churchesofChrist

COMMANDS: “Give to everyone who begs of you”; “Lend, expecting nothing in return”; “Judge not, condemn not” (Luke 6:30, 35, 37). “When you pray, say,” the Lord’s Prayer (Lk. ll:2; Matt. 6:9). “Think not that I came to abolish the law”; “Do not swear at all”; “When you pray, go into your room and shut the door” (Matt. 5:17, 34; 6:6). “When you give a dinner or banquet, do not invite your friends, etc. When you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind…” (Luke 14:12f). “Earnestly desire…that you may prophesy” (1 Cor. 14:1). “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord” (James 5:14). “If any one is hungry, let him eat at home” (1 Cor. 11:34). “Let him who is taught the word share all good things with him who teaches” (Gal. 6:6).

Is that enough, or must I go on? A complete list of the directives in the New Testament Scriptures would be staggering. Do you keep all those commands? Do you know of anyone who even tries to keep them all? Books and commentaries have been written to explain to us why we need not feel obligated to obey all these directives. So, what does that do for our simplistic hermeneutic?

EXAMPLES: After Jesus had washed his disciples’ feet, he said, “I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you.” He said also, “You ought to wash one another’s feet.” (John 13:14f). This is an example which Jesus commanded___doubly bound! Jesus gave the Lord’s Prayer as an example and told his disciples to say those words when they prayed (Matt. 6:9; Luke 11:2). Have you been told not to use those words in prayer and that washing of feet in unnecessary?

We have the example of Jesus and his disciples participating in the Lord’s Supper on a weekday. Have you been warned against following that example?

Paul gave “an example to imitate” to the Thessalonian disciples by working to pay his own way while serving among them (2 Thes. 3:7f). How many ministers and preachers bind that “approved example”?

Paul gave us an approved example of keeping rituals of the Law of Moses long after he became a disciple (Acts 21:17-26). Does that example establish Scriptural authority which we must obey?

In the only example of the appointing of elders, it was done by two evangelists accompanied by prayer and fasting (Acts 14:23). Are we not bound to follow this reasoning: (1) In the only approved example of the appointing of elders, the appointment was done by evangelists; (2) we must follow all approved examples to be saved; (3) therefore, elders must be appointed only by evangelists. Or, (1) They fasted and prayed when appointing elders in the only approved example; (2) we must follow all approved examples as authoritative; (3) therefore, we must fast and pray in the process of appointing elders.

If Scriptural authority is established by “approved example” (historical or incidental details), then we have a lot of revising to do in order to be consistent. But nothing in the Scriptures indicates that a historical or incidental occurrence sets a pattern that must be followed or limits us to that supposed pattern.

NECESSARY INFERENCE: If all the above is confusing to you, save a bit of bewilderment for the necessary inference hermeneutic. This involves our reasoning and logic. I don’t know who established this method, but I suspect that we would have never needed it were it not for the perceived need to bind observance of the Lord’s Supper every Sunday.

Our traditional illustration for that inference is “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” It is reasoned that this command implies that they were to keep every Sabbath day, that those at Troas met on the first day of the week to break bread, and that one must necessarily infer that they broke bread every first day of the week (Acts 20:7).

“Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy” does infer that they were to keep each Sabbath, for an implication is a meaning expressed indirectly. The thing implied here is that any time a person failed to keep the Sabbath holy, he would be violating the command. Other teachings in the Law about Sabbath-keeping would even remove it from the area of implication.

How universally must we interpret that rule of implication? Paul commanded, “Contribute to the needs of the saints” (Rom. 12:13). Using the same reasoning that we use concerning the Sabbath, does that not imply that we must contribute to the needs of every saint, for when we fail to help one, we have violated the command?

An inference cannot be considered as necessary unless its disregarded conclusion brings us in conflict with an expressed directive, and in that case the force is in the command rather than the inferred conclusion.

We do not deal with inferences consistently. Jesus instructed: “When you fast, do not look dismal…” ( Matt. 6:16f). That clearly implies that we should fast, does it not? “Love your enemies” (Matt. 5:44) implies that we must have enemies. “Honor the king/emperor (l Pet. 2:17) implies that we should live under a monarchy. Do we bind the inferences drawn from those instructions?

ACTS 20:7

There is no command, example, or inference that disciples are required to participate in the Communion once and only once each and every first day of the week. In using Acts 20:7 as our proof-text, we have assumed that the breaking of bread is the Communion, and an assumption kills the validity of any premise!

“On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them…” Can it possibly be inferred that Luke and Paul gathered with them each and every first day, or that the disciples of Troas gathered to break bread each and every first day? Does it imply that they had been doing so previously and that they continued to do so afterward? No such inference is suggested.

If their meeting was according to the Jewish reckoning of time, they met on Saturday night to participate. Would that be acceptable today? If their meeting was according to the Roman time, they met on Sunday night but did not participate until Monday morning after Paul’s midnight discourse. Would that be acceptable for us? The command, example, inference formula proves nothing relating to this text.

Where did the rigid, legalistic, patternistic wing of the Churches of Christ come from?  They got their start from a man named Daniel Sommer. Few question his zeal or love for the Lord. He spent his life devoted to promoting his vision of God’s will for the church. Unfortunately, for the bulk of his life he had failed to grasp God’s purpose!  Ignorant of His grace, and the freedom one has in Christ Jesus, he proclaimed a religion of rigidity, and perhaps did more than any other individual to bring about deep divisions. Sadly, we have men like Johnny Robertson, and others, who follow the same road.  Like the apostle Peter, who wept bitterly after denying Jesus Christ, Daniel Sommer spent the latter days of his life lamenting his years of misguided maliciousness. Sadly, he was unable to undo the harm he had inflicted upon the church, and the fruit of his labor is still evident in the rigid, legalistic, patternistic wing of the Churches of Christ.   Sommer sowed his seed well, and the tares that have grown up all around us today are the tragic result of his decades of devotion to division.

Many men and women within our faith-heritage today, myself included, are seeking diligently, and daily, to counter the effects of this man’s teaching. It is difficult work, and the opposition at times is fierce, but somehow I think Sommer would applaud our efforts, as would brother Ketcherside, who also came to his senses later in life. My prayers are that Johnny also come to his senses. Although much damage was done by these few men, and being done by men like Mr. Robertson, yet our Movement is not beyond repair, and the vision of our fathers in the faith is still just as valid. May God help us all to abandon these foolish, feuding factions, and may He guide us to the point of recapturing the vision of One Body united in the Lord Jesus Christ. To the Sommerites and Johnny’s of today, I issue this plea: Let us reason together; let us dialogue; let us tear down the walls that divide us; let us all truly be One Family to the glory of our Father.

Peter was not saying, in 1 Peter 3:21, that water baptism was a symbol! He was saying that the flood and the waters that the ark rode upon symbolized baptism.

In the example of Simon the sorcerer and anyone else for that matter, doesn’t save anyone of and by itself. Peter was talking to believers in Acts 2 when he said (in any translation) 1.Repent, and 2.be baptized EVERYONE of you for: the forgiveness (or remission) of sins and 3. you WILL receive the Holy Spirit. This is precisely what Jesus meant when he told Nicodemus “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God”. When a person is baptized (immersed) what do they come out of the water looking like? A newborn baby! Jesus was not being redundant and telling Nicodemus he needed to be born of a woman. He already was! No, Jesus was telling what He repeats in Matthew 28:19 and what John repeats again in 1 John 5:6-8 - “This is he who came by water and blood–Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.”

The water that testifies is not Mary’s afterbirth! It is the baptism by John the Baptist that Jesus was obedient in and the Spirit testified to. Another testimony to water and blood is when both came out of the Savior’s pierced side. Don’t you understand that there was a point to that? Why do you think John made a point of mentioning that and repeating the significance of water AND blood? They go together my friend.

Even if you believe he is wrong, I wish you would feel as Paul that “What then? only that in every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and therein I rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.” (Philippians 1:1

Baptism isn’t optional - it is required and every example of conversion was accompanied by it the same day, if not the same hour. In many cases it was commanded by apostolic authority that the converted be baptized….including Cornelius. Our entire New testament is written or attested to by the Apostles, so why finagle over what they said was required?

There are plenty of scriptures that tell us baptism is how we become clothed in Christ by dying with Him (Romans 6:4-5). Compare Hebrews 10:22 with Titus 3:5. Both refer to water AND Spirit, not the Spirit alone. How do you think we are united with Him in a death like His? It certainly doesn’t mean we are nailed to a cross, but that we were buried with Him in baptism. That’s scripture! Not my opinion.

Jesus was NOT referring only to Jews when He commanded baptism. He told the disciples to go and make disciples of ALL nations and to baptize them and then teach them all that he had commanded them. (Matt 28:19-20)

Baptism without faith is dead. But faith without baptsm is dead also, to paraphrase James, the very brother of Christ Jesus.

There is no point in saying “he that believes not and is not baptized is condemned” because the lack of the first act obviates the second!

The scriptures teach in several ways: direct commands, approved examples, clearly stated principles, and implied principles. Our understanding of these teachings is affected by our fallible reasoning, our pre-existing misconceptions, our incomplete background knowledge, and sometimes by our past experiences and motives (consciously or unconsciously). While the scriptures themselves are infallible, our understanding of the scriptures is subject to error. No human is immune to these kinds of error. Those who believe they are immune may actually be the most susceptible.

No inferred principles of scripture can be bound upon an individual Christian who has not yet perceived and understood those principles for themselves. Otherwise, that Christian is being called to place his faith in the wisdom and truthfulness of man rather than God. Each Christian must keep his own conscience clear (Rom 14:23), and each will appear before God to give an account (Rom 14:10-12).

Some teachings are more clear and obvious than others. The clearest teachings carry the most obvious authority for the church. Those teachings that are more difficult to understand, or are less clear, or are understood with less certainty, should be approached with a corresponding degree of grace, mercy, and humility. We should never forget that our understanding is subject to error.

Certain teachings may seem clear to one honest, God-fearing person but unclear or even incorrect to another honest, God-fearing person. Inferred principles are inherently less clear than directly stated commands and principles. To assess the clarity of a teaching, do not merely think of how clear it seems to you. Also consider at how clear the teaching is to others. How has the teaching been regarded by various church leaders in the past? Do respected people in the past, or today, have different views on the teaching? If so, perhaps it is not such a clear teaching after all. Remember that no lines of fellowship may be drawn based on disputable matters (Rom 14:1).

Israel kept the “annual” feast of the Passover. It was a memorial of their deliverance from slavery in Egypt.  Was it by the direction of God, or by an example of men?

It was during the eating of this memorial that Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper. He gave new meaning to it. “As often” as they ate the Passover, they remembered their deliverance; now, as often as they shall eat of the Lord’s Supper, they will remember their deliverance from sin.  Could not Jesus said “each Sunday” you shall eat of the Lords Supper?  Let me ask an even deeper hermeneutical question — Can a singular example override or restrict a command given by Jesus Christ and repeated by an inspired apostle? In other words, which bears more weight — a command of our Lord ( as often ) or an example of mere men (Acts 7:20 - about which many assumptions must be made)? Which has more authority — a precept of deity or a practice of men?

Following in the context of the Jewish practice, the disciples would understand “as often” to mean annually. The Church of Christ have ignored this contextual meaning, and there is insufficient evidence to prove that the early disciples ate the Lord’s Supper weekly. This is the epitome of legalistic misunderstanding and misapplication of Scripture, and reflects a woeful ignorance of biblical Truth pertaining to the purpose and practice of the Lord’s Supper. Simply stated, it is an elevation of tradition over Truth, with a heaping helping of the hermeneutics of dogmatism thrown in.

The Church of Christ, in their legalistic inclinations, have sought to bind weekly communion per their pet hermeneutic CENI.  The Lord could have specified certain times for it, but he didn’t. The “as often” is left to our discretion.  Scripture has been ransacked and a paltry pack of passages lifted out of context in an effort to support an untenable position. Discerning disciples are increasingly perceiving the fallacy of such narrow-minded, factional thinking. Increasingly, they are turning to a reasoned review of Scripture on the matter, rather than parroting the partyists of the past.

The doctrine of Sunday ONLY observance is derived from deductions made from a singular text by those who perceive the New Covenant writings as being a Law Book filled with proof texts. “And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread…” (Acts 20:7). Well, there you have it. Based on these few words an entire theology has been built.

Sadly, the Church of Christ weekly communion has been reduced to a bare, formal ritual in too many cases. I think that it would serve its purpose better if we communed less often but made it a rich experience each time-like the Passover.

It is love that unites, not doctrinal agreement. Love perfectly unites that which is divided. Even if people should reach perfect agreement on all the points of doctrine, this would not mean perfect unity. Only love made for perfect unity, and this when folk may be quite diverse in their interpretation of much of the Bible.

 It is the Peace of Christ that judges other believers, accepting or rejecting them. This is why we dare not reject anyone that Christ rejects. The party or sect that we may belong to is not to preside as judge in our hearts, rejecting all those who do not toe the party line or who do not properly mouth all the shibboleths.

God has called us together, not into a sect, but into the one Body. We accept each other on that basis, that together we have been called into one Body. For this we are to be thankful, the apostolic orders go on to say. It is a lovely thing to be laid on us, thankfulness. As you read these words I hope you are thankful that the Lord has called you into His church, that He has given you sisters and brothers to accept and love, and that His peace rules as judge in your hearts.

I have no interest in uniting with Methodists, Baptists, Roman or Greek Catholics, Mennonites, or whatever, but only with Christians, who are surely among these denominations as well as among ourselves. I do not even have any interest in uniting with Church of Christ or Christian Church folk, but only with true believers. It is noteworthy that the Scriptures never speak of churches or denominations uniting, but believers in Christ.

Baptism is not administered as a “rite of the church,” as a work of human righteousness or merit, but as an act of faith (Mk. 16:16; James 2:17, 18, 20, 24). Regardless of the animosity toward baptism by some, and in spite of their denial of its place in salvation, it is administered by the authority of Jesus for the remission of sin.

Baptism is a burial (Rom. 6:1-7; Col. 2:12) in water (Jno. 3:1-5; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:38). It is for (unto, toward) the remission of sins (Acts 2:3 and is viewed in scripture as involved in “washing away sins” (Acts 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21). It is understood by Bible students that forgiveness is not in the water, but in the blood of Christ (Mt. 26:26-28; Rom. 6:1-7). However, Jesus has placed the opportunity of reaching that blood in the act of baptism. It is at baptism that the sinner meets the blood of Christ, that the old man of sin dies, and the new birth takes place (Rom. 6:1-7; Jn. 3:1-5).

Baptism is a re-enactment of the sinner for what Jesus did for him (death, burial and resurrection, 1 Cor. 15:1-4). The sinner obeys, in baptism, a “form of the gospel” (Rom. 6:16-1 in that he becomes dead to sin as he repents, is buried in baptism, and arises to a new life in Christ (Rom., 6:1-7). There is no other act of obedience in the New Testament that so fittingly portrays the gospel in our life as baptism. It is an act of faithful obedience (Rom. 1:5; Jn. 6:28-29; 8:39), not an act of merit or of human righteousness (Tit. 3:5). At the time of baptism, Jesus forgives our sins by the power of the blood and adds us to His church (Acts 2:38, 47). And does so despite our ability to grasp or understand it perfectly ( Col. 2:11;12 ) God does the work in baptism, we just simply obey that which Christ commaned. ( Mark 16:16 )

Some suggest the Scriptures specify the day the Lord’s Supper is to be observed, and that day is Sunday. This is perceived as a matter of faith, and those who have embraced this perception will actually go so far as to question the very salvation of those who would suggest any other day as acceptable to God. They further declare it must be observed every Sunday, without fail. To do otherwise is declared soul-damning SIN. They will refuse fellowship with all who differ with them on this issue. Those who do not observe the Lord’s Supper every Sunday, and only on Sunday, are “godless apostates bound for hell – and this is why I think you guys hold a legalistic view of the Lords Supper. 

The doctrine of Sunday ONLY observance is derived from deductions made from a singular text by those who perceive the New Covenant writings as being a Law Book filled with proof texts. “And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread…” (Acts 20:7). Well, there you have it .  Based on these few words an entire theology has been built.

            Christians often label those who disagree with their perception of the Scriptures as “false prophets.”  But does the Holy Spirit employ this expression in this manner?  How can one determine who is and who is not a false teacher?  Is one a sham teacher simply because one believes in instrumental music, handclapping in the assembly, solo singing, Sunday schools, individual communion cups, orphan homes, Bible colleges, and so on?   Just how does one recognize a false teacher?  Are there any criteria in the Scriptures that can assist one in making this determination?

If one can determine who is not a false teacher, then this understanding should help one in deciding who is a true teacher.  First, a false teacher is not necessarily someone who disagrees with one’s own interpretation of a particular passage of Scripture.  In other words, a person who is mistaken is not necessarily a disloyal instructor.  For instance, God has never made absolute perfection in knowledge a condition of fellowship with Him or His children.  If so, no one could be in a right relationship with God or any one else for that matter.  One is not a spurious guide because he or she fails to comprehend some truth that is not a condition for salvation.  Just who is a false prophet?  What do the Scriptures say?  Well, John, the apostle, informs Christians that a false prophet/teacher is one who denies that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.  In fact, he writes:

Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world (1 John 4:1-3).

    For John, the antichrist or false teacher is one who denies that Jesus has come in the flesh.  Is the antichrist one who believes in instrumental music?  Is the antichrist one who believes in Sunday school”?  Is the antichrist one who sings a solo in the assembly of the saints? 

Imperfection in knowledge does not necessarily mean that one is a false teacher.  For example, Paul rebukes the Corinthians for not making allowances for shortcomings in understanding among some believers in the congregation:

I am wrtting this because of the comments posted on Nathans blog http://answeringchurchofchrist.wordpress.com/  from a person who calls theirself “faithful”.  This person seems to be focused upon “law keeping” as a means of keeping one saved.

Do not cofuse the Law with the law of the Spirit of Life, nor wih the law of sin and death.  This is the Old Testament Law, and contained within it, of course, the Ten Commandments.  It is the Law of righteousness: what then could this Law not do?

The Law “made nothing perfect:  (Heb 7:19)  The Law can no more make you godly than a railway guide can make you a train run on time - and by nature you are always behind schedule.  There is good new however, good neews for us all, for God has done what the Law could not do ( Rom 8:3 )

How did He do it?  He did it by sending His Son in a form like that of our own sinful nature, and as a sacrifice for sin.  Though in the likeness of, He the Lord Jesus Christ was not sinful as sinful flesh, for He was without sin.

Every demand made by the Law in righteousness found its complete fullfillment in the person of Jesus Christ.   God sent His Son into the world not only in a form like that of our sinful nature - to condemn sim morally, but as a sacrifice for sin, to condemn it vicariously.  For He hath made Him to be sin for us — that we might be made the righteousness of God through Him.  Jesus died in your place and mine, incurring for our sakes a penalty that He did not deserve. 

Apart from His death, His life could only condemn us, like the law which His life fulfilled; but His death added grace to truth - truth declared by the Law and fulfilled by His life convicts sinners of their sins and tells sinners to be sorry; but grace provided by His death tells sinners who are sorry how thay may be saved.  For the Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ ( John 1:17 )

Lets stop our legalistic law keeping as if somehow we can please God though our works, and lets us draw near to the grace of God and accept what Jesus done on our behalf, and from this, we shall seek to please and obey God from love, not from Law.  If we could meet the requirements of the Law, then Christ came in vain - so lets be thankful that Christ did what we can not and now the love of Christ compels us to follow after His commandments…