving the flock. We have institutionalized the city-wide house churches so elders can rule them from top-down positions in the institutional congregations, and all our time is spent defending doctrines of the institution to exercise power over others. Instead of functioning as a living body in our subdivisions, we spend our time condemning groups who don't have two of more elders in every public building. The churches were city-wide and designated by city name or household--not congregation.
We condemn people if they don't drive to the church "building" three times a week and go through the five ritual services, one of which (the contribution) has been shown to be false. We watch them with a hawk's eye if they break up into groups on Sunday nights. We have reduced Christianity from a servant style, living body to a master run institution which functions like the state with a treasury for our representative elders to spend. We have institutionalized and compartmentalized Christianity into ritualistic services instead of serving. We meddle in other people's business in the name of defending doctrines to ensure faithfulness. We shame them publicly if they transgress and cannot show authority for it. We proof text with Hebrews 10:25 and 13:17 and 1 Cor. 16:1-2 to sustain this system (See the post It Shall Not Be So Among You).
The reason elders led in the Great Apostasy was not because they let go of the doctrine of two or more elders in every church (Acts 14:23). It was because they coveted power over other disciples (Acts 20:28-32). It was behavioral--not doctrinal. They did not "take heed" unto "themselves" (1 Tim. 4:16). They noticed only doctrinal issues and ended up in a struggle for power with one another, and thereby, led disciples away from the Lord's authority over the disciples' lives. Those in the orthodox camp condemned the heresy, but didn't pay any attention to their own quest for power. We have learned not to wear the robes and titles, but we behave in the same institutional way. The more small groups the better. The more elders shepherding in "every city" the better. We need a paradigm shift in the Lord's church that focuses less on doctrine and more on behavior.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteBrother, here are some questions I ask you to consider in regards to your article:
1. Did the act of giving not take place in Jerusalem before Acts 11:27-30? (see Acts 2:42 the word translated fellowship, which does mean partnership as found in 1 Corinthians 1:9, also means distribution and is translated contribution in Romans 15:26.)
2. In Acts 11:27-30 to whom was the relief sent from the disciples by the hands of Barnabas and Saul?
3. Would those elders in vs. 30 be in charge of the distribution of those funds?
4. Did the church at Corinth assemble to worship in their individual homes in a divided assembly or did they all come together to worship in one place? (see 1 Corinthians 11:20; 14:23.)
5. Did the temple under the law of Moses have a treasury to which the Jews gave? (see Mark 12:41-44)
6. Is the temple now the church? (see 1 Corinthians 3:16).
7. Can the phrase "lay by him in store" in 1 Corinthians 16:2 mean place in a treasury as translated by J.W. McGarvey?
8. If the phrase means in their individual homes, then what did Paul mean by the phrase "that there be no gatherings when I come" (1 Corinthians 16:2)?
9. Would Paul not have to go to each individual home and gather the collection if it was stored in individual homes?
10. Did Paul give the command concerning the collection only to the church at Corinth and the churches of Galatia (1 Corinthians 16:1)? (see 1 Corinthians 4:17)
I look forward to your reply:
In Christian Love,
Jimmy Simmons
Jimmy,
ReplyDeleteGood to hear from you. I appreciate your questions and will answer them as best I can. I answered your questions in two posts.
1. Did the act of giving not take place in Jerusalem before Acts 11:27-30? (see Acts 2:42 the word translated fellowship, which does mean partnership as found in 1 Corinthians 1:9, also means distribution and is translated contribution in Romans 15:26.)
A: Christians freely gave in Acts 2:42-46, 4:32-36, as well as, Acts 11:27-30; Gal. 2:10; 1 Cor. 16:1-4. Could you clarify what you mean by the phrase "the act of giving"? It seems institutional and compartmentalized. My point is that we may freely give anytime like NT Christians in Acts 2:42ff, Barnabas, the Syrians, Galatians and Corinthians. What do you mean?
2. In Acts 11:27-30 to whom was the relief sent from the disciples by the hands of Barnabas and Saul? A: The elders (Acts 11:30).
3. Would those elders in vs. 30 be in charge of the distribution of those funds?
A: Why would the entire church not be "in charge"? (Acts 15:4, 12, 22)? Or the deacons? (Acts 6:3). My blog posts over the last two months address the assumptions behind comments like "the act of giving" and "in charge" (hierarchy). My approach is to use Socratic questions to arrive at truth. If we are doing the truth, then we have nothing to fear, but if we have been taught error from misinterpreting passages like 1 Cor. 16:1-4; cf. 2 Cor. 8-9 and have inherited a hierarchical system that violates Mark 10:42-45, then we need to address these matters accurately through questioning.
4. Did the church at Corinth assemble to worship in their individual homes in a divided assembly or did they all come together to worship in one place? (see 1 Corinthians 11:20; 14:23.)
Yes, they would assemble in private homes throughout the city and sometimes come together for a meal like 1 Cor. 11ff. Why not both? If they met in house churches then they would not be "divided assemblies." They would simply be the church wherever they met (people not a place). What do you mean by divided assembly? Why would they divide up in a house church? Are you saying that there were no "house churches" scattered throughout the cities? (Acts 2:2,5:42,8:3,16:15,18:7,20:20, Rom. 16:3-5, 1 Cor. 16:19,Col. 4:15, Phi. 1:2, 2 John 1:10).
5. Did the temple under the law of Moses have a treasury to which the Jews gave? (see Mark 12:41-44) Yes.
6. Is the temple now the church? (see 1 Corinthians 3:16). Yes, we the people are the church anywhere and everywhere, not a place like the temple in Jerusalem. Jesus tore that one down and built one "without hands" (John 2:19) that does concern itself with a "place of worship" (John 4:24ff).
7. Can the phrase "lay by him in store" in 1 Corinthians 16:2 mean place in a treasury as translated by J.W. McGarvey? No. "par heauto" means "at home." Did you see all the scholarship that supports this that I cited? MacKnight, Johnson, and McGarvey are misinformed. I look forward to your exegesis of the passage and refutation of the scholarship.
ReplyDelete8. If the phrase means in their individual homes, then what did Paul mean by the phrase "that there be no gatherings when I come" (1 Corinthians 16:2)? A: That gatherings would not be done in haste after he arrived. They would be laying by in store at home each week "that there be no gatherings after he came." A wise policy.
9. Would Paul not have to go to each individual home and gather the collection if it was stored in individual homes? No. They could bring it to him. Why not?
10. Did Paul give the command concerning the collection only to the church at Corinth and the churches of Galatia (1 Corinthians 16:1)? (see 1 Corinthians 4:17). I am not sure your assumption behind the phrase "command." Could you clarify? Paul gave instructions/an answer to the Corinthians question about sending relief to their Jewish brethren, one also being taken up by Paul in Galatia, based on the Corinthians hearing about the situation and example of the Syrian and Galatian Christians, Acts 11:27-30; cf. Gal. 2:10). A temporary collection "for the saints." Is that not the context of 1 Cor. 16:1-4?
I hope I have answered your questions. I look forward to your responses to mine. Also, I have included many facts in my blog posts concerning why we practice institutional Christianity. I look forward to your response to those facts, as well.
Again, we are free to give to anyone at anytime, just like the NT Christians in Acts 2:42-46, Barnabas, the Syrians, the Galatians, and the Corinthians, but we are not free to bind an obligatory "act of worship" on Christians that God does not bind, based on our hierarchical, western institutional behaviors we inherited. I am not telling anyone "don't give."
Hi Jimmy, I thought I would take a stab at some of your questions.
ReplyDelete1. Did the act of giving not take place in Jerusalem before Acts 11:27-30? (see Acts 2:42 the word translated fellowship, which does mean partnership as found in 1 Corinthians 1:9, also means distribution and is translated contribution in Romans 15:26.)
A: Yes it did. But none of these contributions word compulsory, with the exception of Ananias and Sapphira, that was terrible example of what happens when we attempt to give out of a universal sense of belonging (just because everyone else is doing it). The background of 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 is Acts 11 and Romans 15.
2. In Acts 11:27-30 to whom was the relief sent from the disciples by the hands of Barnabas and Saul?
A: To the presbuteros.
3. Would those elders in vs. 30 be in charge of the distribution of those funds?
A: The text does not say. I imagine that the body analogy used by Paul (1 Corinthians 14; Romans 15) would include more people in distributions then just the elders. Though I think it is fair to say that these seasoned men would have shepherded the flock and oversaw a fair dissemination of the funds.
4. Did the church at Corinth assemble to worship in their individual homes in a divided assembly or did they all come together to worship in one place? (See 1 Corinthians 11:20; 14:23.)
A: I think Scott answered this question fairly well. I would add, neither 11:20 nor 14:23 stipulate when they came together or how frequently this was done. These could have been special assemblies in addition to the assemblies that met in homes.
5. Did the temple under the Law of Moses have a treasury to which the Jews gave? (See Mark 12:41-44)
A: Yes
6. is the temple now the church? (See 1 Corinthians 3:16).
ReplyDeleteA: Yes, but not in the same way you are trying to imply. The church is the temple in the sense that it’s the place where heaven and earth meet—where God lives and where his glory is manifested among the redeemed. You cannot, however, make the comparison you are making. The temple also had a court of women and gentiles, animal sacrifices, apartments, a holy place and most holy place, and money changers. If we applied you comparison we could similarly have those elements in the church as well. The Jews under the Law of Moses tithed, should we tithe as well? On that note, I am not against the tithing system per se. Jesus did not come to destroy the law but fulfill it. If the Jews gave a large bit of their income to take care of the poor and needy among them, then I am all for setting something in place that sees this done now. We are commanded to give, but the frequency (besides as we see the need arise), amount, and the location is never stipulated, with the exception of the temporary collection.
7. Can the phrase "lay by him in store" in 1 Corinthians 16:2 mean place in a treasury as translated by J.W. McGarvey?
A: We might expect, βάλεtw χαλκὸν εἰς τὸ γαζοφυλάκιον/thesauron,or,ἕκαστος ὑμῶν παρ' ἑαυτῷ τιθέτω εἰς τὸn thesauron τὸ γαζοφυλάκιον, if Paul meant to say “put money in the treasury box.” But there is no indication that saints always met in one locale nor that there were treasury boxes in people’s houses, or even a treasurer with the exception or Erastus the “city” treasury (Romans 16:23) which of course has no bearing on this conversation. Paul says, “ἕκαστος ὑμῶν παρ' ἑαυτῷ τιθέτω θησαυρίζων,” each of you set aside (where) by himself, not by itself, and this was an idiomatic way of saying “at home.” θησαυρίζων (save up, store up) functions adverbially or perhaps as a verb; the money they are setting is aside weekly is to be saved up, keeping with each persons on income. In short I see no the slightest hint of a treasury here. McGarvey was eisgeting his practice into the text.
8. If the phrase means in their individual homes, then what did Paul mean by the phrase "that there be no gatherings when I come" (1 Corinthians 16:2)?
ReplyDeleteA: Pay close attention to what Paul said. Who is doing the gathering and what does that even mean? Gatherings λογεῖαι refers back to the collection τῆς λογείας and their saving up money. Paul does not seem to be concerned with having to collect funds personally. Rather he is more concerned with their having to be collections (on their part) after he arrived. In other words, Paul wants them to be saving up incrementally so that they will have sufficient money gathered for the saints in Jerusalem, as opposed to waiting until the last many to collect these funds. Ever try writing a paper the day before? =)
9. Would Paul not have to go to each individual home and gather the collection if it was stored in individual homes?
A: That assumes Paul is concerned about having to gather the money from the different house churches when he went to visit them. Did he not labor house to house with congregations (Acts 20:20)? He wanted to stay there through the winter (1 Corinthians 16:5-6). What is to stop him from getting the money from the houses meetings he would visit or what would stop them from bringing it to Aquila and Priscilla or another leading co-laborer? This question incorrectly assumes that Paul is referring to himself gathering the money from the saints.
10. Did Paul give the command concerning the collection only to the church at Corinth and the churches of Galatia (1 Corinthians 16:1)? (see 1 Corinthians 4:17)
ReplyDeleteA:Again, we need to be careful to use the words Paul used. He never said, “As I commanded the churches…” Nor did he say “As I commanded all of the churches.” Let’s read the text faithfully here. In regards to 1 Corinthians 4:17, I don’t think it’s fair to Paul to Jimmy (no pun intended) his thought and drive off (pun intended) with his writings.
First, 1 Corinthians 4:17 is about Paul’s “behavior” “imitate me as I imitate the Messiah” (4:16), for that reason he is sending Timothy to remind the Corinthians of his ways (behavior) as he teaches everywhere in every church (4:17). The expression “in every church/in all the churches” deflects the Corinthians desire to distinguish themselves from all the other congregations.
Paul reminds them frequently there are other saints who calls on the name of the Lord, who follow the custom of the veil, who do not abuse women’s liberty in our meetings (1:2, 11:16; 14:34). There can be no dissemination of loyalties to different church leaders or elevation of status based on having special miraculous gifts; Corinth finds a comment lot with every other saint.
Second, If Paul wanted to say as I gave order to every church (as he has done previously in this book) why not here? I have argued here http://haqol.wordpress.com/2010/12/26/8/ that Paul is drawing resources primarily from Gentiles churches in order to strengthen the bond between Jew and Gentile churches; I hope you will take the time to read it. It is not all clear that διέταξα (arrange/order) has the force of “command.”
(Continued)
ReplyDeleteA. The Corinthians wrote Paul about how to go about collection funds, Paul responds to their questions. If this were a command from the birth of the church onwards, would the Corinthians be inquiring as to how to put money in a collection plate every Sunday? Paul had lived with them for a year and a half (Acts 18:11). Are we to believe that the Spirit demanded a mandatory weekly Sunday church giving and Paul botched passing on this information so badly that the Corinthians had to write him about it?
B. A year after writing 1 Corinthians Paul follows up with them on the collection. Paul is very cautious to emphasize the non-imperative nature of the collection. Notice “I am not saying this as a command…Now I am giving an opinion on this because it is profitable for you” (2 Corinthians 8:8, 10). This further leads me to believe that διέταξα should be understood as Paul setting things in an orderly way. Since Paul desired for certain churches to send relief to the saints in Judea, the Corinthians wrote him and asked how he wanted this to be done. In fact the Macedonia “begged” Paul to take their resources. This, at least to me, implies that Paul discouraged their giving, which again shows the free nature of the gift.
Now regardless if you find the grammatical arguments for “at home” convincing or not there is one thing that I can’t help but emphasize. The collection here was for a specific group of saints in a Judea. If there were a similar need we would act similarly today because we have the love of the Messiah in our hearts. But aside from that we cannot be faithful to Jesus and then bind this verse as a mandatory Sunday contribution. The collection was temporary.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteI spent all morning preparing my reply to you and the blog would not allow me to make my post and I lost my reply for questions 5-10. Hopefully questions 1-4 will now post, though it may take muliple posts and will come back later and post 5-10 when I retype out my answers.
To the other poster and any other posters that may chime in - I only have time presently to address what Scott has written.
Here goes:
1. Did the act of giving not take place in Jerusalem before Acts 11:27-30? (see Acts 2:42 the word translated fellowship, which does mean partnership as found in 1 Corinthians 1:9, also means distribution and is translated contribution in Romans 15:26.)
Scott: Christians freely gave in Acts 2:42-46, 4:32-36, as well as, Acts 11:27-30; Gal. 2:10; 1 Cor. 16:1-4. Could you clarify what you mean by the phrase "the act of giving"? It seems institutional and compartmentalized. My point is that we may freely give anytime like NT Christians in Acts 2:42ff, Barnabas, the Syrians, Galatians and Corinthians. What do you mean?
Jimmy: The word that is most often translated worship in the N.T. is proskuneo, which simply means to prostrate oneself in homage. The word is used in John 4:24, and using the defintion for the word it is rendered "God is a Spirit: and they that prostrate themselves in homage to him must prostrate themselves in homage to him in spirit and in truth." We must protrate ourselves to God with the right attitude and in the right way, which is prescribed in the N.T. My use of the phrase "act of worship" is in the manner that the N.T. does not prescribe only one specific way of prostrating ourselves in homage to God. Unless I make the wrong assumption, I would think you agree that the Lord's Supper is worship, singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs is worship, that hearing God's word preached is worship, and praying is worship as each of these "acts" are carried out in the assembly. Each one in of itself does not consist of all that is presecribed to prostrate oneself in homage to God. As I have seen stated in another one of your articles on your blog, I see that you do not believe that giving on the first day of the week is an "act of worship." Is giving to God not worship? How did the wise men worship the young child Jesus when the fell down and worshipped him? Did they not give Him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh (Matthew 2:11). Are not the offerings and sacrifices, in worship to God, under the Law of Moses considered "gifts" (Numbers 18:11)? In fact giving is considered a sacrifice acceptable to God in the N.T. (cf. Philippians 4:18; Hebrews 13:16). Giving is an "act of worship."
As far as the giving found in Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-37 I agree with you that it was a voluntary giving. But notice how this giving was carried out in Acts 4:37 - it was laid at the apostle's feet similar to that in Acts 11:30 sent to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul. Who was in "charge" of the distribution of funds to the needy in those instances? But back to Acts 2:42 - was the fellowship, "giving," there simply volunatary in nature and not prescribed? If so then the apostles' doctrine, breaking of bread - the Lord's Supper, and prayers would also only be voluntary in nature and not prescribed, yet the disciples continued in these "acts of worship" stedfastly, indicating the command obeyed to do so (cf. John 4:24).
4. Did the church at Corinth assemble to worship in their individual homes in a divided assembly or did they all come together to worship in one place? (see 1 Corinthians 11:20; 14:23.)
ReplyDeleteScott: Yes, they would assemble in private homes throughout the city and sometimes come together for a meal like 1 Cor. 11ff. Why not both? If they met in house churches then they would not be "divided assemblies." They would simply be the church wherever they met (people not a place). What do you mean by divided assembly? Why would they divide up in a house church? Are you saying that there were no "house churches" scattered throughout the cities? (Acts 2:2,5:42,8:3,16:15,18:7,20:20, Rom. 16:3-5, 1 Cor. 16:19,Col. 4:15, Phi. 1:2, 2 John 1:10).
Jimmy: Are you sure that the church at Corinth broken up in "house churches" came together sometimes just to have a meal? Now they certainly turned the Lord's Supper into a common meal for which Paul did not praise them and went on further to make clear that they were to come together to partake of the Lord's Supper and gave clear instructions on the elements of the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11:17-26). Now, when were they to come together to observe the Lord's Supper, just whenever they would decide to do so, or every first day of the week (Acts 20:7)? Did congregations during that day meet in an individual member's home? Certainly they did as per Colossians 4:7-9 and Philemon 1-2 it appears the church at Colosse met in Philemon's house. But whether the congregation met in a "church building" or in member's house - if they did not all meet together on the first day of the week in one place (1 Corinthians 11:20; 14;23), but instead broke up in more than one assembly, then it would have been a divided assembly.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteI have had a busy day, have been able to get back to this - I notice as well my replys to your answers to 2,3 did not post - I will try to get 2,3,5-10 posted tomorrow.
Jimmy,
ReplyDeleteUgghh!!I hate when that happens. I appreciate your diligence and the time you are investing.
I agree that the definition of "proskuneo" is to prostrate oneself, but not necessarily your application of it. What I mean is applying proskuneo with "in spirit and in truth" as only "with the right attitude and according to the word." This is certainly the application we learned at MSOP, but I do not think Jesus means "in a public building with pews checking off the five acts to feel faithful." I think he means that the Samaritans "did not know what they were doing" (ignorant) and the "Jews were being led by hypocrites in external forms" (Matt. 23:1ff). Jesus specifically states to the woman at the well that the "place" will no longer matter (John 4:21), and that God is seeking "true" worshipers (aletheia = true, real, proper) = not in ignorance or hypocrisy (Luke 12:1;cf. Matt. 16:1ff). This would be everywhere not in "one place" only. I am attempting to call attention to your assumption of how "worshipping in spirit and in truth" may ONLY be done by coming together into one place based on 1 Cor. 11:20 and 14:23 which is the point of neither text. Notice the reference to "when" or "if" the "whole church" comes together in one place. This seems to indicate that they usually assembled as house churches (recall all the Scriptural references above). Nevertheless, my point is that the "place" is not the church, the "people" are regardless of how many or where (John 4:20ff). We do not need a place to worship God (John 4:21) as the institutional church demands.
Also, the method of inserting other verses (Eph. 5:19, 1 Cor. 16:1-4, calling attention to OT passages, etc.) into passages like John 4:24 is eisegesis. I realize that your system of interpretation is based on what "the Bible says" and not on what it "does not say," but that does not justify proof-texting in this way. We all potentially bring proof-texts, because we bring a set of assumptions with our viewpoint of the texts we cite. Even Genesis 1:1 begins with an assumption. My point is that (Socratic) questions do no harm to the truth. In fact, we welcome questions and challenges to Gen. 1:1, because the facts will show it to be true. That's all I am attempting to do with our institutional system of worship. I submit that when challenged by questions based on historical facts in church history, that it will be seen to be--not first century as we claim and hope--but actually 4th century, 15-16th century and especially 19th century practices that were introduced later than the first century. My approach is more "restorative" than Campbell, Stone or MSOP. For instance, the "invitation" we use is because Barton Stone added "baptism for the remission of sins" to the "altar call" of his day in 1809-1820.
http://www.acu.edu/sponsored/restoration_quarterly/archives/1960s/vol_5_no_1_contents/olbricht.html
Now, we say we do it because "Peter preached the gospel on Pentecost." My point is that we need to return to the first century practice, but not by leap-frogging 2000 years of church history, rather by understanding how we got where we are today because of it. I am glad Stone taught the truth on baptism, but to deny that we have an altar call shows ignorance of our own history and we need to be honest, not deny it or pretend we do it today when the fact is we inherited it from the last few generations.
I simply see a forced eisegesis of John 4:24, Acts 2:42, Eph. 5:19, 1 Cor. 16:1-4, etc. into the compartmentalized and legalized way that we do it today (what the last few generations have been taught, and what we were taught at MSOP and all of us inherited) rather than from an objective study of church history. This is projection, or eisegesis, not exegesis of the text or church history.
Regarding "divided" assemblies, I think that the view of the church as a "place" causes use of this unfortunate term. The church is the people anywhere and everywhere, not a local public building. The "division" Paul is concerned with in Corinth (1:10-13) and in 1 Cor. 11:18ff is "divisive behavior" not "divided places of assembly." Paul is concerned about the Christians being divided among themselves in heart (spirit/ truth) not locale (John 4:21-24). I disagree that the reason Paul used Jesus' words was for the purpose of correcting the Corinthians having turned the Lord's Supper "into a common meal." I believe that we have projected this back onto the text from our inheriting Catholic/Protestant public church traditions (see Viola Pagan Christianity). The Lord's Supper was a family (common, Passover, feast) meal that began with "breaking bread" and ended with "taking the cup" (Matt. 26:26). Saying that "Paul condemned a common meal approach" is a flawed interpretation in my opinion. The text says that he was condemning the divisive behavior of rich Christians "humiliating" those with no food. He clearly says this is his reason for "not praising" them—not because they "made it a common meal." Notice that it is "divisive behavior" not a common meal that is the basis of Paul's criticism in 1 Cor. 11:18-19 which is in keeping with the beginning of the letter. Because Paul comments "don't you have houses to eat in" does not mean "quit making the Lord's Supper into a common meal." It means don't let hunger cause you to behave disdainfully toward your poorer brethren. Again, divisive behavior is Paul's reason for calling attention to Jesus' words--to show the unity among Jesus and His disciples as an illustration for them all--not to condemn a meal. This also explains his reason for describing love in ch. 13. Jesus "instituted" His Supper as a love feast (Jude 12), and the Corinthians understood this and, in fact, assembled for this purpose. A common meal was not the problem as we were narrowly taught, and the dichotomy that a "small piece of bread and sip of grape juice" is "spiritual" while a "common meal" is "worldly" is unnecessary and contributes to clergy/laity behavior even without the robes and titles. Again, we were taught a forced, legalized application which is what I am calling attention to throughout my blog-posts. We have "fellowship" meals today which we have compartmentalized into the 5th Lord's Day. First Century Christians simply did it every Sunday, usually in their "houses," but sometimes as a "whole church." What we were taught was compartmentalization and institutionalism and this is what I am trying to call attention to with Socratic questions.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Acts 20:7, Paul was assembling with his apostolic workers he had sent ahead of himself and Luke. Luke lists the names of seven of these workers in Acts 20:4-5. Other Christians, like Eutychus, were there, but to view that assembly as the Protestant practice we inherited which has a pulpit sermon, etc. is also eisegesis. Paul "discoursed" (preached, KJV) with his apostolic workers until midnight while they had come together for a 'common' meal (Lord's Supper, Acts 20:7, no dichotomy). The text says they ate after midnight, which also exposes the legalized way of viewing worship. They came together on the first day of the week "to break bread," but it does not say that they ate on the first day, does it? Again, a dichotomy between "two meals" is a projection made onto the text from practice begun in the following centuries and modified through the centuries and we inherited it. This needless dichotomy is also forced onto Acts 2:42-46.
ReplyDeleteI also disagree with the terminology "congregation." I think this is a forced, modern application like the phrase "divided assembly," and "does more harm than good" (1 Cor. 11:17). I cited all the Scriptures that show that house churches were prevalent—really the only kind. We are projecting "congregation" back onto the first century church because of our modern institutional congregational practice, and, therefore, view a "congregation" as a "divided assembly" when it doesn't meet in "one place." The churches (people, not place) were designated by "city" (Phi. 1:1, 1 Cor. 1:1; Titus 1:5) or "household"—not place of assembly.
God bless.
Jimmy,
ReplyDeleteYour disagreeable approach to "meeting in homes" as opposed to meaning as we do today, seems a priori. You appear to be arguing that since "the divided assembly" (this is not biblical terminology) is wrong, then the church could not have met in homes on Sunday. But the argument assumes something that has yet to be proven. I can show three ways in which churches of Christ are not consistent in applying the "divided assembly" tradition.
First, whenever their is a camp, Christians often have a morning assembly at the camp site and not at the building. This is a "divided assembly."
Second, when there is more than one morning service designed to cater to people schedules. The church building cannot comfortable sit all the members and so they have multiple assemblies. This again is a "divided assembly"
Third, the evening service often consists of a handful of people giving and taking the Lord's supper. This is certainly not the practice of the whole church taking the supper and tarrying for one another.
"Divided assembly" is unbiblical (the wording and teaching). I don't see where scripture condemns saints meeting in homes on Sunday.
Scott:
ReplyDeleteMy reply to your answers to questions 2-3, 5-10 are below: They will be brief (what would have been my original post would have been more in detail.) Also I will not repost the questions and your answers so that I may be able to get this all in one post.
2-3 In regards to Mark 10:42-45 - Did the Lord not establish any form of hierarchy in His church? Though He came to minister, yet He is the Head of the church (Colossians 1:18). He has all authority in heaven and in earth (Matthew 28:18), we are all to serve Him. Every Christian is a minister, including the elders, yet the elders have been given authority to take care of the church of God especially in the responsibility of feeding it (1 Timothy 3:5; Acts 20:28). As members we have the responsibility to submit to the elders' authority (Hebrews 13:17). The elders are not to go beyond the authority they have been given (cf. 1 Timothy 5:19-20; 1 Peter 5:1-4).
5-6. I agree there is not a specific place of worship such as the temple in Jerusalem was under the Law of Moses - we are able to worship in our homes, in a "church building," outside, inside, etc. But there is a place of worship in the matter of the assembly for we are all gathered together in one place where ever that place may be (1 Corinthians 11:20; 14:23). The church at Colosse most likely met in the home of Philemon (Colossians 4:7-9; Philemon 2).
7-9 I will focus directly now to the phrase "lay by him in store." I asked could this not mean to place into a treasury as per McGarvey - you said no that the part rendered "lay by him" means at home. But you did not deal with the part "in store." Clarke and Barnes, though Barnes agrees with the "lay by him" means at home, both say that the "in store" means in a common treasury. Brother Roy Deaver says that the phrase "lay by him," should be translated lay by itself, and the entire phrase "lay by him in store," should be translated "let him keep on placing by itself in treasury - thus, treausing up..." that which is contributed. Even if Paul would wait for the members to bring to him what they have stored up at their homes, there would be a delay that he wished to avoid in waiting for them to do so. Clear indication is that Paul would have met them all in one assembly - I guess that would have to have been one of those special assemblies when they had their area wide service.
10. Finally as to the phrase "as I have given order," phrase means command as same word is found in Acts 18:2 - Claudius Caesar commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome. Paul was not just giving his suggestion in dealing with the collection - as he commanded it to the churches of Galatia so he did to Corinth - and whatever he commanded to Corinth he commanded to all churches (1 Corinthians 4:17). Certainly the command dealt with the collection for the saints and all in need in Jerusalem (2 Corinthians 9:12-13) which took Paul years to bring to his nation (Acts 24:17), but in giving this command he also set forth a pattern for all churches to follow for the contribution today.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGo to truthmagazine.com/archives/volume21/TM021348.html
ReplyDeletefor a very interesting article on this subject.
Jimmy,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you submitting your response. I will answer your questions, and I would also like to put into my own words what I think you are saying. Based upon my attempt to express to you what I think you are saying, I ask that you explain to me, in your own words, what you think I am saying about the contribution in "The Great Apostasy and The Institutional Church" thread, what you think I have said about authority/ elders in the "Hebrews 13:17: To Whom We Gave No Such Commandment" thread, and what I said about the Lord's Supper in my last post concerning 1 Cor. 11:18ff. I want to make sure that we are communicating, and I think the best way is for me to express what I think you are saying and vice versa. I also understand that this is somewhat disadvantageous for you since we both attended MSOP, but you have less background concerning my thoughts. Nevertheless, I am simply seeking to see if you understand--not agree with--what I am saying and vice versa. Thanks.
Regarding Mark 10:42ff, No. The Lord condemns one Christian, or group of Christians (even apostles) from "lording over" other Christians. Peter (1 Pet. 5:1) and Paul (2 Cor. 1:24) understood this and did not do it. "One" is every Christian's "Master"--Christ. He is my only Head. No group of men in between making laws based on something called "expediency." Why do elders think they have this right? Where's the verse? Please see my thread on Hebrews 13:17. Also, my explanation for what "submit, subjection" mean are in that post. It is not the western, hierarchical institutional mindset found in today's institutional church that is a copy of western military, government, and business practices (Mark 10:42ff).
The church did not "most likely" meet in the home of Philemon. They met in his home (Phi. 1:2, NIV). The list of Scriptures above shows this. My point is that Paul's points in 1 Cor. 11:20; 14:23 is not to bind "one place." He simply says, that "when" they do--not "you better not divide up" as your 'divided assembly' viewpoint demands. Which also reveals that the place is the most important thing in your viewpoint. Why does it matter that Christians meet in homes all over the city with whichever other Christians they wish? To me this expresses desire for "top-down" control that is only necessary in a system of public buildings (that belong to 'everyone' which is really 'no one') and salaried staff, etc. Why not just set the Christian example of "conforming to the image of Christ" (Rom. 8:29; 2 Pet. 1:5-8; Matt. 5:3-9)? Why all the control from the top down (outside--in)? Why not let Christ "rule" in our hearts?
I dealt with the part "in store" in my blog-post. This is why I want to ensure that we are communicating by you expressing, in your own words, what you think I am saying. It seems that we may not be understanding each other. I realize that we do not agree, but if we are going to correspond, we need to communicate. I have no problem with a "treasuring up" in one's home. Certainly, they would be "storing it up" there. I think that you are assuming Paul would be in a hurry when he got to Corinth. I have already stated that the "no gatherings when I come" is the Corinthians "gatherings" (plural) individually, not the one supposed "gathering" (singular) you suggest. Again, thesauridzon concerns the "how" not the "where" as you show Clarke and Barnes understand to be "at home." As well as all the other scholars I cited in my blogpost. I disagree with the modern term "service." It is institutional. The Bible reveals actual services to the poor--real functions among people, not places of "services" which are compartmentalized, ritualistic "acts" of worship governed by a supposed hierarchy—that's leftover Catholicism even if titleless and robeless. Apostasy is a behavior, not an intellectual doctrine to teach academically.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the same word is used in Acts 18:2 an 1 Cor. 16:1-4, but not with your application of it as a "pattern" for a universal, mandatory collection today. Where does Paul say that it is a pattern for today, or for anyone or anywhere other than poor saints in Judea? Also, one usage of the word is "set in order," another is "arrange," another is "prescribe" (a method). That is all Paul is doing here--and again--to a TEMPORARY collection FOR SAINTS in JUDEA (I am intending to emphasize not shout here). Again, Is this not the context of 1 Cor. 16:1-4? And 2 Cor. chps. 8 and 9? Where Paul says, concerning this same temporary, voluntary collection that he speaks "not as a command" (2 Cor. 8:8)? And that the Macedonians "begged earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints" (8:4)? And that it was "not as Paul expected" (8:5)? Using pattern theology out of context is problematic. The "collection for the saints" in Judea has no other context--it cannot be used as a proof-text for something its context does not address to demand support on threat of hell for an institutional system of buildings and paid professionals.
Again, 1 Cor. 4:17 is being used as a pattern proof-text. Note that Paul is calling attention to his humble behavior (servant, 4:1), because some Corinthians had become arrogant (4:18). He is correcting their arrogant "behavior." I don't know where a "mandatory collection for all churches for all times" is in this verse. He doesn't even mention the temporary collection until 12 chapters later.
In my own words, here is what I think that you are saying: Obviously, it is the VIEWPOINT (I am Socratically questioning a viewpoint we were taught) of the modern institutional practices we inherited from past generations in church history and were taught at MSOP. Five "acts of worship" that "must" be ritually conducted every first day of the week, and any other day elders, with hierarchical power, may demand (L.S. only on Sunday). I think that you are saying that the collection is universal, weekly, and mandatory. That Sunday night and Wednesday night services are mandatory because elders have hierarchical authority from Christ (Heb. 13:17, et al.). If I am misinformed on your viewpoint, I look forward to understanding it better. I look forward to your interpretation of what you think I am saying.
God bless.
Jimmy,
ReplyDeleteI respond below to the article link you posted
truthmagazine.com/archives/volume21/TM021348.html
I assume you are familiar with it, or the arguments, so I did not include the text for brevity.
Here is my response in order from the beginning to end of the article.
What is the definition of Scripturality?
He assumes that there is a treasury without proving it in his second sentence and third sentences.
He draws a conclusion in the last sentence of his first paragraph from suppositions, not established facts.
I understand his reasoning process, but he assumes a treasury because he thinks Paul gave "regulations" concerning one.
Why view this Scripturality of something from the viewpoint of "binding"? Would it not be more enjoyable to take the viewpoint of "freedom" since "it is for freedom that Christ died to set us free"? (Gal. 5:1). Where's the verse that says, "it is for binding commandments on us that Christ died"? This seems to cater to the controlling aspects of institutionalism and clericalism.
He admits there is no direct command which authorizes a church treasury, but says there are "inferences" he has yet to prove.
I am not saying "don't have a treasury" or "don't give." I am saying, "Don't bind a temporary, voluntary collection for saints in Judea as a universal obligation on threat of hell. I am not forbidding anyone from giving however they wish. His assumptions seem to show that he is concerned about a collection not being "bound" on him and on others???
If elders are "for hire" does that mean they "work" for the "whole church" and the church tells elders what to do? Just exactly who's "in charge" here? Or would that arrangement really be based on a "decision to give" (Acts 11:29) agreement as I suggest?
He is arguing against a straw man that someone is saying, "You can't have a church treasury." I don't know who is arguing this. I am not.
He states, "Most churches have a building payment, light bill, preacher's salary, classroom materials, and cleaning supplies that must be purchased and paid for on a regular basis." This is the problem. The church has been turned into a business school, not the kingdom of fellowship and conformity to the character of Christ God intended.
He assumes that those he says, "have the idea that we are to save our money at home and then give as the need arises" are bound under obligation to give. I guess he is assuming this from his later proof-text of 2 Cor. 9:7, "let everyman give according as he has been prospered." He takes this out of the temporary collection context for saints in Judea and makes it his own proof-text for "building payments, light bills, preacher's salary, classroom materials and cleaning supplies that MUST be purchased." Notice the assumption of "must be" purchased, and what his supposed "treasury" is really for. Poor saints? He didn't mention them in his list of "must purchase."
(continued)
ReplyDeleteWho is saying "maintain a zero balance"? Or how long can a treasury be maintained? Not me. All of this is so legalistic it's tiresome.
A church treasury is a matter of liberty, not of faith—much less "how long" one can be maintained. Do people really argue this stuff. I know this site is "anti." I guess this is what they do.
He sure does talk about supporting evangelists a lot. Wasn't the collection (that he is saying is a church treasury) for poor saints, not salaried preachers?
Who is saying that "we are 'only' to give on a need to need basis"? Another straw man, at least concerning me. I say give, give, give! Sell all that YOU have and give to the evangelist? No, "the poor" (1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8-9; Acts 11:27-30; Gal. 2:10; Rom. 15:25-26). See the problem with the institutional church system? It pretends.
Whose argument is "save up money at home and give as needs arise?" There is this "binding" language in everything he says, it seems. We're free to give as much as we want!
There is no need for a "permanent, common treasury" except to pay evangelists, building payments, preacher's salries, etc. that he states. Where is his statement of a "church treasury" for "poor saints?" He seems pretty dependent of this "treasury" for some reason.
Yep, Paul told the Corinthians to lay aside some money (if they had it) every Sunday (at home) so they would have a personal (by him) treasury to give Paul when he came. This has nothing to do with legalistically binding a "place." Why is everything viewed as a "place"? The church is viewed not as people, but you "must" go to a place. You must give into a church treasury at the building—a place. Why so much necessity upon a certain place? Who's there? Is it the same guy writing this article? Hmmmm…
"Par heauto" is "by himself" (masculine). It cannot be translated neuter as MacKnight, Lipcomb, Johnson, etc. want to (by "itself"). It is not neuter.
Scott,
ReplyDeletePlease consider as well:
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/918-giving-as-an-expression-of-worship
As with the previous article I posted to which you have replied - I am simply offering these in support of points I have already made.
You have brought up our instruction at the MSOP -one thing I would like to remind you that we were taught there is that we are not to allow the lexicons and commentaries to define the meaning of words for us in the Bible, though they may be helpful to help us understand such meanings. We are to allow the context to bear out the meaning of the words for us. In the context, in the verse itself (1 Corinthians 16:2) the "the lay by him in store" is by every one of you on the first day of the week so that there will be no gatherings when Paul came. Now where would they all be to "lay by him in store?" They would be all together in one place (1 Corinthians 11:20; 14:23).
You say that we who are defending the "institutional church" are using the "temporary collection" to bind giving to a church treasury today. You say that the giving was voluntary and could be stored at their homes, and that you are not against giving (I never believed you were) and that by the same example today we are able to store up at home. Well if the "temporary collection" obligation has ceased that was under consideration in all the verses dealing with giving concerning the need in Jerusalem and all the command to give whether at home or in a church treasury only pertained to the "temporary collection," then there is no more obligation to give at all today. Yes, one may freely give if so able and so desired when there is a need (Acts 2:44-46; 4:32-37), but there is no obligation at all to give whether to a church treasury or at home. Except for Acts 2:42 - you have not proven that the giving (fellowship) there was voluntary. The apostles' doctrine, breaking of bread, and prayers were not voluntary, unless we are to conclude that worship all together is voluntary that there is no obligation at all to worship. The giving in Acts 2:42 did not pertain to the "temporary collection," it was what the church did stedfastly begininng on the day it was established - the day of Pentecost, which always fell on the first day of the week.
I will try next week to go through your most recent posts and I also promised haqol that I would consider his next week as well.
In Him,
Jimmy
Jimmy,
ReplyDeleteI respond to the article you posted below.
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/918-giving-as-an-expression-of-worship
He assumes that there is a treasury. Probably from 'thesauridzon' in 1 Cor. 16:1-4, but the word is not a noun ('treasury box'). It is functioning as an adverb or verb regarding "how"—not where—the private funds were to be "gathered." Par heauto = "at (each, every) home." See BAGD, Thayer, Mounce, Wuest, et al. MSOP are not scholars. Those lexicons give objective, and accurate usages. To dismiss honest scholarship, in favor of "looking up" to MSOP is not wise in my opinion. Lexical usages, syntax, and idiomatic expressions are all considered when determining meaning of a passage.
"Consistent with divine revelation" is what needs to be explained.
I never said that "giving is not worship." There are 20 terms for "worship" in the New Testament. "Giving" is atop the list. We may worship God in this manner anytime. The more the better (Acts 2:42-46; 4:32ff; Acts 11:27-30; 1 Cor. 16:1-4). There are far more than two Greek words for worship (proskuneo and letreuw). It seems that these were the only two we were told about at MSOP which assumes another needless dichotomy between "worship" and "service" like the needless dichotomies between "breaking bread" in Acts 2:42ff and 20:4ff. Here is a Google document that list about 20 or so different Greek words that have to do with, praise, adoration, and worship.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16tjepl2jei88ERGAdOX8xaQ0nICqvUsfkVzN_bB2OcE/edit?hl=en&authkey=CPDpg-gL#
The "five acts" that we ritually perform today are being projected back onto Acts 2 and 20, one of which is "giving into a metal plate with a velvet bottom to feel faithful." Nothing wrong with it, but it is not "obligatory." A passage cannot have a meaning (today) that it never had to begin with. It was temporary, regional, voluntary gatherings in individuals homes—not into an obligatory church treasury as an "act of worship" that must be performed weekly to be considered "Scriptural" or faithful to God.
The "obligatory" view is unnecessary, and I believe is utilized to maintain institutional needs, rather than the purpose giving served in Acts 2 and 1 Cor. 16. It seems he can only understand "faithful" giving as into a metal tray on Sunday at a designated place. I totally disagree, especially when the "must be purchases" don't even include "poor saints" as in the other link you posted.
He is using "guilt and fear" to insinuate that "not giving on Sunday" is disobedience to God. If anybody ought to feel guilty and fearful, it is someone who will not see the truth about a temporary collection, and binds it on Christians. Paul had harsh words for those who wanted to bind circumcision on Gentiles as a matter of salvation when God did not. Are you sure demanding a collection is not 'religious extortion' on fear of hell? The Jews would have said, "God says to be circumcised," or "The Bible says" to be circumcised. What's the difference?
ReplyDeleteWe are debating what the "content" of Christian revelation is in 1 Cor. 16:1-4.
Our giving must not be coerced by other Christians who misinterpret passages like the Jews misinterpreted circumcision because of their legalism. Why the term "procedure." It assumes a legalistic, obligatory viewpoint of Scripture with which I disagree for a number of reasons.
He uses obligatory (top down) terms like "must conform," but he hasn't shown what that is yet. He sets the stage that anyone who disagrees with his upcoming interpretation is "dishonest" and in "serious error." What a way to teach the "good news."
He is assuming "God's pattern" of giving, and has not proven anything. He assumes "five acts" of worship in an institutional setting is "scriptural," but it developed after the NT, see Viola Pagan Christianity.
We can't evangelize without giving money to the institutional church? Why not? Why not just walk out the front door of your house and evangelize? Why not walk out you front door and give to those in need? Why "must" it be done through the demand of a hierarchy of preachers and elders in a public building, or you are maligned as "dishonest" and in "serious error." This from a man who makes his living from those demanded funds. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this? I'm sure the author makes a modest living from the treasury of his church, but this does not excuse binding a contribution that God does not bind. Christians are "free," not "obligated." They need to be told that they do not "have" to give, but if they choose to, then that's their business. There's a big difference.
Paul says that "it is not by commandment" in 2 Cor. 8:8 concerning this same collection "for the saints," not "from" the saints. Notice how his "obligatory, must" viewpoint narrowly interprets diatasso even when Paul says, "This is not a command." Unbelievable.
He just makes up that "this text provides a precedent for determining how any and all churches are authorized to meet their financial needs." And what are those "financial needs?" Poor saints? Salaried preachers? Public buildings? He just asserts it. No proof. He just makes the unsubstantiated claim that "some propose" that the "charge" (notice obligatory terms) "here imposed" "was but a temporal and local requirement" (all this obligatory viewpoint is unnecessary—we can give anytime we want! Hooray! Why is he so concerned we give at the specific place on a specific day? It is not a "requirement," Paul said so in 2 Cor. 8:8 and that "he did not have dominion over the Corinthians' faith" in 2nd Corinthians 1:24. The author is responsible for his "lording it over" method of interpreting these passages. Peter (1 Pet. 5:1) and Paul (2 Cor. 1:24) dared not do this to other Christians because Jesus forbade it (Mark 10:42-45).
He even states "While the immediate context pertained to a specific need (relief for the churches of Judea), the text provides a precedent (read proof-text) for determining (read demanding) how any and all churches are authorized to meet their financial needs." No, it does not. A passage cannot have a context today that it never had back then! Unbelievable proof-texting to demand money from people from whom you make your living. I don't claim to know the motive of the author. I am sure that he is sincere, but the fact is that he is dependent on that money, so it is not objective since he demands it. I am not saying that he only preaches the gospel for money. I have a problem with Christians infringing on other Christian's freedoms (Gal. 5:1-16).
ReplyDelete"Paul's injunction" (more obligatory, top-down, legalistic interpretation that he is responsible for even if nobody stands up to him today because he is a "great brother" or a "great preacher" "looked up" to in the hierarchy. Nothing personal to the author. I am referring to our modus operandi that exalts men which Paul forbade in 1 Cor.3:21—"so, no more boasting about men!" "Those who compare themselves among themselves and measure themselves by themselves are not wise" (2 Cor. 10:12).
He says, "for the support of God's work and fulfillment of that resolution." Is that what the temporary collection was for? It does not have another context than the one it had 2,000 ago for Judean saints. The Syrian Christians began this temporary collection 20 years after Pentecost and Galatia, Macedonia and Achaia "begged" to participate and asked about participating. It was not an "obligatory act of worship" as the author presents it.
IT DOES NOT MEAN by "itself." It is not neuter. It's masculine. McGarvey, Pendleton, MacKnight, et al. are wrong. They are projecting institutional Christianity of their day back onto the text and we inherited it from them and they inherited it from past generations. We need to quit "looking up" to "great brothers." It causes us to look foolish and believe error. It does not mean "put into the treasury." It means "storing up" (at home) = Par heauto.
It is not erroneous. Who is saying that "Paul was merely urging his brethren to save something 'at home.'? Not me. Par heauto means "at home." Paul said it, not me. The author's charges are ramping up for which he will be held responsible. If the blind lead the blind both fall into the ditch. He is wrong that Paul's "purpose" was "not wanting to have to contact each Christian individually when he came." Where does Paul say that? He doesn't. Anymore than his reference to the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor. 11:23-26 is "condemning a common meal." We have projected what we do today, and have inherited from past generations, onto the text. These are gravely mistaken interpretations for which individual preachers are responsible. Looking up to "sound brothers" others won't help us when we ourselves are 'dishonest and in error' and don't do our own study to show ourselves approved (Rom. 14:11-12 The interpretation that Paul did not want any gatherings to be made after he came as "I am in a hurry" is mistaken and unproved assumption. Paul planned to spend the winter in Corinth (1 Cor. 16:6). Paul customarily taught "from house to house" (Acts 20:20). The author is repeating unproven assumptions now.
This is his worst accusation yet. He states, "The notion that one may simply free-lance his contribution in doing good, with no obligation to the local church, is a myth contrived by the covetous. Wherever else the saint may give, his weekly contribution to the local congregation should be unwavering." Who's covetous? Who gets the largest cut? The term "contribution to the local church" is un-biblical and unscriptural according to the context of 1 Cor. 16:1-4. Unchallenged hierarchical, big name preachers don't do any service to the church. This is the problem with a hierarchy. Unchallenged power.
ReplyDeleteThe Scriptures do not "impose an obligation upon each saint." Only the author has done that.
The saints in Judea were not an "institutional business" that their Christian brethren gave to through a "hierarchically demand treasury system" as the author imposes. They decided freely to help (Acts 11:29) and sent it to the elders (Acts 11:30). This in no way authorizes a modern hierarchy that is superimposed onto that text, et al. Hebrews. 13:17, etc. Those men knew better (than some today) to not "lord it over" other Christians (Mark 10:42-45).
Now he wants the biggest portion of your money. Unbelievable. I don’t' really believe that he is covetous, just mistaken like Saul of Tarsus. I know he's just repeating what he was taught, but he is still responsible for it and so is anyone who continues to follow his line of reasoning. If the blind lead the blind…
Where does the NT say we are "giving back to God?" or "give a portion of your income to God?" It simply describes fellowship among Christians who love each other (Acts 2:42ff; 4:32ff; 11:27-30; Gal. 2:10). Nothing more. This whole "giving back to God" is superimposed by a church hierarchy who controls the money coming in. It's not about covetousness. It's about freedom and power over other people. Jesus has "all power." He did not delegate any of it to a hierarchy. We are all equal in authority. A hierarchy exists only to support the institutional church. Otherwise, we don't need it.
He's proof-texting with Acts 11:29 and 2 Cor. 8:3. He left out that the "Syrians decided to send relief" (Acts 11:29). He left out, "Entirely on their own they urgently pleaded with us for the privilege of sharing in this service to the saints" (2 Cor. 8:4, NIV). "Entirely on their own." Totally the opposite of what the vested author is suggesting.
At least a 10% church tax. For whom? The poor? (1 Cor. 16:1-4). Fellowship among Christians? (Acts 2:42).
ReplyDeleteThe "great" N.B Hardeman judging the covetous like the author earlier because they don't give to the institutional church. "Stop glorying in men" (1 Cor. 3:21). "Stop passing judgment on one another" (Rom. 14:13). "Who are you to judge another man's servant?" (Rom. 14:4). How often are these Scriptures preached by "great brethren"? (Nothing personal).
Those who choose to give in Romans 12:8? Or who better or else?
Their commitment to needy brethren. Finally!
Why must everything be filtered through the institutional, hierarchical church? I am the church. Is it not my money before I give it? (Acts 5:4). To read this article, you would think it belonged to whoever controls that supposed "treasury for God." Can't I serve my God individually? What happens if we don't have public buildings and a church treasury? What would then happen? Who would suffer and who would gain? Could we not meet in our homes and take up a collection for special needs and 2 or 3 men teach (1 Cor. 14:29) on a needed subject after the Lord's Supper and prayers and hymns? If there's no need, then why a collection. There's no building debt, light bill, classroom supplies, salaried staff. More to give to the poor. Hey, I read about "storing up at home" in 1 Cor. 16:1-4, but this article doesn't seem to like that for some reason. In fact, the author has disdain for it.
"Let each of you lay by him (at home) in store on the first day of every week, so that you don't start gathering after I come." (my paraphrase). "Since you asked me about sending some relief to your brethren in Judea, go ahead and start saving now." (my paraphrase). That's all he's saying. This "obligatory contribution" viewpoint is nothing more than supporting the institutional church and those vested in it—no motives impugned.
If you disagree with him after he has called you "dishonest" and "covetous" and in "serious error," then he says, "Don't call me selfish." Well, I am sure he's teaching what he sincerely believes and what was handed down to him from great brethren of the past, but he is mistaken.
Make God help us all to glorify Him without a clergy in between—with or without robes.
Jimmy,
ReplyDeleteI don't follow your reasoning with 1 Cor. 16:1-2 and 11:20; 14:23. You are proof-texting part of a verse by assuming it's context. The "context" is not the "verse" (or part of it), the context is the fact that "what" Paul is talking about is a temporary collection for saints in Jerusalem which is admitted by all. He specifically says to "gather" this money "at home." You are assuming a public building with a treasury, because we inherited this established practice. Please notice that the idioms including heautos, ou are translated "home" in contexts where money is not an issue.
In John 20:10, heautos, ou refers to "their homes." The ASV, KJV, NKJV and the ESV translate it this way. In this passage the accusative plural phrase “pros heautous” is translated “to their own homes.” This shows that Bible translators know how these idioms are to be employed, and the fact that they gave a literal translation in 1 Cor. 16:2 instead of the actual idiomatic meaning is not because they do not know, but for some other reason that does not rest on linguistics. You know how translators transliterate "baptidzo" instead of translating it, because of sensitivities to established practice? It is the same here. What is more sensitive than money?
In Luke 24:12 we find probably the most damaging information to the assertion that par heautō does not mean "at home." We find the accusative of heautou (rather than the dative as in 1 Cor 16:2). The prepositional phrase is pros heautōn. This is translated as “he went home” (apalthen pros heautōn) in the English Standard Version, et al. The accusative case implies extension and with verbs of motion, like “apalthen” (he went) the phrase means ‘towards’ and completes the idiomatic sense of "he went home."The scholars who translated the Bibles actually do know what this phrase means just like they know what "baptidzo" means.
The letters were delivered on a circuit (Col. 4:16). Half the Roman Empire were slaves who could not read like in Revelation 1:3: "Blessed is the one who reads and the one who hears." They were house churches that sometimes came together as a "whole church" in one place (still someone's home like Gaius in Rom. 16:23). The letter would then be read or copied and distributed and Christians would "lay by in store" in their "homes." The two passages you cite 1 Cor. 11:20; 14:23) have nothing to do with "binding" a place of assembly.
Regarding our instruction at MSOP. Our education in the Bible there was foundational, not a once for all package of signals to be repeated for a lifetime. We were taught it that way through extensive memorization of passages, and "we were told" what the passages meant to a large degree. This is what I call "possessing the right doctrine" in my blogs. The neat package we were given usually started with 2 Pet. 1:3 or Col. 3:17 and everything was compartmentalized under umbrella proof-texts like these to support the existing institutional practices we all inherited. Peter's comment has to do with (living) "life" through "godly" behavior—not worship—unless you take the position "all of life is worship." Do you still maintain the dichotomy we were taught between (only) two of the 20 words in the NT for "worship"?
ReplyDeleteI understand that lexicons only give "usages" and not "meanings." Meaning comes from context. We are debating what that "context" (viewpoint we were taught) is. You seem to advocate rejecting learned scholarship—lexical, syntax, idioms, etc. (many of whom I admit are not Christians), for whatever the instructors at the school said a passage meant. What's the difference? It is this hierarchical viewpoint that I am challenging the accuracy of. I am not "looking up" to anyone including lexicographers. A "hierarchical viewpoint" creates permanent dependence, or immaturity, that simply repeats signals for a lifetime as one ascends the hierarchy as one s/he gets older. It is a caste system based, not on objective truth, but age and "who you know." Jesus was 30 years old, and His accusers appear to be at least 50 (John 8:57). He was rejected by "elders" (Matt. 16:14ff). This consequence of remaining a "dependent" comes from accepting a hierarchical structure. A hierarchy violates the maturity God expects (2 Pet. 3:18; Eph. 4:11-16; Mark10:42-45). God expects us "to grow" (up) in grace and that "we all" attain maturity like Christ's and a "hierarchical interpretation" (viewpoint that I am challenging the accuracy of) prevents obeying God's commands. The way this is carried out is through the "one place" and "five acts" of worship rituals from the "top-down."
Thanks for putting into your own words what you think I am saying; however, I am not saying that giving "could be" stored at their homes. It was stored at their homes (1 Cor. 16:1-4). This is the second instance where a passage says something plainly, but you seem not to be acknowledging it (Phi. 1:2). There was no "temporary collection obligation." It was voluntary (2 Cor. 8:4-5, 8). "The disciples decided, determined to send relief" twenty years after Pentecost (Acts 11:27-30). They were simply "remembering the poor" because they were "eager to do it" (Gal. 2:10). No obligation, just love in the kingdom. You are correct. There is no obligation at all to give. "If you love Me, keep my commandments." Only love like the Syrians, Corinthians and Paul is real "giving" and "worship." It's not an "act" of worship. It's real worship. God is Spirit and they that worship Him, "must" worship Him in spirit and in "truth" (aletheia = real). God is seeking these kinds of people, not obligated ritual keepers (no motives impugned).
ReplyDeleteAll of what is recorded in Acts 2:42-46 is "voluntary." "They devoted themselves" = voluntary, because they "love" one another. This is the only worship God accepts (John 4:24). Love God and your neighbor fulfills the whole Law. We are free in the kingdom of God and "it is for freedom that Christ set us free" (Gal. 5:1). This is not so in the institutional church. The institutional church and the kingdom of God are not the same. One "demands" a place and money. The other needs neither to function because it is all "within us" (Luke 17:20-21) ready to come out into the world.
God bless.
Scott and haqol:
ReplyDeleteI will address you both together, in that haqol is in agreement with Scott, and Scott's last paragraph above is the heart of the matter. Let me put in my words what I think you are expressing: I believe you are saying that worship is only voluntary. There are no presribed acts of worship. There is no prescribed day of worship. There is no prescibed place of worship. We should tear down all church buildings, break up into multiple extremely small groups and worship in our homes. Every so often at someone's house that is large enough to accomidate we can all come together on a special day to have a feast. We need no hired preachers. We need no elderships, except only to "lead by example but never to exert authority." In my own words I believe this would suffice for you.
More to follow:
Scott and haqol:
ReplyDeleteIs worship only voluntary? Is all that is stated in Acts 2:42-46 only voluntary? I agree with you in Acts 2:44-46 is strictly voluntary, but not with Acts 2:42. If Acts 2:42 is only voluntary then the apostles' doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers are all only voluntary. Yet "they continued stedfastly" in these things. This does not mean that they only devoted themselves voluntarily in these things. This phrase means they were in agreement in these things being as the phrase is used in Matthew 1:18 in truth. And how are we to worship God? See John 4:24. And is worship not commanded of us? No, we are commanded to worship (Matthew 4:10). As in giving we are commanded to give (1 Corinthians 16:1-2). God does not force us to give, which is the meaning of necessity in 2 Corinthians 9:7. God does want us to give out of our free will, but we are still commanded to give. Just as with all of God's commands, we are to obey out of our free will, but we are required to obey. As per 2 Corinthians 8:8-10, Paul is not saying the giving there was not commanded, for it was the same giving he did command in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2. He was saying that he wanted to them to give not just by the force of a commandment but out of a true heart of love desiring to give. However, we still must obey commandments to prove our love to the Lord (John 14:15). The commandment in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 concerning the collection for the saints was not constained to a temporary time period - Paul was still exhorting the church at Corinth to give over a year after giving the command and it took many years for him to bring the collection to Jerusalem (Acts 24:17). There is a pattern to follow in giving on the first day of the week just as in partaking of the Lord's Supper (Acts 20:7). The breaking of bread in Acts 20:7 is not a common meal because they came for the purpose of breaking bread on the first day of the week and Paul makes clear to Corinth that purpose was to be in partaking of the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11:17-34). They did not partake of a common meal at Troas until the worship service was over (Acts 20:7-11).
More to follow:
Finally there is a command to give which is an act of worhsip (Acts 2:42) that we obey in follwing the pattern in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 when the church is gathered together in one place (1 Corinthians 11:20; 14:23) which is on every first day of the week, which is how often we partake of the Lord's Supper (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:26).
ReplyDeleteThis is where I stand and will continue to defend (Jude 3).
In Him,
Jimmy
On a personal note:
ReplyDeleteSharon's best friend from high school has stage 4 breast cancer that has gone into her lungs, kidneys, and spleen. She is in UAB hospital and the doctors there have done all they can do - her only hope of more treatment to possibly pro long her life is in IL now and she needed $3000 deductible just to be transferred. The family could only raise 1300, and unknown to them Sharon had called on 3 elderships that in one day sent her 1700 to take to the family. When Sharon gave the money to her friend's husband, he said it was the answer to prayer because he had raised all the money he could and he did not know how else to get the remaining funds. These 3 elderships were able to meet this need because they had the funds already gathered through the regular contributions on the first day of the week.
Jimmy,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you summarizing what you think that I am saying so that we may communicate with understanding. I cannot say that I appreciate you taking a "wave of the hand" approach to my comments and articles. I feel that you are using the fallacy of reductionism, so that you don't not have to address my arguments when you say, "This is all it boils down to, etc." For the most part, you have simply made lengthy assertions by proof-texting from all over the NT with no exegesis of the passages you cite. I understand using verses to support a point, but I am trying to get people to see a viewpoint we have inherited by using Socratic questions to address assumptions and evidence for why we believe what we do about certain passages—the opposite of assuming meaning in proof texts. I am attempting to reveal truth, not "possess" it like a rod of iron and rule others with it.
I received your latest bulletin which concludes with elder authority and preacher authority which I am applying to our discussion. There is no exegesis of any of the passages you cite as "proof" (texts) for your position. Your understanding of authority is clearly hierarchical, top-down, western-Gentile, military, American corporate type "authority" which Jesus condemns even among His apostles, and they dared not "exercise over" others (1 Pet. 5:1-2; 2 Cor. 1:24). I have already exegeted Hebrews 13:17 in an entire blog-post and shown that the type of authority, which you simply assume with no exegesis, violates Mark 10:42-45; 2 Cor. 1:24; 1 Peter 5:1-2.
The word "rule" means "to guide" (example of quality, godly living—not an "official position"). Peitho means "to be persuaded" by example and "submit" does not mean "obey." None of the words for elders (presbuteros, poimen, episkopos) is in Hebrews 13:17—it is simply assumed. "Submission" is an attitude all Christians are to display. Elders are to "submit" to the younger (Eph. 5:21). In your bulletin you state that elders do not have the right to make laws, but you don't address any specifics like the man-made laws of Sunday night and Wednesday night "worship services" (for which the apostles gave no command—like circumcision) or a mandatory contribution. You are simply making assertions based on Bible verses like Acts 2:42, 1 Cor. 16:1-4, and "breaking bread" (Acts 20:4ff) with no explanations of what words, phrases, syntax, etc. in these passages mean. For the most part, your exegesis has been to send me two links to articles for me "to consider."
I feel that you are assuming what words mean based on established, inherited culturally conditioned terminology that you have never questioned. I also believe that you will take all of what I have just said, and throw it into the "assertion bin of expediency" to maintain the status quo. I somewhat regret repeating myself on these specifics, and I will not in the future, if you simply make assertions with no exegesis and don't respond to my specific arguments concerning Sunday & Wednesday night, at home, obey, rule and submit, etc.
I am not saying that "worship is only voluntary." You did not address the twenty words that describe an "act of worship" in the NT. Previously you cited some exegesis of proskuneo and latreuw, probably based on a supposed dichotomy between 'all of life' and Abraham's comment, "I and the lad will go yonder to worship." I am not claiming that all of life is an "act of worship" like the absurd false accusation of going to the bathroom which I heard in a live online broadcast two days ago and that we were taught ten years ago! No study, no personal responsibility, just "repeating signals." I am saying that there is more to worship than the supposed five "ritual acts" one of which has been proven to be false—the collection "from" the saints.
ReplyDeleteI am not saying that we "should" do anything. I am simply pointing out the truth about some of the things we were taught, and, especially the way we behave, in order to shine light on the freedoms Christ died for us to have which legalism and institutionalism violate (Gal. 5:1). What people choose to do with their newfound freedom will be based on their maturity and personal responsibility. We reap what we sow. We don't "need" hired preachers. What would happen if we didn't have "church buildings" and "paid preachers"? What would "have to" happen? People would "have to" grow in knowledge of Christ through grace—not fear--and learn to imitate the character of Christ without people 'above them' in clerical positions—the Bible calls this maturity, and it is God's will (Eph. 4:16; Rom. 8:29). There are no children in the church. The "official positions" we have in the west hinder the functions (behaviors) God intended. All elders could do is "lead only by example" without buildings and clerical positions. They would serve people in their homes and communities—not collectively rule them by demanding they come and bring their money to a building three times a week. We have been given all things that pertain unto "life" (living) and "godliness" (Christ's character). See my point. We are free, not obligated, to worship God (John 14:15), and you can't force people to obey from the outside-in with "institutional rule." The real kingdom of God is all that will suffice for me. It is completely comprised of behaving in ways "against which there is no law" based on love for the Lord. He accepts nothing less than "real" (truth) worship from the inside—out (spirit) (John 4:24).
I am not going to restate all the arguments I have given and that you have not addressed concerning the "commandment to give." This is more assertion with no exegesis. Paul said, "This is not a commandment" and "I give my advice" in 2 Corinthians 8:8-10. I have no idea what you mean.
I am saying the reverse of what you are saying John 14:15 means. I am saying: "If you love Me, then keep My commandments." I feel that you are saying, "You better keep My commandments, or else, I'm sending you all straight to hell! BTW this will show that you love Me." Is this the atmosphere of Jesus' last conversation with His disciples? (John 14:1ff). I "longingly desire" to keep my Lord's commands just like the prophets of old and the apostles (Matt. 13:17).
The collection was "constrained to a temporary time period." It began 15-20 years after Pentecost and ended a few years later. Did the famine last forever? Did the Romans know about it? (Rom. 15:25-28). You are projecting an inherited "pattern" onto the text based on cultural conditioning instead of exegeting the passage(s) and responding to my points. I have already stated that this is what you are doing primarily.
What is a "common" meal? And where did the practice of a sip of juice and piece of cracker originate? See Viola. You are imposing an unnecessary dichotomy of "common" and "spiritual" onto "breaking bread," as well as an, "elders & preacher/ brethren," dichotomy—a viewpoint, or mentality, that originated in the clergy/laity impositions of Ignatius, Constantine and Catholicism and was slightly altered by the Protestants. We inherited Stone and Campbell's alterations to what they inherited in their day (See Olbricht's article on The Invitation). I feel that you are projecting "worship service" back onto the text, because we practice that today. Paul was "dialoguing" at a meal with his apostolic workers that he and Luke had sent ahead of themselves a few days earlier (Acts 20:4ff).
ReplyDeleteWhat does a "command to give" mean? Paul had given instructions on how to collect for the poor saints "so that" they would not "gather" anything after he arrived. That's all the verse says. It seems you are saying that Paul "commanded everybody to give, or else your going to hell, and it better be in one place when I get there, too!" I do not.
I am not sure that any real communication is occurring, or that you really intended for it to when you originally posted the 10 or so things for "my consideration." I think that you were coming from a "top down" position of "being right" and trying to correct me based on what you perceived was troublesome error. This is consistent with your hierarchical view of authority and shows that my blog's thesis is correct. The hierarchical viewpoint (Mark 10:42-45) affects behavior and has consequences such as no communication, no understanding, etc. which are also "commandments" of God. I feel that you have behaved exactly as I have pointed out in my articles and have not been able to answer my arguments. I don't know any reason to continue our "discussion."
Thanks for your concern, and I am sorry that Sharon's friend is going through her trials. I would want a friend like her, if I was in that situation. The church treasury was certainly a convenience, but that has nothing to do with what I have said, so I don't know why you included it in this discussion. A temporary collection just like that found in 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 could be conducted, as well; especially, if people took personal responsibility, did not "look up" to elders, and budgeted and managed their money like I teach (Dave Ramsey). Also, I think that sometimes even more money can be given, if there were not indebtedness for buildings and salaries, etc. We are already paying for our homes—why add a "mandatory" burden? Let's just start using what we have and mature into Christ by loving one another and being involved in one another's lives where we really live and are our true selves—not in a building that is "everybody's" and "nobody's," and where we dress up to pray/ assemble, when we don't dress up to pray/assemble at home, etc. This is another law of man enforced by guilt. We have all things that pertain to "life and "godliness" in Christ's example—not the church building and the rituals that occur there. I am the church, and I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
God bless.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteYou claim I only make assertions, I'm "proof texting," and I have not adressed all your "arguments." As soon as you deal with Acts 2:42 where you have only asserted was voluntary, I will deal with your reply to it. Because, brother, that is where "it all boils down to" if Acts 2:42 is only voluntary, we have no acts of worship that are commanded to be observed in the assembly on the first day of the week.
In Him,
Jimmy
Jimmy,
ReplyDeleteIt is clear based on your last response that no communication is occurring. It seems that you are trying to hijack my plane and you don't even know how to fly. You have dealt with virtually none of my arguments in my comments or my posts, and you are telling me what to do, so you can reply to it? I will say this one more time: I did not say Acts 2:42 was "only" voluntary. You keep saying this, but I did not. You do not understand what I am saying, and I can't make you and will not waste any more of my time trying. In your mind, you think I am advocating "disobedience," but nothing could be further from the truth. You simply do not understand what I am saying, because we are not communicating. I have tried to establish communication with you through understanding, but you seem able only to react from a "top-down position," because you think you are so right and I am so wrong. I addressed the limitations of "right/wrong" thinking in one of my blogs, but I won't bother locating it. I appreciate your passion, but I really don't see a need to continue.
Scott
Scott,
ReplyDeleteDo you believe we are having a problem communicating with each other? Brother, one problem I see with your communication is that you are not being honest. These are your words concerning your posts: "I did not say Acts 2:42 was "only" voluntary." True, you did not say it explicitly, but you are teaching it. For if it is not "only" voluntary and you believe that it is not "only" volutary then you are in disagreement with comments you made in your posts which I post below: (All the following are statements made by Scott Perry in posts above. Scott Perry states that giving is not "obligatory," which makes it "only voluntary in his teaching.)
Again, we are free to give to anyone at anytime, just like the NT Christians in Acts 2:42-46, Barnabas, the Syrians, the Galatians, and the Corinthians, but we are not free to bind an obligatory "act of worship" on Christians that God does not bind, based on our hierarchical, western institutional behaviors we inherited.
I simply see a forced eisegesis of John 4:24, Acts 2:42, Eph. 5:19, 1 Cor. 16:1-4, etc. into the compartmentalized and legalized way that we do it today (what the last few generations have been taught, and what we were taught at MSOP and all of us inherited) rather than from an objective study of church history. This is projection, or eisegesis, not exegesis of the text or church history.
(Will continue with Scott's statements in a following post.)
(Scott's statements continue showing his teaching that giving is "only" voluntary)
ReplyDeleteRegarding Acts 20:7, Paul was assembling with his apostolic workers he had sent ahead of himself and Luke. Luke lists the names of seven of these workers in Acts 20:4-5. Other Christians, like Eutychus, were there, but to view that assembly as the Protestant practice we inherited which has a pulpit sermon, etc. is also eisegesis. Paul "discoursed" (preached, KJV) with his apostolic workers until midnight while they had come together for a 'common' meal (Lord's Supper, Acts 20:7, no dichotomy). The text says they ate after midnight, which also exposes the legalized way of viewing worship. They came together on the first day of the week "to break bread," but it does not say that they ate on the first day, does it? Again, a dichotomy between "two meals" is a projection made onto the text from practice begun in the following centuries and modified through the centuries and we inherited it. This needless dichotomy is also forced onto Acts 2:42-46.
There are far more than two Greek words for worship (proskuneo and letreuw). It seems that these were the only two we were told about at MSOP which assumes another needless dichotomy between "worship" and "service" like the needless dichotomies between "breaking bread" in Acts 2:42ff and 20:4ff.
The "five acts" that we ritually perform today are being projected back onto Acts 2 and 20, one of which is "giving into a metal plate with a velvet bottom to feel faithful." Nothing wrong with it, but it is not "obligatory." A passage cannot have a meaning (today) that it never had to begin with. It was temporary, regional, voluntary gatherings in individuals homes—not into an obligatory church treasury as an "act of worship" that must be performed weekly to be considered "Scriptural" or faithful to God.
The "obligatory" view is unnecessary, and I believe is utilized to maintain institutional needs, rather than the purpose giving served in Acts 2 and 1 Cor. 16. It seems he can only understand "faithful" giving as into a metal tray on Sunday at a designated place. I totally disagree, especially when the "must be purchases" don't even include "poor saints" as in the other link you posted.
Where does the NT say we are "giving back to God?" or "give a portion of your income to God?" It simply describes fellowship among Christians who love each other (Acts 2:42ff; 4:32ff; 11:27-30; Gal. 2:10). Nothing more. This whole "giving back to God" is superimposed by a church hierarchy who controls the money coming in. It's not about covetousness. It's about freedom and power over other people. Jesus has "all power." He did not delegate any of it to a hierarchy. We are all equal in authority. A hierarchy exists only to support the institutional church. Otherwise, we don't need it.
All of what is recorded in Acts 2:42-46 is "voluntary." "They devoted themselves" = voluntary, because they "love" one another. This is the only worship God accepts (John 4:24). Love God and your neighbor fulfills the whole Law. We are free in the kingdom of God and "it is for freedom that Christ set us free" (Gal. 5:1). This is not so in the institutional church. The institutional church and the kingdom of God are not the same. One "demands" a place and money. The other needs neither to function because it is all "within us" (Luke 17:20-21) ready to come out into the world.
In Him,
Jimmy
Jimmy,
ReplyDeleteAt the risk of alienating you and I further, which I really don't think is possible, your last post is somewhat laughable, and definitely confusing. You, yourself, state, "True, you did not say it explicitly, but you are teaching it." This reminds me of the Jews response to Pilate, in John 18:30, when he asked them what accusation they brought against Jesus, and they said, "If He were not an evil doer, then we would not have delivered Him to you." I'm afraid the only crime I have committed, like my Lord, is to disagree with a works based, self-righteous, religious ruler who cannot be reasoned with.
I have no idea why you re-posted all the information that I wrote! As if doing this somehow makes your argument for you. Everyone already had access to that information, so I can't let you get away with thinking you actually did something by simply waving your hand and re-posting all my work. You'll have to do better. I am very confident that I have made my position clear, and I have confidence that readers who desire to understand will. I must restate that I believe that you are not one of them, because it seems you are not interested in understanding what I am saying anymore than the Jews were interested in listening to Jesus. So, too, I say: "Why can you not understand my speech, because YOU ARE NOT ABLE to hear my words" (John 8:43). That's probably why the religious rulers Jesus encountered did not invest much time responding to Him, either, except to entangle Him in His talk (Matt. 22:15)—and to falsely accuse Him of being "dishonest," too (Matt. 26:64-65)—when the truth is, they just did not want to listen or understand.
You stated, "True, you did not explicitly say it, but you are teaching it." Teaching what? It's clear that "You know that I am true," but you are still trying to trap me (Matt. 22:16). Why? I guess it's true what Jesus said about His followers, "If they persecute Me, then they will persecute you" (John 15:20). I feel somewhat like Peter and John, because I am certainly rejoicing over this honor (Acts 5:41; cf. Matt. 5:10-12). The only "crime" I have committed is to disagree with someone who thinks he is "in charge." I assure you, "brother," that I know exactly what I am teaching, because I have taken full responsibility for it, and, do not "entrust myself" to men, and I know "for myself" what I believe and Whom I have believed (John 2:24-25). My strength does not come from who and how many agree with me (John 7:47-48). I fear this may not be the case for you, and if so, I hope you don't mind living in a ditch, because that's where you' re headed.
The Jews convicted Jesus on the basis of their self-righteous, morally superior attitudes—not facts. The similarities between Jesus and religious ruler types and you and me are astounding and very faith building for me. Paul warned fellow Jews that "those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers, because they did not recognize him nor understand the utterances of the prophets, which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled them by condemning him" (Acts 13:27). I can only say, like Paul, "Beware therefore, lest what has been spoken in the prophets come upon you" (Acts 13:40). Again, I appreciate your passion. I am passionate, as well, but this is getting us nowhere.
Scott
Scott,
ReplyDeleteBecause I said, "True, you did not say it explicitly, but you are teaching it," you now equate me to the Jews, who brought Jesus before Pilate on false charges.
So you do not teach Acts 2:42 is "only" voluntary? Brother, I reposted your statements, because they betray you. For you are teaching that Acts 2:42 is only voluntary, for you say there is no obligation to give in Acts 2:42, and you say as well there is no obligation to partake of the Lord's Supper in Acts 2:42. Here is your statement that summarizes your teaching: "All of what is recorded in Acts 2:42-46 is "voluntary.""
Now if I am misrepresenting your teaching concerning Acts 2:42, and you actually believe there is an obligation to give and an obligation to partake of the Lord's Supper in Acts 2:42, then what day of the week was the obligation to give and the obligation to partake of the Lord's Supper carried out in Acts 2:42?
In Him,
Jimmy
Greetings Scott.
ReplyDeleteI cannot tell how much I enjoy your writ. As one who grew up Orthodox Christian, and who from age 30 to 47 was a Jehovah's Witness, who then went back for a time to Christian Orthodoxy, your writings are refreshing!
I do however have a question for you...
In consideration of the topic, "The Great Apostasy", and in your pursuit of accuracy of worship as in the way of those early home churches, and in consideration of "Not Going Beyond What Is Written" would you be so kind as to comment on the Trinity Doctrine, and that the historical fact that this "doctrine" was not practiced, and perhaps was not even known to these very early house churches.
I don't know much about the particulars of the historical debate. My understanding is that Tertullian (c. A.D. 200) was the first to mention the word "Trinity." Then the Nicene Creed (c. A.D. 325) formalized it into a doctrine for orthodoxy. I can definitely see how it would be used to control, sorry unify :-), the Church. If it were not for the desire to create an orthodox set of beliefs, why would it matter if two people in a house church or different house church or city has opposing beliefs? Only when one demanded that the others conform would their be a problem. It seems it would be a benign doctrine unless one was not allowed to teach his reasons for believing in the Trinity or otherwise.
ReplyDelete