Church of Christ: Cult,sect or true

[Scare Bear]

Yes, but that singing was not given to us in terms of how to hold a church service. Paul was talking about singing and making melody in our heart on a daily basis. The context was not about how a sunday morning service was to be conducted.

There's only one problem with that... Ephesians 5:19 states: "speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord," So how can we speak to "one another" if we're outside mowing the lawn or indoors watching TV?

Colossians 3:16 also states: Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord

So you cannot hold that up as a prescription for congregational worship. Nadab and Abihu were given an exact prescription for what to do in terms of how to conduct themselves in the tabernacle, and they violated that prescription. You cannot compare that issue with church services about which the Bible has given us no set order of service or prescription for how it is to look or sound.

Just look at the verses and see what the bible says!

None of that is offered by the Bible as a universal prescription for how a church service is to be conducted. For one thing, you had go all over the Bible and rip individual passages from their immediate context and use them in a manner for which they were not designed.

Would you like to put each and everyone of those "in context" for me then?

Secondly, most of the directives mentioned above were in response to questions and problems that were occuring in specific local congregations, such as how the Corinthians were mishandling communion.

So wouldn't one assume that if they were told HOW to handle these things PROPERLY then that means those are things WE are to do as well? Or is just for that particular congregation alone?

The verses about singing from Philippians, Hebrews and Colossians are not delivered in the context of how to conduct a worship service but refer to a daily aspect of personal conduct and our personal walk with the Lord.

I still don't understand how you can gather that when if you read those verses carefully it doesn't state the "individual" but "one another."

Acts 2:42 and 20:7 are not offered as a pattern, but simply as part of an historical narrative. Those verses tells us what they did. They do not tell us to do as they did.

Then there's no real reason to have those letters in the bible then I guess? But one has to ask if it doesn't matter how we worship God then why were the apostles telling these other congregations what to do?

If God were concerned with the structure of a church service, he would have given us a doctrinal passage in a general epistle to that end. He did not.

But He has. Just because it's not in the form of "Thou shalt or Thou Shalt Not" does not mean we can do as we please. Again why stress such importance to the 1st century churches if we have no command on how to worship properly? Weren't the early churches right in doing what they were doing cause there's no real structure to worship service as you say.

As I have already explained to you, more than once, we are not bound to the ceremonial/ritual/civil aspects of the law. We are, however, expected as Christians to observe God's ethical/moral commandments which are universally applicable. Circumcision was never given to the Gentiles and is not commanded in the New Testament and that has been made clear to you as well, so I don't understand why you are trying to bait me with this nonsense. Circumcision was given to the Jewish people alone. I hope you are paying attention this time.

Now we're getting somewhere... you said "Circumcision was given to the Jewish people alone." But other laws we are supposed to follow? Are we picking and choosing which laws to follow now? If circumcision was for the Jews only then wouldn't the rest of the laws be for the Jews only? Either we have to follow ALL the laws or none of them. With the Ten Commandments nine of the laws are repeated as a part of the new covenant and must be obeyed today. These laws are binding today, not because they were a part of the old covenant, but because they are a part of the new one. I don't know why anyone would want to be tied to the old laws.

[Guest shiloh357]

There's only one problem with that... Ephesians 5:19 states: "speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord," So how can we speak to "one another" if we're outside mowing the lawn or indoors watching TV?

Colossians 3:16 also states: Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord

You still need to prove that Paul had a church service specifically in mind. We meet with friends and family members all of the time. We invite people to our homes for dinner, or other activities. Paul's exhortations reference how we should be behaving all of the time. It refers to a continuous disposition of heart and mind. Paul did not offer this as a forumla for how to conduct services.

QUOTE

None of that is offered by the Bible as a universal prescription for how a church service is to be conducted. For one thing, you had go all over the Bible and rip individual passages from their immediate context and use them in a manner for which they were not designed.

Would you like to put each and everyone of those "in context" for me then?

I already answered why they are taken out of context.

So wouldn't one assume that if they were told HOW to handle these things PROPERLY then that means those are things WE are to do as well? Or is just for that particular congregation alone?

So all you need to do is produce an example from the Bible where they were using musical instruments church, but were rebuked by Paul or some other apostles and where the proper order o fservice is spelled out.

QUOTE

Acts 2:42 and 20:7 are not offered as a pattern, but simply as part of an historical narrative. Those verses tells us what they did. They do not tell us to do as they did.

Then there's no real reason to have those letters in the bible then I guess?

No it means that we read and understand them for what they are instead of trying to create doctrine where none exists. A narrative is a narrative. We don's assume that because Noah built a an ark, that we are supposed to build arks. We don't assme that because Moses parted the Red Sea that we are supposed to part every body of water we come to. Likewise, it is wrong to say that because the apostles did something, we are supposed to imitate them. That is not how we arrive at doctrine.

But one has to ask if it doesn't matter how we worship God then why were the apostles telling these other congregations what to do?

They were addressing problems and gross excesses. They were not telling congregations how to worship God, but rather how to conduct themselves as a congregation and and as inviduals on a daily basis.

QUOTE

If God were concerned with the structure of a church service, he would have given us a doctrinal passage in a general epistle to that end. He did not.

But He has.

No He has not.

Just because it's not in the form of "Thou shalt or Thou Shalt Not" does not mean we can do as we please.

EVERY commandment from God is a direct command. God is never ambiguous about what He wants and He spells it out. If God were concerned about whether or not musical instruments were in services or not, He would have said so, because it is in His nature to do so. Musical instruments are non-issue, as the Bible does not prescribe or forbid them. And only those with a cultic, controlling spirit attempt to make doctrine and hold people to man-made standards.

Again why stress such importance to the 1st century churches if we have no command on how to worship properly? Weren't the early churches right in doing what they were doing cause there's no real structure to worship service as you say.

Were you in the first century??? Do you know for a fact that NONE of them used musical instruments??? Is that something you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt?? If you can, I would like to see it.

Now we're getting somewhere... you said "Circumcision was given to the Jewish people alone." But other laws we are supposed to follow? Are we picking and choosing which laws to follow now? If circumcision was for the Jews only then wouldn't the rest of the laws be for the Jews only? Either we have to follow ALL the laws or none of them. With the Ten Commandments nine of the laws are repeated as a part of the new covenant and must be obeyed today. These laws are binding today, not because they were a part of the old covenant, but because they are a part of the new one. I don't know why anyone would want to be tied to the old laws.

You have a very unstudied and somewhat naive understanding of how the Old Testament and New Testament relate to each other. Nowhere in the Bible does it make the entire law binding on anyone.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

But it does not say that a person who is saved but not baptized is not saved. You are operating from the negative inference fallacy.

Would you baptize an unbeliever?

No, but that is irrelevant. Like I said, you are operating from the negative inference fallacy.

What about the person who's about to get shot? They decide to pray to the Lord right before they get shot... do they get saved?

All who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Well according to Acts 10 why didn't Cornelius already have the Holy Spirit? 2 He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. And another problem is that Peter wasn't even finished yet. It would be like someone jumping up in the middle of a sermon saying they wanted to be saved without hearing what it is they need to do to be saved.

Cornelius was partial proselyte to Judaism, which explains why he was praying in the afternoon when the angel spoke to him. Gentiles were known as "God fearers" (Sebemenoi) when they began worshipping the true God under the auspices of the Jewish religion.

He did not have the Holy Spirit because he was not yet saved. Peter's unfinished sermon is only a problem for you, not for Cornelius and His household. They heard the word and believed. There is no forumla for getting saved. You are saved the moment you place your trust in Jesus.

The Holy Spirit is AN agent of salvation in the way that He lead the apostles to do the work that they needed to do in order for the word to be spread so that way you and I could have salvation. When you say the Holy Spirit is THE agent of salvation it makes it sound like Jesus' blood has nothing to do with our salvation, hope, faith, God's grace, none of it has to do with our salvation.

The Holy Spirit is the agent of Salvation as it is He that applies the blood, it is He that baptizes into Christ. He sanctifies the believerHe is the one who indwells, guides, fills, empowers and seals the believer.

Hebrews 10:25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.

The command is to assemble. Where is not important just as long as we do so. A building is not used as an article of worship.

Yes it is. Again, I see the need for you to try to get around the problems with your standard, but the fact is, buildings, choirs, hymnbooks, etc. none of that was commanded by God, so they are a sin, by YOUR standard. You can admit the flaws in your argument whenever you are ready.

QUOTE

So applying the standard YOU erected for instruments, that standard must apply to anything else connected to worship. Your standard, as even you have shown, cannot be maintained from any practical or objective application. Your standard simply doesn't wash.

I do not see the command "play" but rather the command "sing." How can you sing if you have a trumpet covering your mouth?

But the singing command is not given in connection with a worship service. You can sing or play an instrument anywhere, basically.

So Christ's blood does not save us? God's grace does not save us? Hope does not save us? Repentance does not save us? It's just faith alone?

All of that is appropriated by faith alone.

That's not what I asked. Are you saved first then you repent or does one need to be repentant before they can be saved?

Repentance is a response of faith to the gospel. There is no checklist of things you must do before you get saved. If there were, salvation would be a reward. Repentance is simply changing your mind to accept Christ. Essentially, you repent the very moment you receive Christ. It all happens at once.

[Scare Bear]

You still need to prove that Paul had a church service specifically in mind. We meet with friends and family members all of the time. We invite people to our homes for dinner, or other activities. Paul's exhortations reference how we should be behaving all of the time. It refers to a continuous disposition of heart and mind. Paul did not offer this as a forumla for how to conduct services.

Because it was a letter to the church?

So all you need to do is produce an example from the Bible where they were using musical instruments church, but were rebuked by Paul or some other apostles and where the proper order o fservice is spelled out.

I can provide verses where singing is mentioned. No harps, drums, pipes none of that is mentioned. Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26; Acts 16:25; 1 Cor. 14:6; 1 Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 2:12; James 5:13

No it means that we read and understand them for what they are instead of trying to create doctrine where none exists. A narrative is a narrative. We don's assume that because Noah built a an ark, that we are supposed to build arks. We don't assme that because Moses parted the Red Sea that we are supposed to part every body of water we come to. Likewise, it is wrong to say that because the apostles did something, we are supposed to imitate them. That is not how we arrive at doctrine.

For starters we are not under the times of Noah nor are we under the law of Moses. We are however under the laws Christ and His apostles (led by the Holy Spirit) to do what is required of us. All the letters to the churches are not there as a means of history lessons. It is there for us to model ourselves as First Century Christians. Why else would these letters be so important? Remember, God does not move, we do. So you have to ask yourself, if God was specific with how the Jews were to worship Him wouldn't you think the same could be said for Christians today?

EVERY commandment from God is a direct command. God is never ambiguous about what He wants and He spells it out. If God were concerned about whether or not musical instruments were in services or not, He would have said so, because it is in His nature to do so. Musical instruments are non-issue, as the Bible does not prescribe or forbid them. And only those with a cultic, controlling spirit attempt to make doctrine and hold people to man-made standards.

Again I say I have not seen any verse saying musical instruments are ok. I have seen where it has been said singing is ok. So by saying singing is ok and not saying anything about musical instruments one would have to logically conclude that it is not ok. If a teacher told me to sing but I pick up a trumpet am I right because the teacher did not tell me to do the latter?

Were you in the first century??? Do you know for a fact that NONE of them used musical instruments??? Is that something you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt?? If you can, I would like to see it.

Sure, read the letters to the churches.

You have a very unstudied and somewhat naive understanding of how the Old Testament and New Testament relate to each other. Nowhere in the Bible does it make the entire law binding on anyone.

So not all males were circumcised then?

[Scare Bear]

But it does not say that a person who is saved but not baptized is not saved....

Would you baptize an unbeliever?

No, but that is irrelevant.

It is very relevant. He who believes AND is baptized shall be saved. One has to believe FIRST before they can be baptized. If they do not believe then they cannot be baptized. In other words, you can't baptize an atheist cause they'd just get wet. Believing is the first step and the other steps cannot fall into place if that belief is not there.

All who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.

Cornelius was partial proselyte to Judaism, which explains why he was praying in the afternoon when the angel spoke to him. Gentiles were known as "God fearers" (Sebemenoi) when they began worshipping the true God under the auspices of the Jewish religion.

He did not have the Holy Spirit because he was not yet saved. Peter's unfinished sermon is only a problem for you, not for Cornelius and His household. They heard the word and believed. There is no forumla for getting saved. You are saved the moment you place your trust in Jesus.

The Spirit fell to demonstrate to the Jewish Christians present with Peter that Gentiles were candidates for the gospel. Acts 10:45 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. Now see if the Holy Spirit falling on them is to show they were saved then these verses would contradict one another and the bible would not be truth. John 1:33-34 The Holy Spirit feel upon Jesus does that mean He was saved? Of course not, He didn't need it. The Spirit fell upon the apostles on the Day of Pentecost. Does that mean that the apostles were saved by the Spirit falling on them? No, because Jesus had already declared them to be clean. John 13:10

Yes it is. Again, I see the need for you to try to get around the problems with your standard, but the fact is, buildings, choirs, hymnbooks, etc. none of that was commanded by God, so they are a sin, by YOUR standard. You can admit the flaws in your argument whenever you are ready.

Again we are commanded to assemble. We can't assemble in the middle of a snowstorm... people would freeze. The building is not used IN worship it is used to keep us out of the elements to make it possible to worship. (we don't do choirs) Hymnbooks themselves are not used IN worship they are used as a way to help us all do what was commanded, to sing. We could easily just tell everyone to memorize the songs but after a while people would forget how the song goes people would start singing their own versions etc. there'd be no unity. A songbook helps provide unity and thus everyone can participate.

But the singing command is not given in connection with a worship service. You can sing or play an instrument anywhere, basically.

While that's true I saw no examples of first century Christians plucking a harp or clanging a cymbal when they gathered together.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

You still need to prove that Paul had a church service specifically in mind. We meet with friends and family members all of the time. We invite people to our homes for dinner, or other activities. Paul's exhortations reference how we should be behaving all of the time. It refers to a continuous disposition of heart and mind. Paul did not offer this as a forumla for how to conduct services.

Because it was a letter to the church?

Yes, but it contains no instructions about how to conduct a church service. That is the point you seem to be missing. You are operating off an unwarranted assumption. How come Paul does not say, "this is how a church service is to be conducted?" You simply don't have any textual support. You are reading your own assumptions into the text and that is unwarranted and inappropriate.

QUOTE

So all you need to do is produce an example from the Bible where they were using musical instruments church, but were rebuked by Paul or some other apostles and where the proper order o fservice is spelled out.

I can provide verses where singing is mentioned. No harps, drums, pipes none of that is mentioned. Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26; Acts 16:25; 1 Cor. 14:6; 1 Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 2:12; James 5:13

So what? That is an argument from silence. They were not mentioned, but that does not mean they were not employed, nor does that stand as a prohibition agaisnt them. There is no Scripture that says instruments are not allowed in NT church services. Until you can provide an actual prohibition, you really don't have a case against musical instruments.

If you choose not to use them, that is up to you; but, you have NO right per the Scriptures to argue that their inclusion in modern services are sinful.

QUOTE

No it means that we read and understand them for what they are instead of trying to create doctrine where none exists. A narrative is a narrative. We don's assume that because Noah built a an ark, that we are supposed to build arks. We don't assme that because Moses parted the Red Sea that we are supposed to part every body of water we come to. Likewise, it is wrong to say that because the apostles did something, we are supposed to imitate them. That is not how we arrive at doctrine.

For starters we are not under the times of Noah nor are we under the law of Moses. We are however under the laws Christ and His apostles (led by the Holy Spirit) to do what is required of us. All the letters to the churches are not there as a means of history lessons.

Yet you use an OT example to support your position. I would argue that we are not living in the times of Nagab and Abihu (law of Moses) but that does not stop you from using them as a justification for your position. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot argue against the law of Moses but then draw from the law of Moses to prove that musical instruments are sinful in church services.

Furthermore, I did not say that all of the church letters were there as a means of histroy lessons. I said that you cannot take those parts of the Bible that serve as historical narratives and use them to create doctrine. You cannot say that since the apostles met everyday, that we are sinning if we don't meet everyday. You cannot make the argument that the early church did everything exactly right and we should do what they did. Their actions are not held up to us as doctrine but as a record of their activities.

It is there for us to model ourselves as First Century Christians. Why else would these letters be so important? Remember, God does not move, we do. So you have to ask yourself, if God was specific with how the Jews were to worship Him wouldn't you think the same could be said for Christians today?

Jesus is our model. He is the one against whom we are measrued. God does not ask us to live like 1st Century Christians. He is asking us as 21st century Chrisitans to live like Christ. It is Christ's image that we are being conformed into.

Again, you are still appealing to the OT (when it suits your agenda) and trying to infer things from that, which are not stated in the NT. The fact of the matter is that God DIDN'T get specific at all as to how church services are to be conducted. Worship, as defined in the Bible is not something that happens on Sunday Morning. It is everyday. We worship God in every sphere of our existance, work, recreation, church, family, etc. There is no part of our lives that cannot be offered up as a sacrifice of praise. It is is not about whether or not you have instruments. It is about the state or condition of your heart and the purity of your motives.

Again I say I have not seen any verse saying musical instruments are ok. I have seen where it has been said singing is ok. So by saying singing is ok and not saying anything about musical instruments one would have to logically conclude that it is not ok.

There is no logic in that at all. You are reading your views into the Bible and arguing from silence. You are making your own inferences, based on what you want to believe and are penciling that into the text and treating it as doctrine when you have no permission from Scripture to do so. In effect, you are adding to the Bible, by creating a doctrine that is not in the Bible.

1. No prescription for worship serivices is contained in the Bible

2. No mention of singing in connection with NT church services is mentioned in the Bible.

3. No prohibition agaisnt musical instruments are contained in the Bible.

There is nothing in the Bible that makes instruments in worship services sinful.

QUOTE

Were you in the first century??? Do you know for a fact that NONE of them used musical instruments??? Is that something you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt?? If you can, I would like to see it.

Sure, read the letters to the churches.

You did not answer the question. The truth (if you possessed the integrity to admit it) is that you don't have any evidence as to how early church services were conducted. We are not given an example of one church service and how it was done from start to finish. You have no idea how things were done.

QUOTE

You have a very unstudied and somewhat naive understanding of how the Old Testament and New Testament relate to each other. Nowhere in the Bible does it make the entire law binding on anyone.

So not all males were circumcised then?

Only the Jewish ones.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

But it does not say that a person who is saved but not baptized is not saved....

Would you baptize an unbeliever?

No, but that is irrelevant.

It is very relevant. He who believes AND is baptized shall be saved. One has to believe FIRST before they can be baptized. If they do not believe then they cannot be baptized. In other words, you can't baptize an atheist cause they'd just get wet. Believing is the first step and the other steps cannot fall into place if that belief is not there.

Yeah and show me where I ever said otherwise. You are refuting an argument I never raised, hence it is not relevant to this discussion.

QUOTE

All who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.

So if a person is accepts Christ on an airplane and the plane crashes before they can get baptized, do they go to hell???

The Spirit fell to demonstrate to the Jewish Christians present with Peter that Gentiles were candidates for the gospel. Acts 10:45 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. Now see if the Holy Spirit falling on them is to show they were saved then these verses would contradict one another and the bible would not be truth. John 1:33-34 The Holy Spirit feel upon Jesus does that mean He was saved? Of course not, He didn't need it. The Spirit fell upon the apostles on the Day of Pentecost. Does that mean that the apostles were saved by the Spirit falling on them? No, because Jesus had already declared them to be clean. John 13:10

The Holy Spirit NEVER falls on unbelievers. You have some very sloppy theology.

The apostles were already saved on the day of pentacost when teh Holy Spirit fell. There is NO record of the Spirit falling on unbelievers. You need to read your Bible instead trying mold it around your cultic "theology."

Again we are commanded to assemble. We can't assemble in the middle of a snowstorm... people would freeze. The building is not used IN worship it is used to keep us out of the elements to make it possible to worship. (we don't do choirs) Hymnbooks themselves are not used IN worship they are used as a way to help us all do what was commanded, to sing.

But the standard YOU erected was that we are not to have ANYTHING that God did not command. That is your justification for not using instruments. Again, you cannot be consistent in your approach. All you are doing now is back tracking on the standard you erected.

While that's true I saw no examples of first century Christians plucking a harp or clanging a cymbal when they gathered together.

So what? Just because you have seen no examples of it does not mean it didn't happen. There is more to world than what exists within the limited scope of your knowledge.

[Scare Bear]

Yes, but it contains no instructions about how to conduct a church service. That is the point you seem to be missing. You are operating off an unwarranted assumption. How come Paul does not say, "this is how a church service is to be conducted?" You simply don't have any textual support. You are reading your own assumptions into the text and that is unwarranted and inappropriate.

So in order for us to obey it, it has to be in the form of "thou shalt?" So it's ok for us to do things the 1st century churches did even though they were rebouked for it because there is no command for it? There's no command saying we can't have pizza and beer for the Lord's Supper so why would it be looked upon as wrong? As long as we're doing it with the "right intent" anything's up for grabs?

So what? That is an argument from silence. They were not mentioned, but that does not mean they were not employed, nor does that stand as a prohibition agaisnt them. There is no Scripture that says instruments are not allowed in NT church services. Until you can provide an actual prohibition, you really don't have a case against musical instruments.

If you choose not to use them, that is up to you; but, you have NO right per the Scriptures to argue that their inclusion in modern services are sinful.

I point you to the last reply.... Jesus never said we couldn't use pizza and beer for the Lord's Supper so by your argument it wouldn't be wrong to do so.

Yet you use an OT example to support your position. I would argue that we are not living in the times of Nagab and Abihu (law of Moses) but that does not stop you from using them as a justification for your position. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot argue against the law of Moses but then draw from the law of Moses to prove that musical instruments are sinful in church services.

Ok I wasn't clear that's my fault. We are not under the rule or laws of the Old Testament. We DO however use the stories as examples. The Old Testament was written for our learning. But we are not told to offer grain offerings or blood offerings anymore. We are Christians, we follow Christ, not Moses but that does not mean we cannot use the stories as examples of what God approves or doesn't.

Furthermore, I did not say that all of the church letters were there as a means of histroy lessons. I said that you cannot take those parts of the Bible that serve as historical narratives and use them to create doctrine. You cannot say that since the apostles met everyday, that we are sinning if we don't meet everyday. You cannot make the argument that the early church did everything exactly right and we should do what they did. Their actions are not held up to us as doctrine but as a record of their activities.

The Holy Spirit guided them though. They were taught by Christ and continued His work with the help of the Holy Spirit. That's why we have the Word today. And honestly I don't know why you or anyone would refuse to want to model the churches after the 1st century churches? What is so wrong with wanting to be more like those churches? I would think they'd have a better grip on what was to be done in worship to God than anyone would today.

Jesus is our model. He is the one against whom we are measrued. God does not ask us to live like 1st Century Christians. He is asking us as 21st century Chrisitans to live like Christ. It is Christ's image that we are being conformed into.

Exactly and the apostles learned from Jesus. And from the apostles the 1st century Christians learned. So do you see the connection? Personally yes, I strive to be more like Christ but as a whole a congregation needs to look to the 1st century.

Again, you are still appealing to the OT (when it suits your agenda) and trying to infer things from that, which are not stated in the NT. The fact of the matter is that God DIDN'T get specific at all as to how church services are to be conducted. Worship, as defined in the Bible is not something that happens on Sunday Morning. It is everyday. We worship God in every sphere of our existance, work, recreation, church, family, etc. There is no part of our lives that cannot be offered up as a sacrifice of praise. It is is not about whether or not you have instruments. It is about the state or condition of your heart and the purity of your motives.

You say that the Old Laws were not done away with but yet at the same time think that God allowed the Jews to worship Him how they wanted to. If you go back and read what God commanded them to do you'll see He was very specific. Same thing applies to us today as Christians, no not the old law, but that of worshiping God the way He commanded. The only way one can understand how to do that is to study. Let's look at something shall we?

The wise men worshiped Jesus - Matthew 2:11 Satan wanted Jesus to worship him - Matthew 4:8-9 A man worshiped Jesus when asking for his daughter to be healed - Matthew 9:18 The Samaritan woman wanted to know where people should worship - John 4:20 People were involved in worshiping demons and idols - Revelation 9:20 The Ethiopian eunuch was on his way to worship -Acts 8:27

These show me that worship is a distinctive action. It's not a vague concept that permeates a person

[Scare Bear]

Yeah and show me where I ever said otherwise. You are refuting an argument I never raised, hence it is not relevant to this discussion.

It's relevant because you are arguing one does not need to be baptized to be saved and I have just showed you that you do.

So if a person is accepts Christ on an airplane and the plane crashes before they can get baptized, do they go to hell???

Unfortunately if they had every opportunity to do so prior to the plane crash then yes. But if the person was really honest about wanting to be saved I think God would give them the opportunity to get baptized.

The Holy Spirit NEVER falls on unbelievers. You have some very sloppy theology.

The apostles were already saved on the day of pentacost when teh Holy Spirit fell. There is NO record of the Spirit falling on unbelievers. You need to read your Bible instead trying mold it around your cultic "theology."

So how could Cornelius and his household have the Holy Spirit? It doesn't say they believed at that point. Peter wasn't even finished speaking when the Holy Spirit came upon them.

But the standard YOU erected was that we are not to have ANYTHING that God did not command. That is your justification for not using instruments. Again, you cannot be consistent in your approach. All you are doing now is back tracking on the standard you erected.

How am I back tracking? Can a group of people come together to worship God in the middle of a storm out in a field somewhere? No, it'd be hard to get everyone to gather together in that scenario. A building is just used as a way for us to have all come and worship together. Hymnbooks help us to do what is commanded, to sing. Let's say you go to a church you're unfamiliar with. You'd like to participate in their services and sing with them but you can't because you don't know the words and don't have a hymnbook... Hymnbooks are there so that everyone can participate. I can't participate if someone else is playing the music for me. I can't participate if someone else is giving a solo.

So what? Just because you have seen no examples of it does not mean it didn't happen. There is more to world than what exists within the limited scope of your knowledge.

I understand that there are things out there that are never mentioned. But quite honestly when it comes to God's word, I'd rather not assume and add something to worship that was never mentioned.

[Guest shiloh357]

So in order for us to obey it, it has to be in the form of "thou shalt?" So it's ok for us to do things the 1st century churches did even though they were rebouked for it because there is no command for it? There's no command saying we can't have pizza and beer for the Lord's Supper so why would it be looked upon as wrong? As long as we're doing it with the "right intent" anything's up for grabs?

No because we WERE given a prescription for how to conduct communion.

I point you to the last reply.... Jesus never said we couldn't use pizza and beer for the Lord's Supper so by your argument it wouldn't be wrong to do so.

And I explained why your reply was nonsense.

Ok I wasn't clear that's my fault. We are not under the rule or laws of the Old Testament. We DO however use the stories as examples. The Old Testament was written for our learning.

Yes, but that really is not the argument I am making. I never said we were under the rule of the Old Testament. The problem is that morality and the ethics of the Old Testament are not bound by a particular time period. The NT does not say it is wrong for a man to sleep with His daughter-in-law. Would we assume such behavior is no longer sinful? Of course not. We are not under the civil or ceremonial aspects of the Old Testament economy, but ethics and moralilty do not apply where that issue is concerned. The are universal and apply to both covenants.

But we are not told to offer grain offerings or blood offerings anymore.

Never said we were.

We are Christians, we follow Christ, not Moses but that does not mean we cannot use the stories as examples of what God approves or doesn't.

Except that up to this point, your exampes have been wrought with flaws and misapplications and sloppy theology.

The Holy Spirit guided them though. They were taught by Christ and continued His work with the help of the Holy Spirit. That's why we have the Word today. And honestly I don't know why you or anyone would refuse to want to model the churches after the 1st century churches? What is so wrong with wanting to be more like those churches?

Where are we commanded in the Bible to model ourselves after the 1st Century churches??? The 1st century churches were wrought with problems of sexual immorality, in-fighting, cult-infiltration, apathy, etc. Why would we model ourselves after them?

Jesus is our model.

I would think they'd have a better grip on what was to be done in worship to God than anyone would today.

You need to study a bit better.