Doug! Dougie!! Douglas!!!

Of course it is still a thing, you crazy wabbit!

I believe they are interchangeable.

When you put it that way, the line doesn't seem very fine at all. Its more like the Berlin Wall. But, the question, indeed, is whether God erected that wall or just us...

Maybe it would help if we stopped saying "church", as that term seems to gain alot of mystical and strange connotations. Rather, we should substitute it with the CORRECT translation of ekklhsia--"group".

So how are Christians a group individually?

My point is that there IS a distinction between a group and an individual. In Acts, people were selling land and giving money to the "group"--namely by laying it at the apostles' feet.

Peter even tells Ananias and Sapphira, "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control?" (Acts 5:4). In other words, there is a distinction between the individual owning something and using for anything they want, and giving that something to God's "group" where it must now be used to suit God's purposes--in that case feeding the poor and underprivileged members of the "group".

I am, however, far less convinced of the self-imposed distinction between "universal" and "local" groups. The bible never details this distinction.

Hello D!

Care to expound any Wayne? It seems to me that all Christians are apart of the church or the kingdom. its just we meet together locally? is there more to it than that?

and I see your distinction between a group and an individual and the example you used. But is that really grounds to conclude that christians individually can act upon Biblical principles but collectively the silence of the Scriptures becomes binding and those same Biblical principles are forfeit for only direct commands, approved examples, and necessary inference?

I believe that God is consistent. What He commands for the group and for the individual are not expressly the same, as there are some tasks that a group or an individual is inadequate to accomplish.

It seems though, that the group has to act on principles already in a very large extent. The group is commanded to pray, but the question of how often is given in 1 Thess. 5:17 as "without ceasing". Does that mean that the group (or the individual) can never have a time when they are not praying? If that were the case, how would they ever do anything else? The only logical conclusion is to take "without ceasing" in a hyperbolic sense--that is that prayer is to be a continuous part of the group's conduct.

I don't know if we can necessarily call all silence "binding" either. Some silence is binding and some is not, just like some commands are binding and some are not. How do we determine such?

Context.

Context determines a large part of it. For instance, the bible commands that the elders anoint the sick with oil (James 5). I don't know very many Christians that seriously try to bind this today. It is largely regarded as a cultural issue. However, the commandment to abstain from something like fornication is most certainly binding in all circumstances. God has made it clear that He hates that action.

This raises a question though: if expressed commands are still governed by cultural context, then is it possible that silence can be governed by the same things?

As for the local vs. universal group, I should probably be clear that I am not fully settled on this issue yet. I really don't see the line drawn in the bible so clearly. For a while in Jerusalem, the local and universal group were one and the same. When the group was persecuted however, it began to spread, and to be limited by time/space constraints. So local groups spring up which are comprised of members of THE group.

Here's an interesting point though--just because you are part of a "local" group does NOT mean you are part of the universal group. Only God knows who His true followers are.

One passage I am still wrestling with though, concerns the idea of a local group itself being "disfellowshipped". In Revelation 2-3, John writes to the seven groups in Asia, and threatens to take away five of their "candlesticks". Even then though, John says of Sardis that there are a few "who have not soiled their garments" (Rev. 3:4).

Good points Wayne....

Its not so much whether there is a difference between a group and an individual act, but whether or not we have a reason to believe that the ultimate aims of either category should be drastically different from the other, such that individuals may exercise common sense to read Christ-centered goals but the group may only act upon authorized examples and particular commands, etc...

that articulates my point pretty well Josh

I really like Wayne's point and question: if expressed commands are still governed by cultural context, then is it possible that silence can be governed by the same things?

you certainly don't hear that discussed or preached when addressing authority

I believe the answer is yes, silence can be governed by the same things.

Good, man how are you? Miss you pal.

Hey I went to Houston for Christopher's graduation. Do you know him?

good points yall

Doug!! How is life?!

How strange is this? Temperature for today in

Honolulu, HI 81*(timeshare)
Highgate,VT 95*(home)

Just a few days ago we only had 58*.

More inconsistent is the handling of "aids" vs. "additions". I dug up one of the standard "authority" sermons in my file from my time spent back in so-called "preacher training". Among these notes was a chart illustrating the distinction between aids and additions, but it didn't bother to explain the logic of determining what did and did not constitute and aid or an addition.

The entire system seems blatantly arbitrary. Why are songbooks, pews, and pitchpipes considered aids but instruments considered additions? Because we've already made up our minds what we believe and now we have to use whatever exegetical practices are necessary to prove it.

The hard fact is that the bible IS silent about a lot of things and expects us to fill in a lot of gaps ourselves. What is necessary then is following the basic principles laid down since He has told us what is good (Micah 6:8 again).

Another thing I find interesting is that Paul is talking about the OT, not the NT in the context of 2 Tim. 3. It is the OT that he declares will make the man "adequate", and "thoroughly equipped for every good work." This raises an interesting idea that many brethren shy away from--the notion that we can actually find things in the OT that establish what we are and are not supposed to do as Christians. But like the NT, the OT again establishes and operates on principles, such as living humble lives of servant-hood, or not cheating your neighbor. Those are things we are "sure of".

The fact of the matter is that sometimes, we sometimes have to do things that the Bible doesn't talk about, but which still apply these principles, and sometimes we have to NOT do things that the Bible talks about because they don't fit the principles or the context of our given situation.

How do we determine when to act on silence? God expected us to actually use our brains (*gasp!*) and make some personal judgment calls on what is and is not right, rather than conforming blindly to the dogmatic views of CoC creedalism.

Amen brother.

You know.. under the old Law, if you broke one part, you were guilty of breaking all of it.
I do not believe this is the case with the New Covenant. (In fact, God says it is not the case).

So, in our covenant Jesus has made clear the greatest commandments. He has also made very clear many of the things that tie into these and how to apply these. Through the Apostles we have learned even more ways to apply the two great commands and specific examples of how to apply them.

Im my estimation, the pathetic drivel that we beat each other up over is so far down on the list, that the evil and judgmental heart that is held over these issues will far exceed any error made in the application of them.

well, thats probably true in a lot of cases...

yeah taken looked great, ive seen kung fu panda and yes really funny and im with you on he movies you mentioned, perhaps we can see one this weekend sometime :)

Yep, we're not too far from each other.

Oh and BTW, Casting Crowns is just an amazing group to listen to.

It is true, that God has never changed what he wants, even in the OT God wanted mens hearts, the internal nature and motives of a man's heart. Nevertheless, Deuteronomy and numbers are books of the old testament law, outlining step by step what God wanted and how God wanted it. Don't call it legalism if you don't want to, but the point was, that the NT was not written in such a manner. It is different.

And yes, Casting Crowns, among other groups are amazing groups to listen to. on the same token, if we do enjoy listening to Christian praise music, and we are encouraged by it, where does this lead us? Can we sing along? Can we make music on our piano or guitar in our homes? and if so do we need to be by ourselves or can other christians be there too? if so, your gathered with christians, worshiping God at this point...the only difference is that its not a Sunday morning service with the Lord's Supper. See what I mean? How far does it go?

I view everything I do as worship, including my pop music. Sara Groves. Jeremy Camp. Casting Crowns. Good stuff. It makes me think. It makes my kids ask awesome questions that result in great conversations about spiritual topics. I've gotten past talking to people about my "right" to listen to certain things. I just do it and grow from it and try not to offend people who think so differently. I used to think I could convince people. So far, I haven't convinced anyone, but I'm more convinced myself and I'm not sinning in the process. Hope you are doing well, Doug!

Okay, I finally have time to respond.

My comment about the "physical" OT worship vs. the "spiritual" NT worship isn't just some arbitrary opinion. It has everything to do with the context of John 4.

The Samaritan woman asked Jesus about the proper place of worship--a "physical" aspect. The Jews worshiped in Jerusalem. The Samaritans worshiped on Mount Gerazim. Jesus then told her that there was an hour coming in which physical location wouldn't matter. Why? Because the "true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth."

"Spirit and truth" has often incorrectly been interpreted to mean simply "sincerity and doctrinal correctness." However, this definition is inadequate to fit the context. Jesus is clearly talking about something that is about to change in the worship when the Messianic Age hits its full onset. But since God had always commanded "sincerity and truth" in His service (Josh. 24:14), there's something else that changed.

The truth is that God is a "spiritual" being, and in the new age of the Messiah, He would now demand "spiritual" worship--"true" worship, not in the sense that the OT worship was false, but in the sense that it only served as a model or type of the worship to come.

"God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." - John 4:24

I would have to agree with Chris too. There is really nothing in the bible that I see as overtly "legalistic", because God has never changed in His purpose. What I do see is a God who desires a relationship with His people. The bible (OT and NT alike) is not comprised of a set list of "dos" and "don'ts", but of a disclosure of God to His creation in an effort to form and maintain a relationship with those made in His image.

Granted, that doesn't mean there aren't rules. Like any parent who has a relationship with their child, there are rules set in place which the parent sets up because they have their child's best interests at heart (hence, the Law). Some of the things in the Law are mere object lessons and teaching tools to be done away with at a certain level of maturity (tabernacle worship, sacrifices, incense, etc.), while others are to be retained in principle after the fact because they are timeless manifestations of such a relationship (not murdering, not stealing, not coveting, loving your neighbor).

Or, Micah stated it better than I did when he said:
"He has told you, O man, what is good;
And what does Yahweh require of you
But to do justice, to love kindness,
And to walk humbly with your God?"
-Micah 6:8

Now don’t misunderstand what I am saying about worshipping in spirit and truth, Wayne is exactly right that worshipping in spirit is more than just being sincere. It means worshipping God on the level that He desires to be worshipped on. You see, it is very tempting to see Deuteronomy, Numbers, and Leviticus as being God’s way of outlining how he wants to be worshipped and in what way. But nothing could be farther from the truth. God outlines in the Law (I mean Law in terms of The Law of Moses) what it means to be holy, not just how to worship him. But more than that, many of the laws in the Law have nothing to do with sin. In fact, many laws are about uncleanness and the consequences of such. It wasn’t a sin to be unclean. But it still separated you from the people of God. You see, God intended things like leprosy and blood flow to be physical signs of the consequences of sin. Separation. Separation from God and His people. God used a physical vessel to teach His children about a spiritual condition. But these things you already know, I’m sure.

But what makes the difference between the New Testament and the Old is not the way it was written, but about whom it was written. It is still possible to interpret the New Testament legalistically and make it ritualistic (for evidence look at the Roman Catholic Church). Because Christ came to earth and gave up His own will to do the will of God, He gave us the exact pattern that God wants us to follow. He outlined what he wants from us and how he wants us to do it. The fact that He is “less than vocal” about instrumental singing means for us that it wasn’t something that He deemed that needed to be discussed at length. To be fully honest, in my own personal opinion (and I may be written up in Truth for this) I see it as a Romans 14 issue, because I do not believe that it is a matter upon which we know enough. Now the attitudes behind many people’s reason for deciding that instrumental worship is okay, that I do have an issue with, because many people do not see the Word of God as authoritative but rather as something that can be ignored to suit their own personal tastes. However, because of my own desire to serve God as I best know how, I refrain in the worship assembly. And that may very well classify me as a weaker brother; I may come to a different understanding someday, or I may not.

“Well, what if I never change my mind?” Unfortunately, that is something that Paul never talks about in Romans. But what he does talk about is the brethren working to edify each other, sacrificing their own liberty to build each other up spiritually. Now, the weaker brothers have the obligation not to judge, condemn, or be a tyrant over the stronger brothers… just as the stronger brothers have the obligation not to belittle or condemn the weaker brothers. And unfortunately, that is where the split has given people the feeling as though they can call other people false teachers and whatnot. But my responsibility is to work to establish fellowship with my brethren. That means to work to recognize that each other is trying to serve God as they can best determine. And so, unfortunately, too many people wish to stay divided over this issue or perhaps this issue has been given too much time for it to be resolved now.

But in regards to your statement about listening in private or with a few friends and then it becoming a worship without the Lord’s Supper… to be quite honest, as Romans 12:1 states, “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.” It is true that our entire lives are to be given in sacrifice to the Lord and that we are to live holy and acceptable to God. Unfortunately, we forget this part last part. That we are to live holy and acceptable to God. Yes, listening to spiritual music is far more beneficial than listening to secular music. And yes, discussing the spiritual music with our friends is also beneficial. But the question you ask, demands something of the text that just isn’t answered. Which would make it again, a Romans 14 issue, probably even more so than the matter of instrumental music in worship. But when it comes right down to it, I offer the same advice that our brother Wayne offers you. There is coming a time, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth. One side may or may not be right, but in the end, God will judge and all who truly desire to worship Him will be willing to lay down their own opinions and preferences to worship Him. I have many more things to write to you concerning worshipping the Lord in spirit and truth and edification, but I have taken up more than my fair share of your Pleonast. But know this, brother, I am encouraged by your desire to know God’s word and hope that we may both come to a better understanding of His will.

Thanks for your thoughts brother. But for me its a matter of practical application. We keep using the same passages over and over with this topic, but not explaining the practical applications, hence many christians are confused on this topic. some I have talked to say it is a sin to listen to christian music. some say it is okay to listen to it so long as you don't consider it praise or worship. Some say its okay to praise God with instruments in the comfort of your own home. See, using these passages without any real application doesn't help anybody. These are real issues, and the Bible must have an answer, else you and many others would not have issue with anything. What I don't like is the double standards. how is it okay to listen to and sing along with a group such as Casting Crowns and yet turn around and say their use of instrumental music is sinful, or not lawful, or not pleasing to God? And so some might say that it is okay to listen to it so long as you don't sing along with it or consider it any form of praise or worship to God. What? The singers are singing that song with intent to be praise and worship. How can you not be edified or be praising God when singing along? And the next step is taking it from your radio or cd player to you playing a spiritual song on your guitar or piano in you living room. Or maybe there are other christian members of your family and friends there singing along too. God says where there are two or three gathered together in His name He is there. So now you have God in your midst as you play guitar or piano singing praise songs. Is that any different than you and your family listening to and singing along with Casting Crowns on your way to or from church? You see, practical applications bring to light the double standards that exist.

Doug, you are absolutely right about this. Unfortunately, too many people want to call things sinful when we simply just do not know enough about such an issue to make statements. I do not see the use of instrumental music in worship services as sinful. And I certainly do not condemn those who use them in any kind of worship as sinful either. The reason I don't use them isn't because I see them as sinful, I don't use them because I do not know where God stands on this issue. I fully hope that on the day of judgment God will say, "You know Chris, it would have been okay to worship Me in that way." Anyone who would presume to call such things sinful forgets his place before God. It is not our place to call things clean or unclean, but rather to seek to best serve God as he knows how.

Amen brother. Now that is an honest answer. Amen

I second the amen. If God is disinterested in the issue, I don't really want to have to face Him for having spent my life condemning people to hell for it. And if God is displeased with it, I don't want to have done it. The bible simply does not tell us about instruments in NT worship, much less about listening to recorded Christian music.

I've heard people talk about how the silence of the Scriptures is binding and prohibitive, ("it says sing, and that excludes everything else") but if silence is TRULY binding, then where is the authority for a building? Where is the authority for a million other things we do that aren't talked about in the bible? These are questions that cannot be answered adequately, and as a result, artificial principles of exegesis are imposed on the text to try to justify existing practices, each with their own set of buzzwords ("General" vs. "specific" authority?)

However, that being said, I am personally uncomfortable with instruments as a form of worship for two reasons.
1) is because I know there are brethren who think its wrong and whose conscience will be sincerely perturbed by it (Romans 14 has a lot to say on things like this). This is the same reason why you don't invite these people to your house when you want to play a spiritual song on your piano in your living room.
2) is because I feel like the trend can be dangerously towards self-entertainment more than real edification. I realize that is a judgment issue, and that not everybody feels this way. If it edifies you, that is great. I also realize there are a capella hymns that have this same problem--pretty music and no substance. But even in good hymns, I have frequently caught myself analyzing chord structures in hymns, rather than focusing on the One I am singing to. Why? Because I am a musician and it is my inclination to think that way. It is my inclination to be focused on pleasing self in entertainment, rather than pleasing God in praise.

The truth is that this is a matter of the heart and the motives. As with all such issues, I think we should always be sincerely honest with ourselves. To God be the glory.

Amen to what you said about the silence of the Scriptures Wayne. And as far as your opinion on instruments, applause, buildings, classrooms, etc., etc., I respect your opinion

just a heads up, not this weekend but the nest jesse has off and I think we are going to try and come to Chatt for the weekend if you are able to make it!

This has actually been one of the most encouraging conversations about IM as I have ever seen on pleo :) My thoughts lie EXACTLY along the same lines as Wayne. I still bring up the "issue" with others simply because I have seen how listening to "Christian music" has impacted my life. I have become stronger and have grown closer to God from having listened to many of the songs by artists such as Casting Crowns, 10th Avenue North, etc. It is only because I see a HUGE benefit in listening to these praises that I try to talk to people about it. I do still respect the opinion and conscience of those brothers and sisters who view it differently.

Excellent, I'm glad this has been encouraging. I would just stress again one more time the importance of not having a double standard in these issues. We can't claim to benefit from "christian music" and then turn around and condemn it. That would be like saying its okay for them to use IM in their music so I can benefit by it so long as I don't use IM in praise personally. Thats a double standard. We may each have our opinions about why we would personally DO or NOT DO something such as use IM in praise, but we need to realize that we can't condemn or judge the act or the ones involved. We can't force our opinions on others as if it were binding truth. In order to love each other in brotherly love, we need to respect each others opinions on these issues and I'm glad we are at a point where that can happen

lol... I'm not talking about a night of babysitting. I'm talking about a NANNY. Someone who is with your kids 40 hours a week while you go to work. Someone who basically is "mommy" while you make money.

No, I don't charge much for babysitting, especially for other Christians.

a church building of course! :"

Well, if I'm not mistaken, Paul wrote Romans from Corinth, who was earlier the audience of 1 Cor 11. Romans 16:23 seems to indicate that the/a whole church in Corinth worshipped in Gaius' house (unless Paul simply means that everyone from the church at one time or another enjoyed Gaius' hospitality).

I'm with "slave of Jesus guy" They met in a home... (if not Gaius's home, someone elses)

EXACTLY RIGHT!

they were meeting in a home when Paul penned those words. Paul's point was not to say that the place where you meet is sacred or holy and therefore cannot be used for multiple purposes (purposes other than for worship such as fellowship)

With this in mind, to say that a meeting place such as a church building can only be used for the purpose of worship is silliness. It misses Paul's point entirely. A church building is just that, a building for the church. A building, for the people, or for the group. I was recently corrected by a brother, who informed me that to say the greek word for church means, "called out ones" is a falacy. It would be like taking the word butterfly and saying well, we know what butter is, and we know what a fly is, so therefore a butterfly is a fly made of butter. The same mistake is made when arguing that ekklesia is "the called out ones." It is simply a group of people, as I know understand it. And therefore, a church building is a building for the people, or for the group.

Paul obviously was not saying that Gaius' house was holy, or that he could not eat in his own house, or that christians could not meet there to fellowship.

You would get along just find with us. :)

I think that one thing Paul WAS saying was that you ought not be eating and drinking during worship. Not that you can't eat and drink in the place that you worship. And of course the other part was how they were treating each other was not good. And Paul scorned them for that.

I disagree. I don't think it is about the physical eating and drinking. I don't think this passage means that I can't have my bottle of water with me during "worship services." I think his whole point was that the Corinthians had the wrong attitude. They had taken something as special as the Lord's Supper and turned it into a time of selfishness. They took the LS and treated it just like a common meal. They did not take serious the idea of partaking as a collective. Personally, I think they did eat and drink during their "worship services" (see love feast), but here Paul is condeming their attitude, not the act.

This is all my opinion. Personally, I don't like the term "during worship" because I think out lives are living sacrifices to God. I don't like the idea of confining our "worship" to one specific time and place.

Well I can agree with that Kevin

Hey Dougie...you are right about "ekklesia". However, I don't think you can use an example where Christians met in a place that was owned by someone else...and already used in a personal way. While the church building that is built and owned by the church isn't sacred by physical means...the purpose for it being built with the Lord's money is very sacred.

However, that is the example given when Paul penned those words. Thats all we have to work with. You can't make that verse say something it doesn't (i.e using that verse to say the purpose for a church building is sacred and therefore can only be used for such and such.) Acts 2 does not just speak of a worship service. It speaks of the church and how they conducted themselves on a daily basis. It follows that a building for the people is a building that would serve those needs.

I agree, my boyfriend and I are studying this at the moment, they have fellowship meals at the church building but this is separate and apart from church services and the more I study about this topic the more I'm agreeing with the whole fellowship meal.

dougie, did you ever visit home church here?

there are times when i pray while im chewing instead of before taking the first bite. in doing so, my gratitude is enhanced, and i am worshipping God. food is physical, but like rallys tells us, you gotta eat. and i don't feel in the least, not anymore anyway, that im sinning because i'm doing something 'carnal' when i should instead be attempting to perform an impossibly out of body experience in order to make my worship acceptable to a fastidious God. keep up the good discussions buddy!

^^^ I do the same thing :)

Dougie i really miss you and your thoughts! you should wander down here again sometime.