Worship in the New Testament Church

Whatdoesthebiblesay · Oct 24, 2012

Before His altruistic death upon the cross, Jesus promised Simon Peter, “I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it” (Matthew 16:18). Many years later, in Paul’s farewell address to the elders of the church in Ephesus, he issued a warning that confirmed Christ had completed the construction of His church: “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). Having paid the full cost of ownership – an amount unimaginable to finite man – Christ has bought and established His church. As Head over the body, which is the church (Ephesians 5:23), worship in the New Testament church must be exercised in accordance with the will of Christ.
Christ unequivocally demands that true worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:24; for a full excursus on the meaning of this statement, see article Acceptable Worship on this site). In teaching the church at Colossae about proper worship, Paul was careful to instruct, “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Colossians 3:17). This simple admonition signifies only participating in activities firmly grounded in the authority of Jesus Christ. The apostles were authorized by Christ to preach the gospel of salvation to the entire world, teaching all who were baptized “to observe all that [Christ] commanded” (Matthew 28:20). To ensure the accuracy of the message being delivered by the apostles, Christ bestowed the Holy Spirit upon them to bring to their “remembrance all that [Christ] said” (John 14:26), and “to guide [the apostles] into all truth” (John 16:13).
The word of God is truth (John 17:17), and we now possess the written word of God in a bound volume. The authority of the written word is emphasized by Paul in pleading with the church at Corinth to follow the example of Apollos and himself that they “might learn not to exceed what is written” (I Corinthians 4:6). If the church is to be pleasing to God, worship must be conducted only in compliance with the apostle’s doctrine delivered by the authority of Christ through the Holy Spirit. The individual initiative in prescribing one’s own system of worship is sternly condemned by Paul in the letter to the Colossians. True worship does not arise from the teachings and commandments of men, and Paul refers to all such activity as “self-made religion” or “will-worship” (Colossians 2:22, 23).
To better understand the type worship prohibited by the apostle, consider how the Greek word ethelothreskeia (will-worship) is defined by scholars:
“Worship self-imposed or volunteered…self chosen worship” (Vincent, 2001).
“Voluntarily adopted ‘worship,’ whether unbidden or forbidden” (Vine, 1996).
“Voluntary, arbitrary worship, i.e., worship which one devises and prescribes for himself, contrary to the contents and nature of the faith which ought to be directed to Christ” (Thayer, 1958).
With this understanding entrenched in the mind, it must be admitted that the church of Christ is only authorized to participate in worship activities that are specifically sanctioned upon the pages of the New Testament as inspired by the Holy Spirit. Even during the infancy of the church - preceding the completion of the written word - the church was guided in worship by the Holy Spirit. Paul informed the church at Philippi, “we worship by the Spirit of God” (Philippians 3:3). The same Spirit which worked directly through inspired men in the infant church now works only through the inspired written volume. The teaching - whether by inspired men or by inspired letter - is precisely the same; the mode of the Spirit’s operation being the only significant difference (cf. II Thessalonians 2:15).
Even a casual reading or survey of the New Testament will reveal the acts of worship embraced by the first century church in accordance with the divine instructions taught by the apostles of Jesus Christ. The church assembled on the first day of the week to observe the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7); prayers were uttered (I Corinthians 14:15, 16); the singing of hymns was enjoined (I Corinthians 14:26); personal giving for the work of the church was ordered (I Corinthians 16:1, 2); and the preaching, teaching and public reading of the Scriptures was maintained (Acts 20:7; Colossians 4:16; I Thessalonians 5:27). Each act of worship is addressed separately on this site, and the serious student is encouraged to delve deeper into the word of God, weighing carefully the things often taught by men against the simple teachings of the New Testament.
Before Moses erected the tabernacle as the place for worship, God warned: “See… that you make all things according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain” (Hebrews 8:5). Worship is now conducted in the church of Jesus Christ, not in a particular geographical location or building, but in the assembly of human hearts, humbly obeying the Creator’s pattern revealed in the mountain of God’s word. The sincere worshipper will behold the pattern of God, giving heed to the warning Paul issued to Timothy, instructing, “Holdfast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus” (II Timothy 1:13; NKJV).
Are you worshipping according to the pattern followed by the New Testament church? If not, is it the fault of your own careless indifference or inattentiveness, or could it be that those you worship with are not practicing or conforming to New Testament Christianity? Eternal consequences hang in the balance. Worship to Almighty God is not to be taken lightly or frivolously, but great reverence must attend the approach to the Holy God of heaven and earth. We plead with men and women to cast aside the vain traditions of denominationalism and all other innovations of men, embracing the simple gospel message of obedience to the Lord’s commands, neither adding to His word, nor taking away from it (Revelation 22:18, 19). Only by participating in genuine New Testament worship may we truly honor the Lord Jesus Christ who purchased the church with His own blood (Acts 20:28; cf. Psalm 2:12).

feedm3 · Oct 24, 2012

Thanks for the post, well put. It is so important to understand we cannot have Christ without his church. He is the savior of the of body, and the body is HIS church, the one he built and not man - Eph 5:23, Col 1:18.

Whatdoesthebiblesay · Oct 24, 2012

feedm3 said:

Very true Amen.

Nautilus · Oct 24, 2012

well to each his own then. you have your doctrinal views and I have mine. But i think ill be just fine leaving the music in my worship.

Whatdoesthebiblesay · Oct 24, 2012

Nautilus said:

I hate to hear that my friend i will be praying for you to come to the teachings of the New Testament

Nautilus · Oct 24, 2012

Well once I feel my eternal soul is in danger because I enjoy acoustic guitar with my songs, ill make sure to look you up and ask for those prayers.

feedm3 · Oct 24, 2012

Nadab and Abihu - Lev 10:1-f.

RedTent · Oct 24, 2012

What we need to watch for is much, much deeper than what you are bringing out, and more serious.

How I wish Paul could be here today to speak to you of what God says! Paul was teaching a people steeped in what God the Father told them in the OT, with only the shadow of Christ to follow through the blood of animals. Those people had to learn to rely on the blood of Christ! Now the people need to learn that as important, as fundamental as Christ’s blood is, it is the One True God we are to follow that includes the blood of Christ. The NT covers only a few years. The OT covers explaining and teaching us through the history of thousands of years. We are not to throw out all God’s teaching to follow New Testament as we are doing. By calling all of God Jesus, not letting our spirit know the triune God as we worship, we are corrupting God’s image.

kenisyes · Oct 24, 2012

Whatdoesthebiblesay said:

Several scripture do not say what you are telling us they say. I have quoted those parts of your post:

Acts 20:28 does not mention the word "completion". This is important, since some denominations teach that the "completion" of the church, having happened, negates the use of the gifts of I Cor. 12-14 now. They are wrong, since completion cannot be proved from Scripture.

Acts 20:7 occurred only one time, because it was Paul's going away meeting. It proves they regularly met for breaking of bread, but does not prove that preaching was a regular occurrence. Col. 4:16 is also a one time occurrence, and does not speak of preaching. I Thess. 5:27 is the same. Both apply only to a one-time reading of a specific letter.

The model for Christian worship is Heb. 10:25 and the chapters of I Cor. that you quote from. A search of the gospels proved Jesus worshipped the same way as a Jew. There is no Scripture verse that puts a pastor in charge of forming a church and only minimal support for his leadership, or that gives any reason for a sermon to be given every week. There is also no verse in the New Testament that supports the singing of hymns as it is now done; even the verse you quote says that a hymn (actually "psalm" in this case) is shared by "one". (The verses that support modern "praise and worship" are Old Testament, and we at last have returned to setting them in their proper context, which is why the power of God comes down in the music.) Your verses that support that we should worship as Christ has taught us are quite correct, but your analysis of what we should be doing is incorrect to the extent I outlined.

feedm3 · Oct 25, 2012

kenisyes said:

Several scripture do not say what you are telling us they say. I have quoted those parts of your post:

Hello,

I would just like to point out, as far as what we are to do and not do in the NT church is purley by example.

We look to the first century church that Christ built, and if we believe we are part of that church, then we can look to their example, knowing that the HS guided these men to write these examples, so we can know.

As for preaching, I do not see a command that it must be done anywhere. Yet I believe we can infer that study of God's word was happening within the Assemblies.

Col 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea

This does not force a "one time" conclusion of letter reading. But shows that congregations were even trading letters, to be read to each other, showing also that what was commanded in one Epistle to a specific congregation, was also binding on others.

Their is also evidence that shows the letters were used as a standard, and a guide for reconzing sin. One time read does not seem likely, but this would have been treated as scripture, teh word of God.

2Th 3:14 If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.

Since that is what was read and expounded in the Synagogues, then it would make sense, when the Christians came together(heb 10:25) that scripture (NT) would be expounded upon as it had before, exhorting, reproving, and rebuking, - II Tim 3:15-f, 4:2

So we know preaching was done within the assembly, therefore, if were only doing what we find by example, then we are permitted.

I agree, it was not until his death, that he nailed the law of Moses to the Cross, including all of it's ordinances because they were only a shadow of what was to come in him - Col 2:14-f, Heb 10:1.

Totally agree. In fact "Pastor" is not used in singular sense, God has never set one man in charge of his congregation.

Jesus is head of the church - Col 1:18

Not an earthly headquarters ran by men, or not a "pastor".

Yet God did command Elders (plural) to have a limited office of authority within the church.

I will post an article below this response if your interested in reading it, concerning "pastors".

Again, we have no explicit command. Yet by example and inference, we can see it is something that is permitted and done in the church.

This portion of Corinthians teaching them about speaking in tongues, of why and how it should be done, also Gives us a hint, that singing was IN the church, because this context about speaking in tongues is concerning when the church comes together:

1Co 14:15 What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also.
1Co 14:16 Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say "Amen" to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying?
1Co 14:17 For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up.
1Co 14:18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.
1Co 14:19 Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

More passages to support that singing psalms hymns etc, were done within the church meetings:
1Co 14:26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.

Though this is negative for the Corinthians, in what Paul is saying to them, shows they came together with hymns, and this passage does not condemn that fact.

Also:
Heb 2:12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee

this I cannot agree. The OT to not support any NT worship, seeing it is ONLY NT worship that is done is spirit and in truth. The OT was a mere shadow.

The Physical that looked forward to the Spiritual.

Examples:
THe Lamb. Male without blemish. - physical lamb

Jesus - The Lamb of God - Not literal or physical lamb, but spiritually in the his sacrifice. Without blemish, he was without sin.

Example 2:
Burning inceanse - Physical: Exo 30:1 a shadow, or type, of Prayer of the saints:

NT prayers:
Rev 8:3 And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.
4 And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand

Sense the NT is spiritual, and we are no longer bound by the ordinances that were only a shadow of what was to come, then we do away with the physical ordinances, and worship God in Spirit and in Truth:

We did away with:
animal sacrifices, burnings of incense, feast days, etc, and instruments, and now worship with the heart.

Jon 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth

In Spirit, the inner man, with the Spiritual praises and sacrifices, these are the true image of those things that were a shadow:

In Truth:
Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ

We would not use this lamb, or burn incense to God after the true sacrifice has been made. It is the same for the rest of OT.

Musical instruments - Physical melody with an instruments.

NT Singing - Physical singing Spiritually making melody in the heart.

IN the Heart - Shows the Spiritual side of what we are doing.

If one is looking to the NT church, as it's example and authority for what we can do (I know many do not) then there is no authority for instruments, just as their is none for burning incense to God.

"Play" is not found, Only "sing or singing" Eph 5:19, Col 3:16. If this is authority, then everything else besides sing, is excluded, Play, Dance, etc.

So in conclusion to what I am saying, The OT being a shadow can never be a pattern, or guide, for our worship in the NT - Col 3:17 shows us where we should get our authority of for what our word (what we speak) and deeds (what we practice) should come - in the name of Christ, meaning, by the authority of Christ.

The main reason for all of this, is simply trying to use the Bible as our only authority for what we can/cant do.
That cannot be a sin, and keeps one from falling in the traps of creed books, Pastors, etc. to avoid worshiping God in vain - Mat 15:9

feedm3 · Oct 25, 2012

Concerning "pastors", here is an excellent article by Wayne Jackson, dealing with this subject:

Three verses in the New Testament include the word “pastor” (in various forms): Ephesians 4:11, Acts 20:28, and 1 Peter 5:2.
In Ephesians 4:11, Paul discusses various roles that Christ placed in the church. He intends for “pastors and teachers” to serve in the church. The expression “pastors and teachers” identifies a single group.

Homer A. Kent writes, “Pastors and teachers are named as one grammatical unit (by use of just one article in the Greek text)” (72). Pastors (i.e., shepherds), as they care for the flock, are also teachers.\

In Acts 20:28, Paul again refers to pastors. Here, however, he uses the verb form of the word, which is translated “to feed” (ASV) or “to care for” (ESV). Pastors feed, tend, and protect the church. They are to do all the things that a shepherd would do for a flock. Note in this verse that the church is called “the flock.”

Similarly, in 1 Peter 5:2, Peter encourages these servants by saying, “Tend the flock of God.” The word “tend” is again the verb poimaino, which W. E. Vine defines as, “to act as a shepherd” (427).
From these verses we learn that pastors are to act like shepherds by caring for the flock, and this care includes teaching.

But a closer look at these verses will demonstrate that the responsibilities for pastors involve more than teaching.
In Acts 20:28, Paul identifies those who are to “take heed … to all the flock” as “bishops” (i.e., overseers or administrators).

Likewise, Peter instructs these servants to “act like shepherds” as they “oversee” the flock of God (1 Pet. 5:2). This exhortation is addressed to “the elders” (1 Pet. 5:1). We observe how the words “bishop” and “elder” are interchangeable in another passage as well — Titus 1:5-6.

These terms — elder, bishop, and pastor — are used of the same service in the church.

These words describe a man who is older and experienced in the faith (i.e., an elder); a person who is a decision-maker, manager of church affairs, and leader (i.e., bishop); and one who maintains a careful watch for the spiritual needs of all the members of the flock (i.e., a pastor).

When other passages are considered, we learn that pastors, bishops, or elders must meet scriptural qualifications (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9), and they serve in a plurality over a single congregation (Titus 1:5; Acts 14:23; 1 Pet. 5:1-2).

B. F. Westcott observed, “From a consideration of these passages it is evident that there was not as yet a recognized ecclesiatical hierarchy” (62).
The modern-day “pastor” system is as much a departure from the New Testament pattern of church organization as is an ecclesiastical hierarchy. No one man can assume the role of “the pastor,” whether by title or by practice, for a congregation. Neither can a congregation delegate one man

kenisyes · Oct 25, 2012

It's going to take me quite a while to respond to so many scriptures. I will try to take your two posts in order as much as I can. i agree with almost everything, but there are a couple minor points.

You are quite right, we have only example to go by. Many Scriptures are more of the form "if you are doing this, here is how to do it", especially those on prophecy, music, tongues, sharing, etc. My personal belief (tested by experience which I will go into a little) is that the closer we come to the stated example in I Cor., the more effective our meetings will be at changing the attendees so they may be used by Christ to change the world.

You cannot use either of the passages to show that Scriptures were read. That's because Paul was not regarded as Scripture until well after his death. The "Christian Bible", as proposed by Marcion in 150 AD was composed only of Luke and Acts. Eusebius tells us that by 300AD, there was general agreement on the modern canon of the New Testament, except for Revelation, so our target date is probably somewhere around 200AD. All the quoted Scriptures prove is that Paul was acting in his role as founder and head of these specific churches. You can get that Scriptures were read more easily by observing that Paul was a trained rabbi, and that he appears to have copied and adapted the method of worship used by the Jews. Much of this method is documented in the Talmud, and some in the gospels, when Jesus "preached in their synogogues". Since Scripture was read each week there, it is likely that something was read in the NT churches as well. Of course, there is a distinct problem here, in that parts of the Old Testament had been fulfilled in Christ, so it would take some serious explaining if those particular parts were read. Perhaps this is why there was no mention of the practice specifically in the NT. This is much like your later comment that we cannot use the OT for instruction on how to worship in the NT. We also need to allow for the fact that the Jewish OT canon had not been decided until around 190 AD. Whether they would have been "treated as Scripture" is difficult to say. The example we have is that everyone was allowed to speak. Paul was the most special of everyone in the church, but that does not prove that they believed his letters had the authorship by God. Paul was an apostle, not a prophet.

We are permitted to preach. My disdain for the practice is because of my training as a college teacher. Study after study shows that the absolute worst way to teach anything is to stand up and talk at someone. Even if there were a test at the end, maybe there would be 40% retention. In contrast, if discipleship is the goal, the best teaching method is to let everyone share, and the rest judge and exhort and encourage. This is just as the Scriptures I gave suggest. If the goal is not discipleship, then what is it? Surely, meat Christians do not need to hear the same 200 or so sermons year after year for life.

I agree with the next several paragraphs on pastors, and have nothing to add.

I did not mean to suggest that we must do praise and worship in the church because of any OT command. If we are going to do music, we should follow the NT, and at least not contradict the OT. As a professional music minister all my life, I have some detailed thoughts on the matter. First, no NT passage recommends group singing. Your own passage says "I will sing..." All imply that there is a singer, and a listener, or that the music is sung by one person only. However, the use of the term "psalms" suggests that the Psalms of David were sung, and history proves it easily. In fact, the Book of Revelation makes it clear that group songs will be sung by the elect. For recommendations on group singing, we go back to the OT model, understanding the dangers. Rev. 15:3 proves that one song was an OT song. My problem here is that the traditional method of the organist leading the hymn singing contradicts Ps. 68:25 and also contradicts how the very song in Revelation was performed back in Ex. 15:20. That is what I meant by my comment. The traditional method of the organ in fact is based on simple pride. The philosophy of the organ, as stated when the Catholic Church introduced it ca. 900AD, is that it is Scriptural because each pipe is like a trumpet played by a priest, and since one man controls them all, we have fulfilled the implicit directive of the Levitical priesthood. Musically, an organ pipe is not a trumpet (it is a flute, the only instrument not mentioned in Ps. 68, and mentioned in negative contexts through both testaments), there is no rhythm "in the midst", and the folly of having one man control all should be obvious. Modern praise and worship is much closer to how David put the Levitical singers together. I have followed the same method for a lifetime, with excellent results. And I agree, modern praise and worship done in this method, makes that of the OT look like just a shadow. And I also agree, we are under no obligation to follow any OT method.

To be specific, I do not use the OT for how to worship, only for advice on how to administrate the groups that lead music similar to what was used in the temple. The proof that this works is in Acts 2:46, for they grew together by their temple attendance, provided they also met for the apostle's instruction and breaking of the bread.

You are correct, there is no authority for instruments, dancing, etc., but you were also correct, that all we have from the NT on worship is by example.

On to your article:

The word "church" does not appear anywhere in Eph. 4, let alone in 4:11. 4:12 says specifically they are for the "Body of Christ", not for the organized church. I Pet. 5:2 and Acts 20:28 speak to elders and overseers, not pastors. It is my belief that pastors are there, wherever the Body of Christ meets, including in the church meeting on Sunday morning or whenever. Their role is not official in the church, but they do their job by exhorting, encouraging, etc, and taking their turn to share what God is doing.

Homer Kent is quite correct. Again, as a college teacher, I know exactly what the difference between the teacher and the pastor is. We call them tutors. They go over the material of the teacher, slowly, spoon feeding the sheep with tenderness the teacher does not have time for.

To go even beyond the statement of poimano, the analogy is equally valid in Hebrew. The word is "to feed", not "to lead" (as we use it in English). When God feeds manna to the Israelites, and when Jesus feeds the thousands, it is the same word.

Our author seems to obscure the fact that he has not given a scripture to show that pastors are interchangeable with bishops and elders (although the Titus passage proves the last two are related). The absence of such a scripture tends to make me doubt his idea that they are. I believe they all do the same "feeding" service, but pastors do not have official standing in the church.

I certainly agree with his conclusion.

Thank you for all the thought and research.

SantoSubito · Oct 25, 2012

So it looked like a Catholic Mass?

RedTent · Oct 25, 2012

In all my prayers and my study I am told that God is eternal, God does not change. There were two changes when God lived with us in the flesh. Christ was from the beginning, he was pivotal always for humans for we must be cleansed of sin. Before He lived with us this was done through the shadow of what Christ did, but it was Christ. Blood was always used. After Christ lived here, the shadow was fulfilled. At that time each of us who believe have the HS, before God gave it to prophets and some of His workmen.

Other than these things, I think it is not of God to say that now we follow the NT, not the OT. If you divide the testaments then I think you need to pray and learn, for it is the human person who sees it different and that is incorrect. God says He is the same now and forever.

SantoSubito · Oct 25, 2012

kenisyes said:

I've never actually heard that explanation for it. I was aware that until the Early Middle Ages (and for sometime afterward in smaller parishes) Gregorian chant dominated the music sung in parishes, and that after the Reformation the Baroque movement introduced instruments such as the piano, trumpet, violin, and cello into the Mass. The Baroque example is probably the one most Catholics are familiar with, my parish has 3 trumpeters, an organist, a pianist, 4 violinists, and 2 cellists who play. All in all it's very beautiful especially when they play pieces by Bach or Beethoven before the processional hymn.

kenisyes · Oct 25, 2012

SantoSubito said:

Don't know what you mean by "it"?

NT church worship described in ICor. looked nothing like Catholic Mass. By 100 AD, some churches began to look like mass with only a cappella singing. It took about 200 years to turn into what Catholics had in 1950. Largely changed now. The big change was lack of education available for all placed the educated in charge. These became the priests, then the pastors. The Coptic church (especially Abyssianian) discovered when helicopters were invented is the missing link between 90AD and now. They were isolated since about 120 AD due to Roman's losing the money to maintain the roads.

SantoSubito · Oct 25, 2012

kenisyes said:

I was speaking more about the general format with set prayers, public reading of scripture, the Eucharist, and the singing of songs and hymns. Of course none of us can now exactly what Christian worship looked like since all we know is basically that they did the four things I mentioned above.

However if you've ever been to a traditional Tridentine High Mass or an Ambrosian rite mass the feel of it is eerily ancient. There's something about Gregorian chant that moves you like modern polyphonic music never can. Of course both of these masses are pretty rare now with the Ambrosian rite only being used in Milan and the Tridentine mass largely relegated to SSPX chapels and a handful of smaller parishes.

kenisyes · Oct 25, 2012

SantoSubito said:

Let me throw in a little more. Davidic psalm tunes were copied by the Jewish side of the Christian church (everything before Paul's arrival in Macedonia) and were turned by the churches started by the apostles into Greek chants of similar style. The Catholic church standarized these chants, and Gregory the Great threatened war on anyone who did not change their melody books accordingly. Evangelization of Celtic nations ca. 700AD brought harmony into the churches, and was resisted vehemently for several centuries. Palestrina developed a way to mix Gregorian melodic fragments to make it sound a little like Celtic harmony, That was the beginning of the Renaissance motet. The Baroque drew on that. Bach was the transitional figure, who was the last to use the old church harmonies to any extent, and developed modern keyboard tuning. The new tuning emphasized modes I and VI - major and minor keys. The classical composers wrote in these keys, and most church music we know was written by them. By the mid 1800's, folk music heavily influenced American style in churches, since the frontier lacked the budgets for classical organs, and the tent meeting required the adoption of the modern melody-chord system we use now, as music was led outdoors. As the Holy Spirit came into the church system, that was followed. Since Davidic Psalm style can be accompanied with open fifths, there is sufficient relationship between the two, that the methods of Chronicles work today.

Throughout the Protestant Reformation, the Bible was consulted again and again, and the OT organization was adopted by the Protestant churches. Bach and Beethoven are not Catholic. Have you seen the St. Gregory and St. Basil hymnals? They are transitional attempts by the Catholics to accomodate protestant hymnody in a Vatican I context.

kenisyes · Oct 25, 2012

RedTent said:

I find myself unable to follow one without the other. I think the point that was made is that we need to not rely on the old without first examining how it was fulfilled in Jesus, lest we settle for less than God's best. That is difficult to do in the specific case where congregational singing is not mentioned in the new in any context that would reflect Sunday morning practice before the events of Revelation take place.

feedm3 · Oct 25, 2012

kenisyes said:

Thanks for your reply, I do have some remarks on some things.

You cannot use either of the passages to show that Scriptures were read. That's because Paul was not

This I would disagree with. Though there is some truth that "others" throughout time may have not regraded his words as scripture, the church did. They were told his writings were the word of God:

"as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction," (2 Pet. 3:16).

In Peter's letter, he refers to Paul's words as scriptures. There is no reason to assume the church did not accept them as such.

Those you mentioned above only show what those people thought in their time. That has nothign to do with the church in the NT.

II Cor 3;1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? 2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: 3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart

Yes and that which was read, was the Epistles, all of them that were available, because they were scripture, just a Peter said. There is no reason to assume otherwise.

Of course Jesus preached in synagogues, so did Paul. If your looking for a group of Jews so you can preach the truth, the best place other than the temple would be a synagogue. Of course that does not mean they practiced in the church, everything that was practiced in a synagogue.

We know the church, sang, partook of the Lord's supper, prayed, studied the scripture/read them/ expounded. This is our example.

Of Course. That is why they were read, to prove Christ is the Messiah. Because the OT scriptures actually testify of him. Through prophecy and typology.

That is why Jesus told the Jews to "search the scriptures", he was not referring to any NT scriptures, they had not been written yet:
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me

Though we have not found a complete canon that we can say for sure belonged to the Jews, does not mean they did not have one. There is much internal evidence for the notion held certain books as inspired by God. Some books that we do not even have in our canon.

Not really getting you here. In the synagogues, of course they did not regard Paul's words as scripture. They were still following the law of Moses, hence why there in a synagogue of Jews. Paul was attempting to convince them to come to the truth.

But the church is another story. They were commanded to obey epistles. Even Paul's (II Thess 3:6). They were told by the Apostles, there words were the words of God, though the Holy Spirit. This is why the letters were read in various congregations, even though not specifically addressed to them.

In some instances Paul waited for the church to come together, to partake of the Lord's supper, and he preached until midnight. Showing it was a part of their assembly -

Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight

This also shows on the first day of the week the Disciples came together to partake of the Lord;s supper. ("breaking bread" can mean a common meal as in Acts 2:, or the Lord's supper as in this case)

So we see one act of worship mentioned(the lord's supper), accompanied with preaching. (long preaching lol)

Another instance that shows the Apostles words were preached/studied in the public meetings, are understood by the disgracful acts of Dioterphes, who tried to prevent the church of hearing the Apostles doctine.

3Jn 1:9 I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority.

Also, where do we find the Apostles doctrine? In their letters. If the church of Rome, were told to reject anything other than what they have been taught, this would also show if they followed this command, they viewed their words as Scripture. Oral or written.

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them

Thats a matter of personal opinion, but it is biblical.

I understand why you feel it is not the best method. Some implement other things such as power point to try and help the retaining rate.

Okay, still, by only using NT example as authority, there is none. That is another subject though weather we are bound by this authority or not.

The body of Christ is the church. This is supported by many passages that tell us this.

Col 1:18 he is head of the body; the church.

Just in the book of EPH the "church' is defined. It is synomous with "the body" of Christ.
5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing

Col 1:18 Paul explicity identified the body as the church. In Eph he uses them interchangeably in 5:23.

All three phrases are referring to the same office, including "shepherds".

Seeing the evidence that suggest they are the same as Elders, they are chose according to the qualification in Tim and Tit. Yet some churches do not have any that meet this, so they can function without them, but should be working toward getting them.

Interesting.

Okay, I will see if I can find any more support for this statement. If I cant, then you may be right.

Thank you, I enjoy your posts.

Worship in the New Testament Church

Whatdoesthebiblesay

Banned

feedm3

Guest

Whatdoesthebiblesay

Banned

Nautilus

Senior Member

Whatdoesthebiblesay

Banned

Nautilus

Senior Member

feedm3

Guest

RedTent

Banned

kenisyes

Guest

feedm3

Guest

feedm3

Guest

kenisyes

Guest

SantoSubito

Guest

RedTent

Banned

SantoSubito

Guest

kenisyes

Guest

SantoSubito

Guest

kenisyes

Guest

kenisyes

Guest

feedm3

Guest