Comments for PreacherNorm http://preachernorm.net Abiding In The Doctrine Of Christ (2 Jn. 9-11) Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:33:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 CommentsForPreachernormhttp://feedburner.google.com Comment on Salvation in the Church of Christ by PreacherNorm http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CommentsForPreachernorm/~3/G1KtFAdxUB8/ PreacherNorm Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:33:00 +0000 http://preachernorm.net/?p=1527#comment-400 <p> Each individual congregation is autonomous under the headship of Christ. We know that early congregations met in various places, including homes. If having a kitchen or fellowship hall, as many call their kitchen and dining room, is a doctrinal issue then it would have been wrong for them to meet in homes that had kitchens and dining areas. According to many of the <em>antis</em>, it is doctrinally wrong to eat in the church building. However, if that is the case then local congregations could not meet in homes, community centers or any other rented or provided facility that had a kitchen and dining area in them. </p> <p> The idea that the building used to facilitate the doctrinal command to assemble has any doctrinal significance at all is to go beyond the Scripture and bind one's own judgment as doctrine. It would be making more of the building than it is, <em><strong>a building</strong></em>. The building is not the church! </p> <p> If the leadership of a local congregation makes the decision that they will not eat in the building they use for the assembly of the church then that is perfectly within the realm of their autonomous judgment. However, when they start saying that any other autonomous congregation is <em>sinning</em> because they do choose to provide the congregation a place to have meals together and enjoy fellowshipping together, they are binding their judgment as doctrine and causing division over it. That is wrong! (1 Cor. 1:10; et. al.). </p> <p> You ask for the scriptural authority to have a fellowship hall or church vans and the like. Such things are authorized by <strong><em>generic authority</em></strong>. Because we are commanded to assemble ourselves together (Acts 20:7; Heb. 10:25; et. al.), we have the generic authority to have building to facilitate obedience to that command. Because we are commanded to <em>Go</em> (Matt. 28:19-20), we have the generic authority to facilitate that command by the purchase of a van. </p> <p> We know that the first century church had meals together when they assembled (Jude 12). Justin Martyr describes it in his writing as a regular weekly activity of the church. When they came together to worship on Sunday, they would enjoy a fellowship meal, or <em>love feast</em> together. If the congregation chooses to do this in the building where they meet for worship or to go somewhere else, it is entirely a matter of judgment and should never be made a doctrinal issue. </p> <p> Here are some lessons I have posted on how to determine what is authorized by specific or generic authority: <ul> <li><a href="" rel="nofollow">Ascertaining Biblical Authority</a></li> <li><a href="" rel="nofollow">Establishing Biblical Authority Again</a></li> <li><a href="" rel="nofollow">Prove All Things <strong>(video)</strong></a></li> <li><a href="" rel="nofollow">Prove All Things (part 2) <strong>(video)</strong></a></li> </ul> </p> Each individual congregation is autonomous under the headship of Christ. We know that early congregations met in various places, including homes. If having a kitchen or fellowship hall, as many call their kitchen and dining room, is a doctrinal issue then it would have been wrong for them to meet in homes that had kitchens and dining areas. According to many of the antis, it is doctrinally wrong to eat in the church building. However, if that is the case then local congregations could not meet in homes, community centers or any other rented or provided facility that had a kitchen and dining area in them.

The idea that the building used to facilitate the doctrinal command to assemble has any doctrinal significance at all is to go beyond the Scripture and bind one’s own judgment as doctrine. It would be making more of the building than it is, a building. The building is not the church!

If the leadership of a local congregation makes the decision that they will not eat in the building they use for the assembly of the church then that is perfectly within the realm of their autonomous judgment. However, when they start saying that any other autonomous congregation is sinning because they do choose to provide the congregation a place to have meals together and enjoy fellowshipping together, they are binding their judgment as doctrine and causing division over it. That is wrong! (1 Cor. 1:10; et. al.).

You ask for the scriptural authority to have a fellowship hall or church vans and the like. Such things are authorized by generic authority. Because we are commanded to assemble ourselves together (Acts 20:7; Heb. 10:25; et. al.), we have the generic authority to have building to facilitate obedience to that command. Because we are commanded to Go (Matt. 28:19-20), we have the generic authority to facilitate that command by the purchase of a van.

We know that the first century church had meals together when they assembled (Jude 12). Justin Martyr describes it in his writing as a regular weekly activity of the church. When they came together to worship on Sunday, they would enjoy a fellowship meal, or love feast together. If the congregation chooses to do this in the building where they meet for worship or to go somewhere else, it is entirely a matter of judgment and should never be made a doctrinal issue.

Here are some lessons I have posted on how to determine what is authorized by specific or generic authority:

]]> http://preachernorm.net/2012/01/salvation-in-the-church-of-christ/#comment-400 Comment on The Wisdom of God by PreacherNorm http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CommentsForPreachernorm/~3/bKQCG-UmZGA/ PreacherNorm Thu, 26 Jan 2012 05:57:35 +0000 http://preachernorm.net/?p=1267#comment-399 lisagmills, thank you so much for your kind words. It is always the highest complement when people tell me they have learned more about God's word through my efforts in His service. I pray you will continue to find this web site beneficial to your Bible study and sharing the word of God with others. I usually just post "teaser" clips on YouTube to get people over here to my site. If you want to share the posts on my site, and I pray you will, you can find share buttons at the end of every post for FaceBook, Twitter, email, and others. Feel free to share away! Thank you, Norm lisagmills, thank you so much for your kind words. It is always the highest complement when people tell me they have learned more about God's word through my efforts in His service. I pray you will continue to find this web site beneficial to your Bible study and sharing the word of God with others. I usually just post "teaser" clips on YouTube to get people over here to my site. If you want to share the posts on my site, and I pray you will, you can find share buttons at the end of every post for FaceBook, Twitter, email, and others. Feel free to share away!

Thank you,
Norm

]]> http://preachernorm.net/2011/09/the-wisdom-of-god/#comment-399 Comment on The Wisdom of God by lisagmills http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CommentsForPreachernorm/~3/hVdPXvjBHE4/ lisagmills Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:13:07 +0000 http://preachernorm.net/?p=1267#comment-398 I have to say this is one of the most fantastic lessons I have heard in a long time! God bless you for teaching so clearly, using scripture only and calling false doctrine out. I know many may be offended however it is clear your intentions are only to share the truth in order to glorify God, teach his ways and set people on the right path. So many questions I have had about how to answer some were just cleared up for me. Wish this entire message was posted on youtube in order to allow people to forward to facebook, friends and family. This is excellent! Can't wait to share this message with my husband when he gets in. Just last night he was trying to convey some of this to his mother who is a calvinist full blown (primative baptist). She kept saying "your doctrine, your revelation, your all's church believes one way, we believe another..." God is good and knows we are sincere in wanting to truth for truth's sake, not that of pleasing family, follow a tradition etc... So thankful I saw a clip of this on youtube and logged in here to get it all. God bless you and yours. I have to say this is one of the most fantastic lessons I have heard in a long time! God bless you for teaching so clearly, using scripture only and calling false doctrine out. I know many may be offended however it is clear your intentions are only to share the truth in order to glorify God, teach his ways and set people on the right path. So many questions I have had about how to answer some were just cleared up for me. Wish this entire message was posted on youtube in order to allow people to forward to facebook, friends and family. This is excellent! Can’t wait to share this message with my husband when he gets in. Just last night he was trying to convey some of this to his mother who is a calvinist full blown (primative baptist). She kept saying “your doctrine, your revelation, your all’s church believes one way, we believe another…” God is good and knows we are sincere in wanting to truth for truth’s sake, not that of pleasing family, follow a tradition etc… So thankful I saw a clip of this on youtube and logged in here to get it all. God bless you and yours.

]]> http://preachernorm.net/2011/09/the-wisdom-of-god/#comment-398 Comment on Salvation in the Church of Christ by Jesus1 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CommentsForPreachernorm/~3/XKUsY0PHX1c/ Jesus1 Fri, 20 Jan 2012 04:40:26 +0000 http://preachernorm.net/?p=1527#comment-397 So, are we to say that the local church of Christ having a fellowship hall built along with their building is a matter of judgment? In other words, it is at that local congregation's discretion to erect such a building? Moreover, is it at the local church of Christ discretion as to whether they will employ the use of a church bus or van? If we say it is, where is the authority in God's Word to conduct such a thing? Again, I hope the readers know that I am not seeking to debate, but to try and find light on this matter. Can we, apart from authority, build fellowship halls, employ church vans, or have church dinners and fellowship meals at the house of worship? Can we do that apart from divine ordinance or instruction (1 Peter 4:11). Where is the line decided in whether an act is left up to judgment or it is required to be fully backed by divine authority? --- These are each matters that churches of Christ all over have split over and some even discontinued fellowship because of either side trying to lay the pattern of the New Testament and not fellowship with one another. So, are we to say that the local church of Christ having a fellowship hall built along with their building is a matter of judgment? In other words, it is at that local congregation’s discretion to erect such a building? Moreover, is it at the local church of Christ discretion as to whether they will employ the use of a church bus or van? If we say it is, where is the authority in God’s Word to conduct such a thing? Again, I hope the readers know that I am not seeking to debate, but to try and find light on this matter. Can we, apart from authority, build fellowship halls, employ church vans, or have church dinners and fellowship meals at the house of worship? Can we do that apart from divine ordinance or instruction (1 Peter 4:11). Where is the line decided in whether an act is left up to judgment or it is required to be fully backed by divine authority?

— These are each matters that churches of Christ all over have split over and some even discontinued fellowship because of either side trying to lay the pattern of the New Testament and not fellowship with one another.

]]> http://preachernorm.net/2012/01/salvation-in-the-church-of-christ/#comment-397 Comment on Salvation in the Church of Christ by PreacherNorm http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CommentsForPreachernorm/~3/6cmWzPhTfnY/ PreacherNorm Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:55:22 +0000 http://preachernorm.net/?p=1527#comment-396 The kinds of issues you mentioned are matters of judgement. The head covering issue is specifically mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, and Paul specifically says that this is not something to be contentious over (1 Cor. 11:16). For a congregation to bind this as a matter of doctrine and make it a divisive issue means that they are binding their judgement on others, which is wrong. I had a debate with someone of a congregation like this. It was specifically on the issue of how the Lord's Supper is served. In that debate I made it absolutely clear that my problem with them wasn't that they use one cup but that they bind their judgment on everyone else. The doctrine of the Lord's Supper is that it is the memorial of the Lord's death with the bread being the memorial of his body and the juice being the memorial of his blood. The doctrine says it is to be observed in the first day of the week assembly. To add the type of container the juice is served in to the doctrine and make it a divisive issue is adding to the doctrine of the Lord's Supper and is wrong. I don't care if they use one cup or many cups as long as they use unleavened bread and grape juice on the first day of the week. However, they say that I am sinning because I don't do it the same way they do. They have made their judgement into a divisive issue. You can watch those videos <a href="" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Those who bind their judgement and make their judgment into divisive issues are certainly in danger of being lost. The kinds of issues you mentioned are matters of judgement. The head covering issue is specifically mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, and Paul specifically says that this is not something to be contentious over (1 Cor. 11:16). For a congregation to bind this as a matter of doctrine and make it a divisive issue means that they are binding their judgement on others, which is wrong. I had a debate with someone of a congregation like this. It was specifically on the issue of how the Lord's Supper is served. In that debate I made it absolutely clear that my problem with them wasn't that they use one cup but that they bind their judgment on everyone else. The doctrine of the Lord's Supper is that it is the memorial of the Lord's death with the bread being the memorial of his body and the juice being the memorial of his blood. The doctrine says it is to be observed in the first day of the week assembly. To add the type of container the juice is served in to the doctrine and make it a divisive issue is adding to the doctrine of the Lord's Supper and is wrong. I don't care if they use one cup or many cups as long as they use unleavened bread and grape juice on the first day of the week. However, they say that I am sinning because I don't do it the same way they do. They have made their judgement into a divisive issue. You can watch those videos here. Those who bind their judgement and make their judgment into divisive issues are certainly in danger of being lost.

]]> http://preachernorm.net/2012/01/salvation-in-the-church-of-christ/#comment-396 Comment on Salvation in the Church of Christ by Jesus1 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CommentsForPreachernorm/~3/yIoU5sgmn3A/ Jesus1 Thu, 19 Jan 2012 19:25:46 +0000 http://preachernorm.net/?p=1527#comment-395 This does help to an extent. However, I see many congregations teaching several things over what seems to be small differences. ---------- For an example, should we have a fellowship halls at our church? Or should women wear head coverings during the corporate worship of the church? I believe another large discussion has been the keeping and operating of a church van or bus. These are all topics I have seen several difference arise out of the church of Christ. With this said, one may say that a fellowship hall is a sin, therefore, can the church of Christ with a fellowship hall be considered brethren? Or can they make heaven their home by deviating from what one church feels is not in line with God's Word? If we must be faithful to the commands given, and stand in God's Word to make heaven our eternal home could these baptized, loving, faithful Christians on either side of the noted arguments above go to heaven? .... This does help to an extent. However, I see many congregations teaching several things over what seems to be small differences.

———- For an example, should we have a fellowship halls at our church? Or should women wear head coverings during the corporate worship of the church?

I believe another large discussion has been the keeping and operating of a church van or bus. These are all topics I have seen several difference arise out of the church of Christ. With this said, one may say that a fellowship hall is a sin, therefore, can the church of Christ with a fellowship hall be considered brethren? Or can they make heaven their home by deviating from what one church feels is not in line with God’s Word? If we must be faithful to the commands given, and stand in God’s Word to make heaven our eternal home could these baptized, loving, faithful Christians on either side of the noted arguments above go to heaven? ….

]]> http://preachernorm.net/2012/01/salvation-in-the-church-of-christ/#comment-395 Comment on Salvation in the Church of Christ by PreacherNorm http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CommentsForPreachernorm/~3/jRkWre_nptY/ PreacherNorm Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:39:38 +0000 http://preachernorm.net/?p=1527#comment-393 Yes, there are divisions between congregations that claim to be the church of Christ. However, that division is the result of departing from the truth of God's word. The sin of divisiveness is never the fault of those who are following the word of God. Where division exists it is the result of one or more parties departing from the truth. The guilt of divisiveness is <strong><em>always</strong></em> to be laid at the feet of those who refuse to be in humble submission to the word of God. Sadly, it is usually those who are resolved to stand in the truth and to not compromise the doctrine of Christ that get blamed for divisions. But who is to blame for division, the one upholding the truth or the one refusing to accept that truth? For example, the Bible says that Jesus is the only way to be saved (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12). However, Jews, Muslims and Hindus don't believe that. We are divided over that biblical truth. Who's fault is the division? Is it my fault because I am resolved to stand in the truth of God's word or is it the fault of the one who rejects that truth? It is no different with clear biblical doctrine on things like worship and salvation. The Bible says that the New Testament church worshipped on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; et. al.). I am resolved to stand in that truth and continue that New Testament practice. However, there are those who teach that the church must assemble for worship on Saturday, not Sunday. There is a division between us over the scripturally mandated day of assembly for the worship of the church. Whose fault is it? Is it my fault for doing what the Bible says? Or is it the fault of those who reject the clear teaching of the Bible? Obviously, it is the fault of those who reject the truth <em><strong>not</strong></em> the one who uncompromisingly hold to the truth. With that said, there is another possibility for why divisions exist. It may be that divisions have arisen over matters of opinion. This should not happen. If the reason for the division is simply a matter of opinion or personal judgement then both parties in that division are guilty. That is why we say <em>In Doctrine Unity - In Judgment Liberty</em>. That is, we must be united in doctrine and we must allow liberty in matters of personal judgment or opinion. The problem with many is in distinguishing between doctrinal issues and judgment issues. Where the identity of the Lord's church is most definitely a doctrinal issue, what time they meet to worship on the Lord's day is a matter of judgement. While the conduct of worship is most definitely a doctrinal issue, the order of worship is a matter of judgement. Those congregations claiming to be the church of Christ that have abandoned the truth of God's word are at fault for any divisions that exists. It is not the fault of congregations refusing to compromise the doctrine of Christ. I pray this answers your question. Yes, there are divisions between congregations that claim to be the church of Christ. However, that division is the result of departing from the truth of God's word. The sin of divisiveness is never the fault of those who are following the word of God. Where division exists it is the result of one or more parties departing from the truth. The guilt of divisiveness is always to be laid at the feet of those who refuse to be in humble submission to the word of God.
Sadly, it is usually those who are resolved to stand in the truth and to not compromise the doctrine of Christ that get blamed for divisions. But who is to blame for division, the one upholding the truth or the one refusing to accept that truth? For example, the Bible says that Jesus is the only way to be saved (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12). However, Jews, Muslims and Hindus don't believe that. We are divided over that biblical truth. Who's fault is the division? Is it my fault because I am resolved to stand in the truth of God's word or is it the fault of the one who rejects that truth? It is no different with clear biblical doctrine on things like worship and salvation. The Bible says that the New Testament church worshipped on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; et. al.). I am resolved to stand in that truth and continue that New Testament practice. However, there are those who teach that the church must assemble for worship on Saturday, not Sunday. There is a division between us over the scripturally mandated day of assembly for the worship of the church. Whose fault is it? Is it my fault for doing what the Bible says? Or is it the fault of those who reject the clear teaching of the Bible? Obviously, it is the fault of those who reject the truth not the one who uncompromisingly hold to the truth.
With that said, there is another possibility for why divisions exist. It may be that divisions have arisen over matters of opinion. This should not happen. If the reason for the division is simply a matter of opinion or personal judgement then both parties in that division are guilty. That is why we say In Doctrine Unity – In Judgment Liberty. That is, we must be united in doctrine and we must allow liberty in matters of personal judgment or opinion. The problem with many is in distinguishing between doctrinal issues and judgment issues. Where the identity of the Lord's church is most definitely a doctrinal issue, what time they meet to worship on the Lord's day is a matter of judgement. While the conduct of worship is most definitely a doctrinal issue, the order of worship is a matter of judgement.
Those congregations claiming to be the church of Christ that have abandoned the truth of God's word are at fault for any divisions that exists. It is not the fault of congregations refusing to compromise the doctrine of Christ.
I pray this answers your question.

]]> http://preachernorm.net/2012/01/salvation-in-the-church-of-christ/#comment-393 Comment on Salvation in the Church of Christ by Jesus1 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CommentsForPreachernorm/~3/yuLuzXB5cVg/ Jesus1 Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:33:36 +0000 http://preachernorm.net/?p=1527#comment-392 I have a few questions I hope will be answered: Do divisions exist a midst the churches of Christ? And, if so are they not then in sin by having division (1 Corinthians 1:10)? And if they be in sin are they not faltering as a New Testament Church? I have a few questions I hope will be answered: Do divisions exist a midst the churches of Christ? And, if so are they not then in sin by having division (1 Corinthians 1:10)? And if they be in sin are they not faltering as a New Testament Church?

]]> http://preachernorm.net/2012/01/salvation-in-the-church-of-christ/#comment-392