The worship service

Posted in the Bassett Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of42
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Witness

Martinsville, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Apr 4, 2013
 
Show where Jesus and the Apostles attached special importance to the worship services of the church.

If Jesus and the Apostles wanted to make the worship service format important and bound by rules, they could have done so easily and simply in a format similar to the way the Law of Moses was delivered: a list of rules.

In the book of Acts the Apostles were concerned with eliminating the rules of the Law of Moses. They were not interested at all in making more and new rules about worship services for the group of believers in Christ. Nadda thing from them is mentioned about a worship service.

In fact I can find people who are loving, forgiving and work for the betterment of humanity in all Churches regardless of the format of worship they choose or believe in. They are accomplishing the center of what Jesus and the Apostles preached.

The Church of Christ on the other hand have substituted the format of the worship service for the center of the gospel to their shame I should add.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Instead of starting a new thread I will hijack this one.

Some people seem to have issues regarding what is directed about our Christian assemblies in the new testament. I do not say worship service because we do not see the term anywhere in the scriptures. But since much controversy exists over instrumental worship in music, I believe more emphasis should focus on what the word says about our assemblies.

If I am thinking properly, the only time Jesus mentions a church assembly is in Matthew 18, where He tells the disciples to bring a sinning brother before the church if he refuses to listen to an individual, or a group of two or three. If he doesn't listen, send him out. Discipline-something rarely seen in the church today. Jesus tells them to go and make disciples, teach them to observe all He commanded them. He also spoke to His disciples for 40 days after His resurrection concerning the kingdom of God. So our background should come from them, and our other Biblical sources. Paul, Luke, James.

Acts 2 shows the birth of the church. 42 tells us the disciples continually devoted themselves to the apostles doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers. 46 speaks of their everyday lives. Do we say 46 is part of the assembling? No, I don't believe so. But, that being said, does this reveal that perhaps we are not exactly "following the first century pattern"? We are increasingly a separative society. How many gather or fellowship with our church family daily? How invested are we in each others lives? Or are we more accurately strangers or acquaintances who happen to see each other once or twice a week?

More to come. Work beckons...
William

Opelika, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Apr 9, 2013
 
They also sold out everything they owned and had all things common back there in Acts 2.

Ain't a whole lot of that going on today, no matter what the name of the church is.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Apr 9, 2013
 
I actually had verse 46 in mind when I read your position on the Lordís Supper i.e., every Sunday. If verse 46 isnít Christians assembling, what is it Ö daily living perhaps?

Acts 20:7 is cited as THE PATTERN for the Lordís Supper IN THE CHURCH-the gathering of the Saints while Acts 2:46 is seen as Christians living their daily lives. How is Acts 20:7 BINDING- an act of worship that MUST be done each/every Sunday whereas Acts 2:46 [Christian living] isnít BINDING?

Furthermore, some [you may as well] say that people who do NOT have the Lordís Supper each/every Sunday are committing sin. If it is sinful to disregard the Lordís Supper each/every Sunday, what does it mean when we do not follow Acts 2:46? Both are examples. How is one BINDING and one not? Perhaps your next post will address some of this. Look forward to reading your post.
William

Opelika, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Apr 9, 2013
 
Has any church congregation anywhere today obeyed Acts 2:45?
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Apr 9, 2013
 
Gentlemen, this is where the idea that "Acts and the first century church is the model for us" runs into some trouble. First, the idea that the early church sold all they had and shared among all-not a lot of anybody doing that. True-but let's figure out why they did so. Was it to bind an example to us, set a precedent to follow? No I don't believe so. It was a necessity due to the events of Pentecost, with so many converts from out of the area needing daily provisions to survive. Should we be willing to do the same? Yes. Is it a binding example, a pattern for us to follow? No.

Over on preachersfiles.com , I saw an interesting comment about interpretation. For all the talk about normative, regulative principles, CENI, binding examples, etc, one gentleman had the right idea. He said something to the effect that "good old common sense" is the best method of Bible interpretation. What is God trying to tell us in these verses? Isn't that the real point?

God isn't telling us communism is the way, or that we must share all our possessions. He is showing us the brotherly love they had one for another-and yes that is a pattern to follow. We need to figure out Gods point in sharing this info with us.

Are we required daily to go from house to house with our brethren and share meals and praise God? No. Is it ok and good? Yes. Is it part of everyday living? It was for them at the time. It possibly is for us, possibly not. Does God want us to have the same spirit about us? Absolutely. And the point is to show us how the very first Christians were functioning together as a family.

I will focus more on the Lords supper in the next post.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Apr 9, 2013
 
I do not believe Acts 20:7 shows us a "binding pattern" for us to strictly follow. What the passage does is help show us indeed what the first century church was doing. We do learn that the disciples gathered on the first day of the week to break bread. We have to figure out if that is a common meal or the Lords Supper. I believe it is the Lords supper, and I conclude that by comparing Acts 2:46 and how the term is used in other places, like in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, where breaking of bread is also mentioned as the Lords supper.

We see disciples gathered, instead of going house to house. Why is the first day of the week mentioned? We do see that in 1 Corinthians 16, the church took up a collection on the first day ofo every week. Is this important?

Let me explain myself another way. Instead of saying that Acts 20:7 is a binding example, I would rather figure out for certain why we are given all the info and come to a conclusion about what we read, then determine if it is something we are to do.

Jesus commanded His disciples to "do this in remembrance of Me".
We see this taking place on the first day of the week.
Paul said the Lords supper should be the reason we come together.

My conclusion is that the first Christians did so, and personally I am convinced I need to do the same.

How binding is this? Food for thought:

If the Lords supper is why Christians assemble, why do we take the Lords supper to shut ins who cannot be in the assembly? How about those who feel that they have an issue with their brother, who abstain because they haven't dealt with their issue? Are they in violation of the worship rules for not partaking due to personal issues?

This is all why I say common sense and figuring out Gods purpose for telling us things is the best method of interpretation. I would say the attitudes of 2:46 are something God wants us all to have, and there is certainly nothing wrong with having the Lords supper on Sunday. I believe the purpose of God giving us all this info was to show us how we should observe the Lords Supper and how often. Ps-don't forget the frequency of the shewbread in the tabernacle. The holy kiss is another area like this. We all should agree it is a cultural thing, bit because of the coc and their binding examples others pick it up as proof that the coc isn't following the pattern exactly either.

Hope you get some info from this post. Me very sleepy. If I didn't answer the question, just let me know and I will try again when awake lol. Also very serious decision on my mind tonight.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Apr 10, 2013
 
You answered it quite well. I tend to agree: common sense should be our primary hermeneutic. I guess my beef is with those who make LAW in regards to the worship/Lordís Supper, saying its BIINDING and oneís DUTY to have worship/communion each/every Sunday. If by DUTY one means SERVICE, I will agree Ö but if by DUTY one means a LAW that we MUST keep because of a pattern we find, then I disagree. I believe any form of worship should be from a heart motivated by love. If a person follows some pattern yet lacks love as the foundation for doing so then its meaningless. Look forward to more comments/post. Also wish you the best with the decision you have before you.
Barnsweb

Alliance, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Apr 10, 2013
 
Prayers, singing, listening to the Scriptures being read, the Lords Supper - there are many things relayed in Scripture. So are the roles and offices given. The CoC doesn't have prophets that I'm aware of - so if that was a given example - where are they?

And what did Jesus say He would send? Can we look at His words, as well as what Paul wrote Timothy?
(Matt. 23:34) Prophets, wise men, scribes

And shouldn't we consider the 'appointments of God' if the believing and set apart Church is the 'true Israel of God'?

Seems just as reasonable to me.
Walkinginlove

Danville, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Apr 10, 2013
 
William wrote:
They also sold out everything they owned and had all things common back there in Acts 2.
Ain't a whole lot of that going on today, no matter what the name of the church is.
This was happening because the early church believed Jesus return to be at any moment, thus who needs earthly wealth if you are leaving this earth and it is going to be destroyed?

Thus their actions were a result of a mistaken belief, not a command of God.
Walkinginlove

Danville, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Apr 10, 2013
 
JesusCreed wrote:
I actually had verse 46 in mind when I read your position on the Lordís Supper i.e., every Sunday. If verse 46 isnít Christians assembling, what is it Ö daily living perhaps?
Acts 20:7 is cited as THE PATTERN for the Lordís Supper IN THE CHURCH-the gathering of the Saints while Acts 2:46 is seen as Christians living their daily lives. How is Acts 20:7 BINDING- an act of worship that MUST be done each/every Sunday whereas Acts 2:46 [Christian living] isnít BINDING?
Furthermore, some [you may as well] say that people who do NOT have the Lordís Supper each/every Sunday are committing sin. If it is sinful to disregard the Lordís Supper each/every Sunday, what does it mean when we do not follow Acts 2:46? Both are examples. How is one BINDING and one not? Perhaps your next post will address some of this. Look forward to reading your post.
Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight. 8 There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered together. 9 And there was a young man named Eutychus sitting on the window sill, sinking into a deep sleep; and as Paul kept on talking, he was overcome by sleep and fell down from the third floor and was picked up dead. 10 But Paul went down and fell upon him, and after embracing him, he said,ďDo not be troubled, for his life is in him.Ē 11 When he had gone back up and had broken the bread and eaten, he talked with them a long while until daybreak, and then left. 12 They took away the boy alive, and were greatly comforted.

The above could be seen as gathering to eat together, and since Paul broke bread after midnight and ate. There is nothing showing that bread was broken before midnight in the above passages.

So if the above is a binding example you need to be breaking bread after midnight.
mopman

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Apr 10, 2013
 
The bible don't command Sunday for communion.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Apr 10, 2013
 
JesusCreed wrote:
You answered it quite well. I tend to agree: common sense should be our primary hermeneutic. I guess my beef is with those who make LAW in regards to the worship/Lordís Supper, saying its BIINDING and oneís DUTY to have worship/communion each/every Sunday. If by DUTY one means SERVICE, I will agree Ö but if by DUTY one means a LAW that we MUST keep because of a pattern we find, then I disagree. I believe any form of worship should be from a heart motivated by love. If a person follows some pattern yet lacks love as the foundation for doing so then its meaningless. Look forward to more comments/post. Also wish you the best with the decision you have before you.
Absolutely agree. All must come from the heart or it makes no difference. I believe treating the law of Christ like the law of Moses is the biggest reason we have these problems. God said He would give man a new heart, and write His law in their hearts. This is primarily a heart issue. Binding laws do not bring man to obeying God from the heart. Just look at Israel of old.
William

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Apr 10, 2013
 
"This was happening because the early church believed Jesus return to be at any moment, thus who needs earthly wealth if you are leaving this earth and it is going to be destroyed?

Thus their actions were a result of a mistaken belief, not a command of God."

They weren't leaving the earth. They were waiting for the return of Christ so that kingdom of heaven could be restored to Israel with Christ as it's King. If Israel had not rejected Christ AGAIN following Stephen's exhortation, he would have.

Enter Paul.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Apr 10, 2013
 
Barnsweb wrote:
Prayers, singing, listening to the Scriptures being read, the Lords Supper - there are many things relayed in Scripture. So are the roles and offices given. The CoC doesn't have prophets that I'm aware of - so if that was a given example - where are they?
And what did Jesus say He would send? Can we look at His words, as well as what Paul wrote Timothy?
(Matt. 23:34) Prophets, wise men, scribes
And shouldn't we consider the 'appointments of God' if the believing and set apart Church is the 'true Israel of God'?
Seems just as reasonable to me.
My take is this-Jesus indeed sent wise men, prophets and scribes. The 12 fit into this category, as do others in the first century. We read of prophets in Acts and other places. Scribes wrote our new testament. Plenty of wise men. I'd say Jesus told the truth. Perhaps we skip over it too fast, or just realize it is fulfilled and don't mention it, but yes these have already come. As for prophets today, well..

If one rejects or disregards Pauls statements in 1 Corinthians 13, then they should expect to see prophets of God even today. Some proclaim to be prophets, but are they really according to the scripture test? I don't believe so. Just look at our resident troll. If he is Gods prophet, he can't spell or pick the basketball champ right. Not a prophet. Silly example, but you get the point.

As for Gods appointments, I will assume you speak mainly of the Sabbath, although others can be included. I personally have no issue if one desires to remember the Sabbath and honor it-just don't forsake assembling with your brethren for the sake of Sabbath keeping. I don't believe Sabbath should be binded on others, because I believe it was a shadow of better things to come. Same with the feast days. I have taught about the feasts on the days and times they occur, and showed how they apply to is today. If a person desires to observe them and honor them, it affects me none-just don't make doing so binding and a salvation issue on others-after all, they are fulfilled in Christ.

There is nothing wrong with filtering Paul or anyone else's words through what Jesus taught. If they don't match His teachings, there are problems. I still feel like you may be disregarding Paul to an extent because so many depend on Paul, and wresting of his words to their satisfaction, to aid their belief systems. I find Paul, when taken IN CONTEXT, agrees beautifully with the Master. I don't believe we should throw the baby out with the bath water because some people don't accurately handle the word of truth.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Apr 10, 2013
 
Have to disagree with both WIL and William. No the early disciples didn't sell all their goods because they thought Jesus was returning quickly. It was to make sure that all believers had what they needed for survival. Many were hundreds if not thousands of miles from home. They needed to be in Jerusalem for instruction-the church hadn't spread yet.

And I disagree with the notion that they were waiting for Christ to return to set up the kingdom, and that if Stephen hadn't been stoned He would have. Jesus cannot be an earthly king, His kingdom is not of this world, and the kingdom came on Pentecost.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Apr 10, 2013
 
mopman wrote:
The bible don't command Sunday for communion.
Agree it doesn't "command" Sunday. Yet it appears that Sunday was the day the church assembled and observed communion.
William

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

David's throne is not in heaven, and Christ isn't sitting on any throne right now. He is seated next to God, waiting.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Dave P wrote:
Have to disagree with both WIL and William. No the early disciples didn't sell all their goods because they thought Jesus was returning quickly. It was to make sure that all believers had what they needed for survival. Many were hundreds if not thousands of miles from home. They needed to be in Jerusalem for instruction-the church hadn't spread yet.
And I disagree with the notion that they were waiting for Christ to return to set up the kingdom, and that if Stephen hadn't been stoned He would have. Jesus cannot be an earthly king, His kingdom is not of this world, and the kingdom came on Pentecost.
On no, you opened up a can of worms ;) However, I agree- His Kingdom is NOW not in some future event.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

William wrote:
David's throne is not in heaven, and Christ isn't sitting on any throne right now. He is seated next to God, waiting.
Sounds like premillenialism. Bible never says Jesus will reign from Jerusalem for 1000 literal years either. When He returns all this is over.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of42
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
Bassett Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Bassett Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Bassett People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Bassett News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Bassett
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••