Worship in the New Testament Church

[kenisyes]

Thanks for reminding me of that quote in 2Peter. It's been a while since I noticed it. It is an easy way to prove the Scriptures were read, but no that they were preached (expounded). That still needs the synagogue touch, I think, or where Paul says that one might be a teacher, and that does not prove they were expounded every week, as we do today, and certainly not that they were expounded by the same person week by week. Once we have the 2Pet scripture, the comment you are not getting is no longer valid. (I meant that if Paul were a prophet, his words would be thought of as God's words whether the letters were considered scripture or not.)

Col. 1:18, Eph. 5:23. We are using the word "church" in two different ways. The church as a collection of people is the body of Christ. The church as a social institution is founded (I Cor. 12:28) on other ministries besides pastor. This is the biggest problem in this whole study we are doing. We call it Sunday church, but it is not the word as used in the Bible. [We have 80 churches in this town of 10,000 people,. and they all think they are the right one.] My point is the pastor has a ministry to the people, but not an official ministry in the social institution. His job is one of 5 that bring the body to completion, not a ministry to establish a work, as do apostles and prophets, and teachers.

What I believed happened in place of preaching is that each one took a turn, and when wandering apostles or prophets (see the Didache) came, they would present something also, as Jesus and Paul did when they came to the synagogues.

 

[SantoSubito]

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.

Yes I am aware that the music used by the Catholic Church and the various more traditional Protestant denominations have grown closer since Vatican I and especially since Vatican II. One thing though, Beethoven was definitely Catholic, although Bach was a Lutheran. In fact most of the greats of Classical music that most people are familiar with were Catholic; Beethoven, Mozart, and Vivaldi being some of the most prominent examples.

 

[RedTent]

=kenisyes; ]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.

When we look at all scripture for the nature of the One True God, they agree that joy is one of His attributes, that God gives joy. This is often expressed with music and dancing. When Christ came in the flesh, that would not change that God gives us joy, and wants us to express it.

 

[feedm3]

Thanks for reminding me of that quote in 2Peter. It's been a while since I noticed it. It is an easy way to prove the Scriptures were read, but no that they were preached (expounded). That still needs the synagogue touch, I think, or where Paul says that one might be a teacher, and that does not prove they were expounded every week, as we do today, and certainly not that they were expounded by the same person week by week. Once we have the 2Pet scripture, the comment you are not getting is no longer valid. (I meant that if Paul were a prophet, his words would be thought of as God's words whether the letters were considered scripture or not.)

Col. 1:18, Eph. 5:23. We are using the word "church" in two different ways. The church as a collection of people is the body of Christ. The church as a social institution is founded (I Cor. 12:28) on other ministries besides pastor. This is the biggest problem in this whole study we are doing. We call it Sunday church, but it is not the word as used in the Bible. [We have 80 churches in this town of 10,000 people,. and they all think they are the right one.] My point is the pastor has a ministry to the people, but not an official ministry in the social institution. His job is one of 5 that bring the body to completion, not a ministry to establish a work, as do apostles and prophets, and teachers.

What I believed happened in place of preaching is that each one took a turn, and when wandering apostles or prophets (see the Didache) came, they would present something also, as Jesus and Paul did when they came to the synagogues.

I know what you mean 1000's of churches everywhere, cant all be right. I believe the Bible teaches the Body of Christ, are the members of his church, that he built - Matt 16:18

The disciples of Christ are His church - Acts 8:1, 9:1, 11:26.

I dont see the Bible using church in any other sense. In all passages ekklasia is found, it is referring to the called out, those who were added to the body of Christ by the Lord himself - Acts 2:48

Concerning a "pastor". His position is within the church, to oversee, feed, and gaurd the flock. Seeing these are the same duties as "bishops and elders, shepherds" that is why they seem to be the same, and never is one, but a plurality. I will say more about this below with supporting scriptures.

We are to submit to those who are in this office. Not meaning we are allow them to place us in sin, that they have authority to go beyond what is written, because the head of the church is Jesus.

Seeing Bishop, overseer, pastor all come from the Greek word episkopos we can conclude they are the same, but different terms or names to describe the same office within the church.

Tit 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: 6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 7 (same word for Pastor - episkopos)For a bishop (still in the context of ordaining elders)must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; 9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers

I Pet 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2 Feed the flock of God(an overseer's duty Acts 20:28) which is among you, taking the oversight(overseer) thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd(the head shepherd) (synonymous with elder in the sense of duty) shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you , to feed (Same duty as the overseer)the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood
overseers(episkopos - same word for pastor) now refered as an overseer.

Elders - charged to feed the flock of God and to take oversight

Overseers - charged to take heed of the flock, and to feed the church of God - From Episkopos, "pastor".

Bishops- Same word as overseer, and pastor, qualification found in Tit 1:7. - Biship again from Episkops

Pastors - (Episkopos) must be the same as overseer and bishop. Overseer synonymous with Elders.

Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. These are all the same office within the church. Men that serve them must meet the qualifications in Tit 1:7 and I Tim 3:1

This office is never spoken of being held by one man, but a plurality is always stated. So if using example, only for authority, then we see we must appoint elders (bishops, pastors, overseers, shepherds all the same) in each congregation, as that is how the church is divinely designed.

Each of these congregations are autonomous, the elders for one, do not have any say over another Congregation, even if it does not have elders yet.

 

[kenisyes]

Yes I am aware that the music used by the Catholic Church and the various more traditional Protestant denominations have grown closer since Vatican I and especially since Vatican II. One thing though, Beethoven was definitely Catholic, although Bach was a Lutheran. In fact most of the greats of Classical music that most people are familiar with were Catholic; Beethoven, Mozart, and Vivaldi being some of the most prominent examples.

I had to look this up. It is not something they mention in the music dictionaries, unless you dig for it.

 

[Dude653]

This is nothing more than cultish propaganda. First let me begin by saying that Christ was not talking about a church. He used the word ecclessia which means a government or a kingdom. Your doctrine is church minded as opposed to kingdom minded. Just because the New trestament does not mention music in worship, this is not a valid reason to call it false worship. Does th new testament mention pews, a pulpit...does it tell us what to wear in church.? Christ tells us to worship in spirit and in truth. These are the only specific intructions He gives us on that subject. Your doctrine on this subject is a gross perversion of the Word of God...oh and do you also believe that you are the only ones going to heaven?

 

[kenisyes]

feedm3

So as not to make this too long, I am not requoting you.

The offices of elder and bishop are often the same, though not always. I Tim 3:6 says "not a novice". If they were the same, why not insist on the harder qualification that he be an elder? I Pet. 2:25 makes it clear that Jesus fulfills two offices. Further, Timothy was ordained a bishop when he was young. It matters little, since none of the three are ever represented in the NT as leading a service for a congregation, and that is what we are discussing.

I had some things to add to last night's discussion. Heb. 10:25 is a command, to attend something called a sunagoge, and to exhort one another while attending. Sunagoge is what Jesus and Paul went to, and taught and preached by simply saying they wanted to. The fact that continuing attendance is mandated in the NT proves that the old structure was not intended to pass away. My observation is that the meeting in the sunagoge in OT times is nearly identical with the recommendations of Paul to the Corinthians. They are each to share whatever they have. The difference is, in what they have to share, since we now have the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the Eucharist. This is the fulfillment of the OT sunagoge custom; we now worship in Spirit, but are to do it with the same structure. My point is that this was the normal weekend worship gathering of the Jews. My objection is not that churches (meaning the separate meetings so called nowadays) do not allow everyone to share, but that we believe that going to church on Sunday fulfills the mandate of Heb. 10:25. It does not, since only 3 or 4 people get to exhort anyone, and only dozen or so get to share anything.

One can prove that it is okay to have congregational singing from Matt. 26:30. Jesus permitted it, perhaps led the hymn singing at the creation of the Eucharist. In passing, we note that the Passover service is ordinarily two hours long or longer, and that Jesus' recorded contribution is barely 20 minutes (even counting the foot-washing which made it longer). Jesus is portrayed as having given everyone time to share. In fact there was quite a discussion over who was going to betray Him. This is thus another model for the sunagoge type-meeting over the Sunday Church service.

There is a way in which we can use the OT to mandate the acceptability of music and dancing. Both are commanded in prophecy for the NT times. References include Zeph. 3:17, where "joy" is in Hebrew the word "gil" or to spin for joy (thus dance) (God is doing the dancing, but Jesus does what he sees His Father do, and He lives in us), and Zech. 14:17 where celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles is mandated with its command of making merry, and its ancient custom of full levitical accompaniment to the psalms, and command of gil would be expected in Jerusalem. Both these passages happen only after the defeat of the nations at Armageddon, and thus predict the customs will be restored in NT times. Thus, we can dance and use instruments in prophecy now, especially since harps are used in Rev. 5:8 and 15:2 to accompany the final party in heaven of which these events are a symbol.

There are also several strong suggestions of things that should happen regularly at these meetings (not just when someone has something to share): prophecy (I Cor. 14:24-25), Edification (vs. 26), discernment (vs. 29),and things that are expected periodically like healing and helps (I Cor. 12:28).

 

[kenisyes]

When we look at all scripture for the nature of the One True God, they agree that joy is one of His attributes, that God gives joy. This is often expressed with music and dancing. When Christ came in the flesh, that would not change that God gives us joy, and wants us to express it.

I added some Scriptures to prove this in tonight's (I hope not first of several) post.

 

[feedm3]

This is nothing more than cultish propaganda.

Show why. Dont just say it. Give reasons, show bible.

First let me begin by saying that Christ was not talking about a church. He used the word ecclessia which means a government or a kingdom.

Christ was not saying where? When he said upon this rock I build "my church", the church was built. Then in Acts 2, we see for the first time souls being added to His church. Acts 2:38, 47.

ecclessia means the "called out". If it is people that make up the ecclessia, then it is the people that make up HIS church, not "a church" as you said.

Your doctrine is church minded as opposed to kingdom minded.

How, we believe what the Bible to teach, the church is the kingdom - Matt 16:18, 19, Col 1:13

Just because the New testament does not mention music in worship, this is not a valid reason to call it false worship.

Thats your opinion. Are you saying we are wrong for not using instruments? Are you saying we should?

is it wrong for Christians to only do what they can find in the NT?

Should I do what violates my conscience because you do?

How does doing something in worship that the NT does not mention, NOT violate Col 3:17?

Does th new testament mention pews, a pulpit...does it tell us what to wear in church.?

That cannot be compared. Those are matters of expediency, not command.

We are told to assemble on the first day of the weak, where? what time?

Where and what time are up to us. In a building, at a home, both are matters of expediency for carrying out the command meet on the fist day of the week.

Sing - a command

Expedient - song book - necessary of carrying out the command to sing, and to let all thing be done decent and in order -

Instruments - not commanded. Not an expedient. Only an addition to worship.

Lev 10:1-2 - I am not going to offer to God anything that he has not commanded.

Christ tells us to worship in spirit and in truth. These are the only specific intructions He gives us on that subject. Your doctrine on this subject is a gross perversion of the Word of God...

You mention the word, but nothign in it, to show why this is a gross peversion. In fact "pervision" means, to change, or corrupt. Show one point within instruments, or any other that we have perverted.

So you tell me how I can pervert something by NOT adding to it anything?

oh and do you also believe that you are the only ones going to heaven?

It depends on what you mean. "the only ones" would mean I feel me and all those around me are saved. I can only speak for myself, I am not the judge.

I believe that Jesus is the savior of the body (the church, the kingdom). When he comes again, it will be to receive his church. Not all the man made churches with, men at the head.

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

Eph 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

I Cor 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power

("Delivered up", not set up for another 1000 years),.

This does not mean I believe ONLY and ALL those with a "church of Christ" sign in their parking lot are the saved.

Anywhere in the world, one who has the "seed of the kingdom" can be added to His church by obeying it's commands.

If one is not a part of HIS church, which can be identified within the pages of the NT, then no, because if one is not a part of His church, then he is not part of the body, and Jesus is the "saviour of the body"

If you are a part of his body, then yes - Rom 8:1, Gal 3:27, Acts 2:38, 47.

I will let God be the judge of everyone else.

Have you already judged everyone else to be saved?

All you did, was call names here, accuse people of perversion, and show NOT ONE reason why. As if you just listen to others, and jump on the band wagon.

 

[feedm3]

feedm3

So as not to make this too long, I am not requoting you.

The offices of elder and bishop are often the same, though not always. I Tim 3:6 says "not a novice". If they were the same, why not insist on the harder qualification that he be an elder? I Pet. 2:25 makes it clear that Jesus fulfills two offices. Further, Timothy was ordained a bishop when he was young. It matters little, since none of the three are ever represented in the NT as leading a service for a congregation, and that is what we are discussing.

I had some things to add to last night's discussion. Heb. 10:25 is a command, to attend something called a sunagoge, and to exhort one another while attending. Sunagoge is what Jesus and Paul went to, and taught and preached by simply saying they wanted to. The fact that continuing attendance is mandated in the NT proves that the old structure was not intended to pass away. My observation is that the meeting in the sunagoge in OT times is nearly identical with the recommendations of Paul to the Corinthians. They are each to share whatever they have. The difference is, in what they have to share, since we now have the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the Eucharist. This is the fulfillment of the OT sunagoge custom; we now worship in Spirit, but are to do it with the same structure. My point is that this was the normal weekend worship gathering of the Jews. My objection is not that churches (meaning the separate meetings so called nowadays) do not allow everyone to share, but that we believe that going to church on Sunday fulfills the mandate of Heb. 10:25. It does not, since only 3 or 4 people get to exhort anyone, and only dozen or so get to share anything.

One can prove that it is okay to have congregational singing from Matt. 26:30. Jesus permitted it, perhaps led the hymn singing at the creation of the Eucharist. In passing, we note that the Passover service is ordinarily two hours long or longer, and that Jesus' recorded contribution is barely 20 minutes (even counting the foot-washing which made it longer). Jesus is portrayed as having given everyone time to share. In fact there was quite a discussion over who was going to betray Him. This is thus another model for the sunagoge type-meeting over the Sunday Church service.

There is a way in which we can use the OT to mandate the acceptability of music and dancing. Both are commanded in prophecy for the NT times. References include Zeph. 3:17, where "joy" is in Hebrew the word "gil" or to spin for joy (thus dance) (God is doing the dancing, but Jesus does what he sees His Father do, and He lives in us), and Zech. 14:17 where celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles is mandated with its command of making merry, and its ancient custom of full levitical accompaniment to the psalms, and command of gil would be expected in Jerusalem. Both these passages happen only after the defeat of the nations at Armageddon, and thus predict the customs will be restored in NT times. Thus, we can dance and use instruments in prophecy now, especially since harps are used in Rev. 5:8 and 15:2 to accompany the final party in heaven of which these events are a symbol.

There are also several strong suggestions of things that should happen regularly at these meetings (not just when someone has something to share): prophecy (I Cor. 14:24-25), Edification (vs. 26), discernment (vs. 29),and things that are expected periodically like healing and helps (I Cor. 12:28).

Thanks for the post, dont want you to think I am ignoring you. I will read it later, have to go to a birthday party I will get to it when I return.

 

[kenisyes]

Lev 10:1-2 - I am not going to offer to God anything that he has not commanded.
You mention the word, but nothign in it, to show why this is a gross peversion. In fact "pervision" means, to change, or corrupt. Show one point within instruments, or any other that we have perverted.

I can't believe you are using an old testament quote to prove you cannot do something that is not mentioned in the new testament! Col. 3:17 seems to indicate that anything that is good I can do (James 1:17 says every good gift comes from God, and whatever we have from God comes through Jesus).

Ekkelesia means "called out", but it is also the standard term for the team that governs a city.

There is only one Church (Christ's Body). Scripture uses the word in only one other way, as the members of the one church in a specific city (hence the 7 churches of Asia, etc.). The minute we say "I go to A church" we have used the word a different way, and this creates confusion.

I believe you can use instruments if you find them a blessing, and you should not use them if you find not using them a blessing.

 

[Dude653]

Just for the record, I never said that you are wrong fir not using instruments, That is your conviction and you are entitled to it. But when you try to tell me that it is wrong to use instruments, then that is where you are out of order.

 

[feedm3]

I can't believe you are using an old testament quote to prove you cannot do something that is not mentioned in the new testament!

Believe it. I never said the OT was obsolete in that we cannot learn from it, about God.

Rom 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope

I said the Laws were done away with in Christ- Col 2:14-f,

Look at my sig. Do you think I would put ECC there if I thought it did not matter.

God expects to be obeyed, in the OT, in the NT - Ecc 12:13, Heb 5:9.

Just as Paul uses Irsael for our example, I see Nadab and Abihu as one as well.
1Co 10:10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.


To use the OT for my learning is exactly what I am supposed to do, yet does nto mean I am bound to it's ordinances of worship - ROm 15:4

Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Col. 3:17 seems to indicate that anything that is good I can do (James 1:17 says every good gift comes from God, and whatever we have from God comes through Jesus).

Col 3:17 shows you all we do in word or deed must be done in the name of (which means by the authority of) Christ.

Acts 4:7 And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Col 3:17 whatsoever ye do in word or deed do all in the name of the Lord...

By the authoirty

Scripture also shows that silence is binding:
Notice:
We know that under the Law of Moses, the only tribe that had authoirty to be selected as Preist, were men from the tribe of Levi.

What about the other tribes?
Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood

Moses "spake nothing" of Judah and priesthood.

By Moses NOT speaking of Judah as being okay, or not okay to select a priest, then was automatically excluded from being a tribe that could bear priests.

Why would this change concerning anything else?

Christ spake nothing of instruments. So I should not assume they are okay, because they once were under a canal law.

Since I cant find the authority, I should assume it's not okay.

Otherwise, using your method, I could say since the NT does not forbid me to build an altar and offer burnt offering, that it would be okay for me to do under the NT.

The same with Lev 10.

They were destroyed for adding what the Lord did not say they could, concerning worship:
Lev 10:1 Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them.
Lev 10:2 And fire came out from before the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD.

He did not say they could not, but he did not say they could. So God does not like unauthorized additions to what is commanded, simply because he did not say we could not do it.

So then we can understand, that God does not change. His covanants may, be he does not. If he does not change, then he does not go from hating unauthorized worsip, to allowing it, and accepting it. That would be a change.

Sa 15:22 And Samuel said, "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD?

Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams.

Ekkelesia means "called out", but it is also the standard term for the team that governs a city.

That's fine. But if the Lord chose that word, to describe His church, that would be made up of people, then you see now Spiritually the church can be called a city name like Zion.

Still does not take away from what the church is, and what it is made up from.

There is only one Church (Christ's Body). Scripture uses the word in only one other way, as the members of the one church in a specific city (hence the 7 churches of Asia, etc.). The minute we say "I go to A church" we have used the word a different way, and this creates confusion.

I agree. I dont use the term "im going to church" seeing the church is not a place, but a people. I also dont say I belong to "a church" but instead, "the church".

The one church, is the same as the 7 churches of Asia. They are all one body, one Lord, one faith.

They are not differing in doctrine, and practices like the mess we see today.

Col 1:10 told the body, to speak the same thing, judge the same thing, and be in the same mind.

One could argue that it only applied to that congregation. Yet it cant. Gal 1:8, Rom 16:17, II Thess 3:6, all show that they had to submit to the letter written, the gospel, as we know there is only one.

If we all have diferent teachings, then we could not carry out Gal 1:8, Rom 16:17 etc, because that just may be the doctrine they were given at their congregation. This would not make us one as believers.

Many just say agree to disagree. Unity in diversity is not the answer to Jesus' prayer for unity in Jn 17.

I believe you can use instruments if you find them a blessing, and you should not use them if you find not using them a blessing.

Okay. I believe that Col 3:17 teach us to be under the authority of Christ. I do not believe using instruments are in accordance with that passage seeing I cannot find the authority for doing such with the covenant I am under.

Just for the record, I never said that you are wrong fir not using instruments, That is your conviction and you are entitled to it. But when you try to tell me that it is wrong to use instruments, then that is where you are out of order.

No you did not say we were wrong, just accused us of being a cult, propaganda for cult practices etc, because we dont use them.

In fact all have done is give the reasons why I dont use them, and you attacked us with that, but seem to feel justified saying "I never said you were wrong". You dont believe cults are wrong of what your accusing us to be?

You say you have a problem if we say your wrong, which I haven't yet.

Are you saying I should not be allowed to think what you do is wrong, and choose not to do it?

Are you saying that I must accept what you practice, and if not I am a cult member?

Hmmmm Sounds cult-ish to me.

 

[feedm3]

feedm3

So as not to make this too long, I am not requoting you.

The offices of elder and bishop are often the same, though not always. I Tim 3:6 says "not a novice". If they were the same, why not insist on the harder qualification that he be an elder? I Pet. 2:25 makes it clear that Jesus fulfills two offices. Further, Timothy was ordained a bishop when he was young. It matters little, since none of the three are ever represented in the NT as leading a service for a congregation, and that is what we are discussing.

I wasn't aware Timothy was ever called a bishop. Could you please provide the passage.

I had some things to add to last night's discussion. Heb. 10:25 is a command, to attend something called a sunagoge, and to exhort one another while attending. Sunagoge is what Jesus and Paul went to, and taught and preached by simply saying they wanted to. T

Was not aware of this either. Heb 10:25 is speaking of the meetings of the church. It has nothing to do with a synagoge, or "Sunagoge" to my knowlege.

They were not to forsake this day (the first day of the week) when they came together to:

1. Partake of the Lord's supper

Act 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.

I Cor 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper


2. Give as they prospered
1Co 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
3. Worship, Sing, pray, study etc.

3. Exhort, sing, study, pray - Heb 10:25, Col 3:16, Eph 5:19, heb 2:12.

he fact that continuing attendance is mandated in the NT proves that the old structure was not intended to pass away.

It was always intended to pass away. This is the whole meaning between the dialog of Jesus and the woman in the well:

The place of worship was no more - Jerusalem -
Joh 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

The building no more - The temple - Matt 24:1-f.

The ordinances no more - Col 2:14-f.

What's left?

Synagogues were not even mentioned until the NT. There is no explanation within the Bible of why or how these came to be.

The church does resemble them in some sense. Metting together, reading ect. But the early church we understand met in houses, probably because of persecution.

Within the Law itself there is no instruction, or pattern for a synagogue. There was the tabernacle then the temple. Synagogues seem to be an expedient that was added for convenience, much like our buildings today.

Seeing the Jews were the one meeting in Synagogues, and speaking the Law to other Jews, perhaps proselytes, it would not make sense for the Hebrew's writer to command them to attend somewhere the law of Moses was being taught.

The Hebrews book is mainly teaching the reasons why they need to forsake the law of Moses, and accept Christ and not return to the Law.

In fact, if you keep reading verses 26-f, you see they are contrasted with those under the law, and shown that if they reject Christ, they were worthy of a more sore punishment than those who rejected the law:

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Them returning the law was seriously sinful.

Because by doing so, they were rejecting what was offered to them through Grace:

Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect<-----There is ecclesia in a city sense see above in verse 22 The "city of the living God"

The "general assembly" and "church of the firstborn" are one in the same. The assembly of the called out. In which they were commanded to meet, on the first day of every week.


So again, it would not make sense for verse 25 to be sending them back to where the law is taught. This is speaking of the 1 day of the week meetings of Christians.

I understand what you're saying about using the OT as a pattern for acceptable worship. Yet I dont agree for the reasons stated above, concerning adding to God's worship, and the fact that silence is binding.

Thanks for your post

 

[kenisyes]

You have so many points, I will not quote, but try to indicate what I am referring to.

Post 33: I had originally made a point about improvement in how instrumental music is done in church. That's what got us going on whether we should do it. Let's set aside for a minute whether we should. Assuming we are doing it, and God does not mind, my post was simply that if we learn how to do it from the Old Testament, we will do it better than if we do not. That is what you say about the Lev. 10 situation, and I agree. I was half joking, as your stand against instruments seems to have drawn some upsetness from some people. To put the verse in proper context, the two violated several commandments they knew. Only one priest was to offer incense at a time, the right belonged to Aaron to do or delegate, and God had given implicit command that the incense was to come from the coals on fire with the heavenly fire He had sent. (this all from Gill's commentary) They also had the example of Judah's sons and how they died. The problem with being under the Law, is you are obligated by every jot and tittle. Which is exactly why you are right to want to avoid depending on it, and depend on the Spirit instead.

Your interpretation of Heb. 7:14 is exactly correct, and is how the Jews interpret Torah. That's the reason the implicit command was enough. God taught them how to think this way, and He assumed they would. (I have nothing to add to everything in-between these two comments.)

See below for authority regarding instruments. Scripture states specifically that the old order of animal sacrifice has passed away. It makes no such statement about instruments, and they are used in the Book of Revelation.

I agree with everything you say about Ekklesia. You may not be saying you go to "church", but most Christians do. The meaning of ekklesia is also another problem with the church nowadays: our culture is the first in history where the government does not consult a religious authority before making a decision. Even primitive tribes have a witch doctor. What have we done to be so unworthy of that? And I certainly agree that differing in doctrine the way we do is ridiculous.

The authority to use instruments (or not to use them, since both are permitted) is our authority to agree on anything whatever, and to see it bound in heaven (Matt. 18:18-20). This is combined with the command in Heb. 10:25 to meet and exhort one another. If music helps us help each other on the path of Christ, we are allowed to use it. This is not part of basic doctrine, so we can disagree on this. I know both kinds of fellowships, and I know they both bear good fruit. I need to clarify sunagoge a bit below to make it clear why we can disagree. Even more of it comes under the command to "fill the earth". We cannot fill the earth if we are all standing in the same place. Also, all of Paul's teachings on how one keeps the holiday and another does not, and one eats meat sacrificed to idols where another does not, comes into play here. What works for the people in your fellowship to fulfill the commands we are given is what you do.

Post 34: Timothy being called a bishop depends on what you mean by "Scripture". My King James has the traditional titles that occur in some manuscripts, but not in all. At the end of both Timothy and Titus are words to effect "Paul's letter to .... ordained a bishop". You might not consider this Scripture. I did not actually say it was, merely that Timothy was so ordained. Paul makes it clear he was sent there young.

The Greek original for the word "assemblng" is episunagoge, meaning to join or create a meeting with other Christians. epi is a preposition meaning join or create. Thus we are to join or create a sunagoge. This is the connection. Sunagoge appears to be the proper name of what we call "going to church".

Acts 20:7 proves only that they assembled on Sunday that one time in that one place. It is not worded as a general command. I Cor. 16:2 does not say come together on Sunday. It could just as well mean, as your first chore of the new week (if they kept Saturday as the Sabbath). I Cor. 11:20 does not mention a time. Acts 20:7 uses the word sunagoge, proving they broke bread at the meetingsat least sometimes. I Cor. uses sunerchomai, "coming together" as Paul is discussing their actions, not that they have an official meeting. But since we have to come together to have such a meeting, all those behaviors are recommended; besides, the breaking of bread is done there.

The word synagogue is mentioned 66 times in the NT (if I counted right), and all were in existence before Jesus established the new covenant. The most famous is Matt 4:23. Ps. 74:8 proves there were many in the OT times. Gill says (on that verse) there were 460-480 in Jerusalem alone. the Talmud says that one of good King Hezekiah's first commands was to reopen the synagogues. And note the two mentions of "synagogue of Satan" in Revelation. Just because they are not covered in the Bible as to how they were established, we have a command to establish them, so we need to look up what they were. Many were in homes, as you say. They roughly correspond to what we call churches, except we do different things in "churches".

You are quite right; we do not go to Jewish synagogues. That's why the word is the verb epi-sunagoge, to join together into synagogues is meant. And let me also mention that Jewish synagogues today follow mostly Christian church type worship orders, minus the Spirit, Christ, and the Eucharist, or course. They have mandatory prayer books and everything. Some use instruments; some do not.

You are incorrect on Heb. 12:23. Assembly there is panegyra, not sungoge. Panegyra is the big party we are going to have in heaven. So you cannot use this verse to prove that sunagoge and ekklesia is the same. We all are the one ekklesia. We meet on this planet in various sunagoge. And we prepare for the panegyra, already being enjoyed by many of us who have gone on before. In your sunagoge, you may do whatever you feel is of God to encourage each other, but you should be doing the Lord's supper, singing sometimes, prophecying, and being ready to bear one another's burdens. And anything else you wish to do, you should learn from the whole Bible whatever you can about God's plan.

 

[feedm3]

I Will just respond to what I dont agree, or have something to add.

See below for authority regarding instruments. Scripture states specifically that the old order of animal sacrifice has passed away. It makes no such statement about instruments, and they are used in the Book of Revelation.

It does not need to say instruments passed away. In fact even if they did, or did not ever use them in the OT does not give us the authority to do in the NT.

I Look to the NT for what I am to do, the OT for my learning.

The NT is what we are under. It is not based on what was and was not done away through the law, but covers all we need to do, by itself.

The instruments in REV really is not a logical argument concerning instruments in my opinion.

The book is highly symbolical, and the context this is found is highly figurative. Plus in my own opinion I dont think physical things like harps exist in a spiritual realm, but that part is just personal opinion.

5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts(Literal?) and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb(Literal lamb?), having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints(literal golden vials full of prayers?)

Everything here is figurative, unless you believe their are literal vials holding prayers, beasts, and lambs in heaven.

So why would the harp be literal here, in context full of figurative speech?

That is why I think that is not a very good argument.

The other 2 times the harps are mentioned (14:2, 15:2) are highly figurative as well.

Post 34: Timothy being called a bishop depends on what you mean by "Scripture". My King James has the traditional titles that occur in some manuscripts, but not in all. At the end of both Timothy and Titus are words to effect "Paul's letter to .... ordained a bishop". You might not consider this Scripture. I did not actually say it was, merely that Timothy was so ordained. Paul makes it clear he was sent there young.

Your right, I dont believe that is scripture. Even those who added these headers are said not to have been trying to make it scripture. I dont know if that is true or not, but without a passage, I have no reason to assume Timothy was a bishop, seeing he did not meet the qualifications given by Paul to be a bishop.

That would be confusing.

The Greek original for the word "assemblng" is episunagoge, meaning to join or create a meeting with other Christians. epi is a preposition meaning join or create. Thus we are to join or create a sunagoge. This is the connection. Sunagoge appears to be the proper name of what we call "going to church".

That's is interesting. Did not know that.

Acts 20:7 proves only that they assembled on Sunday that one time in that one place.

How many examples do I need if I am looking for what I have authority to do? There is more evidence, but it's pointless to paste, because Acts 20:7 is enough. I know if I believe I am a part of the church Christ built, I can meet on this day, because they did.

Any other day, would be a guess. Not willing to do so.

It is not worded as a general command. I Cor. 16:2 does not say come together on Sunday. It could just as well mean, as your first chore of the new week (if they kept Saturday as the Sabbath).

They did not keep the Sabbath at all, they Christians. They were told not to keep the sabbath (Col 2:14 "sabbath "days" in italics not in the GreeK)

So we understand when the first day of the week is.
We know that Christians met on this day.
I have no reason to assume this does not mean what it says, based if "if they kept sabbath".
Knowing that Christians were not commanded to keep the Sabbath.

Again though, seeing they did come together on Sunday, and they did meet to take the Lord's supper to give, then I can know I have authority to do so. Anything else is just a guess.

I Cor. 11:20 does not mention a time.

Nope, it does not. I if I choose to ignore the remote context, I guess I could make this any day I wanted. Yet why would I do that?

"when ye come together" - Acts 20:7 "and upon the first day of the week when the Disciples came together to break bread..."

Now I have the answer, and know for sure I can partake of the Lord's supper on the first day of the week.

Any other day is just a guess.

Acts 20:7 uses the word sunagoge, proving they broke bread at the meetingsat least sometimes. I Cor. uses sunerchomai, "coming together" as Paul is discussing their actions, not that they have an official meeting. But since we have to come together to have such a meeting, all those behaviors are recommended; besides, the breaking of bread is done there.

Both words mean the same thing, give a diffenrent sense, so we can understand what is beig expressed. They are all the one church.

sunerchomai gives the idea of coming together, and departing. Coming together with brethren, departing from the world.

It is also used as Gather, come, etc.

These words are not describing two separate acts. I Cor 11:26 it is used correctly in it's context. They come together to, separate from the world, and the thoughts of the world, to fellowship with Christ, by partaking the Lord's supper.

We should interpret what we should do, by Command, example, or necessary inference.

General command for:
1. Commune - I Cor 11:25
2. Assemble - Heb 10:25
3. Give 2 Cor 9:7

Specific Command for:
1. Commune ???? - what day??
2. Assemble ???? - what day??
3. Give- I Cor 16:2 - this passage also gives the day and the frequency of doing such.

General example:
1. Commune - Acts 2:42
2. Assemble - Rom 16:5
3. Give - ????

Specific Example:
1. Commune: Acts 20:7 shows also the day.
2. Assmeble - Acts 20:7 shows the day
3. Give - ????


Hope this is not too much, but if you study that a bit, we can see, through scripture, we can know when and what to do.

You are incorrect on Heb. 12:23. Assembly there is panegyra, not sungoge. Panegyra is the big party we are going to have in heaven. So you cannot use this verse to prove that sunagoge and ekklesia is the same.

'

Again, the difference in words used are correct to fit the context, yet are speaking of the same people, gathering.

In fact in Heb 12:23, is the only time this word is used in scripture. It is giving the idea of a group, that is celebrating, rejoicing, and the context shows why:

The Contrast:
MOSES church - fearful
Christ's church - a reason to rejoice

Heb 12:20 (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:
Heb 12:21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake

Heb 12:22 But ye (the contrast) are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
Heb 12:23 To the general assembly(the heavenly jerusalem, city of God, innumerable angels, reasons for the church to be a rejoicing group) and church of the firstborn(Same people that are to celebrate), which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

We do not read this and conclude that two groups, or fellowships are being discussed.

Maybe ONE group and a specific kind of fellowship. This is why the word is used.

Yet I was only pointing out in the post concerning this, Zion, and the "City" reference to the church.

Their is one church, because their is one body - with ONE faith, not many faiths - Eph 4:4-5.

Thanks for you reply

 

[OFM]

music and the instruments to play it are bibical allways hasbeen allways will bee amen...

 

[Dude653]

Believe it. I never said the OT was obsolete in that we cannot learn from it, about God.

Rom 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope

I said the Laws were done away with in Christ- Col 2:14-f,

Look at my sig. Do you think I would put ECC there if I thought it did not matter.

God expects to be obeyed, in the OT, in the NT - Ecc 12:13, Heb 5:9.

Just as Paul uses Irsael for our example, I see Nadab and Abihu as one as well.
1Co 10:10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.


To use the OT for my learning is exactly what I am supposed to do, yet does nto mean I am bound to it's ordinances of worship - ROm 15:4

Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.




Col 3:17 shows you all we do in word or deed must be done in the name of (which means by the authority of) Christ.

Acts 4:7 And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Col 3:17 whatsoever ye do in word or deed do all in the name of the Lord...

By the authoirty

Scripture also shows that silence is binding:
Notice:
We know that under the Law of Moses, the only tribe that had authoirty to be selected as Preist, were men from the tribe of Levi.

What about the other tribes?
Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood

Moses "spake nothing" of Judah and priesthood.

By Moses NOT speaking of Judah as being okay, or not okay to select a priest, then was automatically excluded from being a tribe that could bear priests.

Why would this change concerning anything else?

Christ spake nothing of instruments. So I should not assume they are okay, because they once were under a canal law.

Since I cant find the authority, I should assume it's not okay.

Otherwise, using your method, I could say since the NT does not forbid me to build an altar and offer burnt offering, that it would be okay for me to do under the NT.

The same with Lev 10.

They were destroyed for adding what the Lord did not say they could, concerning worship:
Lev 10:1 Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them.
Lev 10:2 And fire came out from before the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD.

He did not say they could not, but he did not say they could. So God does not like unauthorized additions to what is commanded, simply because he did not say we could not do it.

So then we can understand, that God does not change. His covanants may, be he does not. If he does not change, then he does not go from hating unauthorized worsip, to allowing it, and accepting it. That would be a change.

Sa 15:22 And Samuel said, "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD?

Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams.








That's fine. But if the Lord chose that word, to describe His church, that would be made up of people, then you see now Spiritually the church can be called a city name like Zion.

Still does not take away from what the church is, and what it is made up from.


I agree. I dont use the term "im going to church" seeing the church is not a place, but a people. I also dont say I belong to "a church" but instead, "the church".

The one church, is the same as the 7 churches of Asia. They are all one body, one Lord, one faith.

They are not differing in doctrine, and practices like the mess we see today.

Col 1:10 told the body, to speak the same thing, judge the same thing, and be in the same mind.

One could argue that it only applied to that congregation. Yet it cant. Gal 1:8, Rom 16:17, II Thess 3:6, all show that they had to submit to the letter written, the gospel, as we know there is only one.

If we all have diferent teachings, then we could not carry out Gal 1:8, Rom 16:17 etc, because that just may be the doctrine they were given at their congregation. This would not make us one as believers.

Many just say agree to disagree. Unity in diversity is not the answer to Jesus' prayer for unity in Jn 17.




Okay. I believe that Col 3:17 teach us to be under the authority of Christ. I do not believe using instruments are in accordance with that passage seeing I cannot find the authority for doing such with the covenant I am under.



No you did not say we were wrong, just accused us of being a cult, propaganda for cult practices etc, because we dont use them.

In fact all have done is give the reasons why I dont use them, and you attacked us with that, but seem to feel justified saying "I never said you were wrong". You dont believe cults are wrong of what your accusing us to be?

You say you have a problem if we say your wrong, which I haven't yet.

Are you saying I should not be allowed to think what you do is wrong, and choose not to do it?

Are you saying that I must accept what you practice, and if not I am a cult member?

Hmmmm Sounds cult-ish to me.

In your original post, you stated that those who use instruments in church are guilty of false worship. This ''We're right and everyone else is wrong mentality is a textbook example of a cultish mindset. The perversion comes from the way you twist the word of God to fit your own agenda. Jesus said to worship in spirit and in truth did he add..''oh by the way. don't use any instuments''????

 

[kenisyes]

The word "sabbath" is not in Col. 2:14. Col. 2:16 says no man can judge whether you do or not, since he also says it about food and drink, and elsewhere he teaches that is up to the individual. I cannot find a word meaning Sunday anywhere in the I Cor. 11 chapter. Jesus did the Lord's supper on a Thursday, and said "whenever you do this". I mentioned too that you must sunerchomai in order to sunagoge. The first is the wider term, as it could apply to a covered dish supper or a picnic, but context is clear he means it at the meeting to worship, etc. I agree that there is only one fellowship that answers to ekklesia, sunagoge and panegyra. (ignoring the Revelation mentions of synagoge of Satan). They are indeed different perspectives, as you say.

I think you four part list of 1-2-3 summarizes all we can possible determine, subject to our different method. The only real issue between us is whether an example operates as a command, and if the answer is different OT or NT. You point out decisions must be reached; I point out we are not under law, and thus really have no "commands" we "must" follow. You infer contexts in order to be protected; I look for Scriptures to verify what the Lord has done in my life. I see no problem with either. I was raised in a church that told me every other church was evil, and it took me until well past your age to really get free. It takes time to get the personal experience of the Lord's calling to know if you will keep these views until you are old, or not.

Thank you for a most challenging discussion. I have no more Scriptures and you have presented a nice summary, so maybe we have done all we can do? My own beliefs that we must copy the sunagoge framework demand that I accept their teaching methods as well, which arose in the sunagoge. In the Talmud, there is one verse on a page, and 2-10 interpretations surrounding it. If you are assembling with people and are following Jesus doing what you are doing, keep doing it. It does not matter if we disagree on instruments, Sunday, or any such things, in my mind. Jesus and Him crucified is what we share. We cannot fill the earth if we are all standing in the same place.

Dude, I could not tell who you were addressing in the last post just above this. To keep my record straight, I have been in professional music ministry for 44 years, all of it with instruments.

 

[feedm3]

The word "sabbath" is not in Col. 2:14. Col. 2:16 says no man can judge whether you do or not, since he also says it about food and drink, and elsewhere he teaches that is up to the individual. I cannot find a word meaning Sunday anywhere in the I Cor. 11 chapter. Jesus did the Lord's supper on a Thursday, and said "whenever you do this". I mentioned too that you must sunerchomai in order to sunagoge. The first is the wider term, as it could apply to a covered dish supper or a picnic, but context is clear he means it at the meeting to worship, etc. I agree that there is only one fellowship that answers to ekklesia, sunagoge and panegyra. (ignoring the Revelation mentions of synagoge of Satan). They are indeed different perspectives, as you say.

I think you four part list of 1-2-3 summarizes all we can possible determine, subject to our different method. The only real issue between us is whether an example operates as a command, and if the answer is different OT or NT. You point out decisions must be reached; I point out we are not under law, and thus really have no "commands" we "must" follow. You infer contexts in order to be protected; I look for Scriptures to verify what the Lord has done in my life. I see no problem with either. I was raised in a church that told me every other church was evil, and it took me until well past your age to really get free. It takes time to get the personal experience of the Lord's calling to know if you will keep these views until you are old, or not.

Thank you for a most challenging discussion. I have no more Scriptures and you have presented a nice summary, so maybe we have done all we can do? My own beliefs that we must copy the sunagoge framework demand that I accept their teaching methods as well, which arose in the sunagoge. In the Talmud, there is one verse on a page, and 2-10 interpretations surrounding it. If you are assembling with people and are following Jesus doing what you are doing, keep doing it. It does not matter if we disagree on instruments, Sunday, or any such things, in my mind. Jesus and Him crucified is what we share. We cannot fill the earth if we are all standing in the same place.

Dude, I could not tell who you were addressing in the last post just above this. To keep my record straight, I have been in professional music ministry for 44 years, all of it with instruments.

Thanks for your discussion as well, I will consider what you have said closely. Take care