Alright....

Where is the Scripture that states that "Communion is the most important part of the service??"

I bring this up, not only because I have dealt with that mentality at times over the last 19 years....but....because we are getting ready to rearrange our worship format....and oh my....we are going to put communion after the sermon!!! What blasphemy!!!

I actually had an elder tell me one time....and this is a direct quote...."Communion is the central part of the service....therefore, it needs to be in the center of the bulletin!!"

Now how can one argue what that "logic"?!?!?!

Again, I think a very Catholic, sacramental view of communion enters the picture when people have this view of communion. This is the view that allows people to leave after communion and believe the "have worshipped God."

Actually attended a church one time where the local Bible College president left after communion every Sunday. Now what did that say to the many students who also attended that church??

Again, keep in mind that communion did not even become part of the worship service until the mid to late second century.

So again, where is the Scripture to support this other long standing "tradition" in the Christian Church?

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

Answers

I knew that would be the one Scripture used to try to prove that communion was the "most important" thing. But it's a strech....at best....and involves a tremendous amount of conjecture.

The text does not say they met on Sunday morning. In fact, the text specifies that Paul preached in the evening....which is the time when Eutychus fell out of the window.

Makes sense!! Following the Agape feast (the Lord's Supper).....they had a service in which Paul became long winded. The boy, who probably had worked all day (since most of the early Christians were slaves).....grew weary after a big meal, sitting in a warm upper room, listening to a long winded preacher.

It is a huge leap to then suggest from this passage....that communion was the most important part of the service.

Acts 2:42 lends support to the idea that all parts are of equal importance....i.e., apostles doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayer.

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

You said all that needed to be said in your first line Sam.

Quote..."I'm pretty sure no case can be made from the scriptures."

My point exactly.....another Christian Church tradition bites the dust.

"Where the Bible speaks....we speak! Where the Bible is silent.....we stretch it!"

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

Sam.....

I can take the instrument....or leave it. I can meet in church buildings or not.

BTW....to equate Lee in any way with Nelta is offensive to me...let alone I'm sure Lee doesn't appreciate it.

My motivation?? Simple!! We are supposed to be a people of the book....giving Bible names to Bible things, etc. I think we discredit ourselves on the important things (i.e., baptism)...where the Bible clearly speaks....when we then stretch the Bible to say things it obviously does not say.

Listen to me carefully.....I can find no justification for the belief that the communion is THE most important part of worship in the N.T.

What I can find justification for is.....that communion is AN important part of the church's gathering and A NECESSARY part.

You see.....you jumped to the conclusion that because I questioned our language and that I was questioning the practice of communion in general.

By the way Darrell.....you do not have to have converted RC's in order to have the doctrine permeate the church. I can walk into just about any Christian Church in America and find practices that follow more Roman tradition....than biblical practice. If you remember your Early Christian Centuries class....you will remember those disucussions.

So my motivation, Sam, is to correct wrong thinking (i.e., communion is the most important part).......that then lead to wrong practice (i.e., taking communion and then getting up and walking out of the service).....and also leads to stupid remarks (i.e., putting it in the center of the bulletin means it's the most important part of the service).

I can't remember whether you are a preacher of not.....but any preacher worth his salt ought to continuously confront traditions that hinder a correct biblical understanding. Jesus did it on a daily basis.

BTW...this is not something new for me. Ask people that know me. I'm noted for questioning things. It's gotten me in trouble quite a bit by "shaking the establishment."

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

Good points Mark!!

Let me ask you, in light of the verses you pointed out.

When someone walks out of the service after they have taken communion because "they came to church to do the most important thing"....have they then, given proper consideration to the other aspects of gathering together that you mentioned from the Scripture??

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

Alright Sammy Boy....

Next time you are in full time ministry.....make a change of worship.....put communion after the sermon.....and find out just "what a big hairy deal" it is!! :)

Mark....

You are right on the money. A professor I respected very much once pointed out that often times the sign of a healthy church is how long people are still around after the service. He said he remembers him and his wife going to bed at the parsonage.....and still hearing people laughing and talking over in the church parking lot an hour and half after the service was over!!!

There is something deeply wrong in a church where people drag in.....and then rush out as soon as the last amen!! They don't have the faintest idea of what "gathering together" is supposed to be about.

I think you have pointed out some very important things Mark.

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

Lee.....

I'm glad if to no one else, at least to you I have been clear.

My only difference with you is in application of the principle of silence (as I'm sure you are aware of this already).

Where as your position is silence prohibits....my postion is where there is silence there is Christian liberty....checked by biblical prohibition.

But that's for another debate if Brother Jack doesn't come through.

Thanks!

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

Sammy Boy....

Your "communion table experience" sums up the purpose of this thread. Thanks. At the church I served in Tampa, FL.....one lady got upset when someone put flowers on the communion table!!

Dr. Jon.....EXACTLY!!! EXACTLY!!!! EXACTLY!!!! Thanks a million!!

Robin.....EXACTLY!!! EXACTLY!!! EXACTLY!!! It is false, erroneous, and Catholic teaching to equate the partaking of the Lord's Supper with "forgiveness of sins." I have heard this prayer around the table...."And Lord, may we be forgiven as we partake." That is a sacramental view of the Lord's Supper.....not biblical. The Lord's Supper is a memorial feast.....nothing more....nothing less.

Lee....no problem.

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

Marc....

I understand perfectly what you are saying....and I would agree.

I just could not support it from the 1 Cor. passage that is under discussion.

The very nature of the symbolism of the Lord's supper demands introspection.

We have VBS this week too. I've avoided the church building like a plague!!! :)

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

Marc,

An axiomatic principle of hermeneutics is......"There is ONLY ONE INTERPRETATION. There may, however, BE MANY APPLICATIONS."

There is a huge difference between INTERPRETATION and APPLICATION.

Hermeneutics does not allow me to give Paul more than one meaning to what he said. However, I'm free to apply the interpretation and the undelying principle any way I desire.

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2000

Faris....

Great point!! Thanks!

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2000

Consider yourself fortunate John.....Lee has chosen not to lump you in with the rest of us preachers in the Christian church who are "openly deceiving" the ones we teach.

Makes me wonder....what have you got that I don't?? (LOL)

I'm still waiting for my apology from Lee on that one (to all of us preachers in the Christian church)....because there will not be any fellowship as long as he maintains that attitude.....instrument aside.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Lee....

All I have to say to you on the subject is found under the thread "It's Time for a Serious Debate"....etc.

The whole tone of that last post of yours (probably inflated by your emotions against Ben).....is one of "all of us are deceived" (i.e., the discussion of the Eve, the Serpent, etc.).

An incongruity to me is that you admit here that you might be wrong....but there you seem to indicate that you "speak for Christ."

I'm really not going to get into this with you Lee....but I think you would have been wise to keep what you initially said and just let Ben talk to himself.

The rhetoric and thus the stakes.....intensified.....and as I said in that thread....all it did was prove Ben's point.

I presume you must be operating under the principle here, that many on this forum have not studied the arguments you will put forward There may be a grain of truth to that....most have probably not taken the time to study the issue.

But for others of us.....as I said on that thread...."there will be nothing new under the sun."

But, I wish you well....and trust the you get full hearing you deserve.....and that you will go away from the experience with your conscience clear before the Lord.

May His peace shine upon you!

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

The scripture I think most will point to is Acts 20:7, "On the first day of the week we came together to break bread." What was the purpose of their coming together on Sunday morning? To "break bread." What is meant by "to break bread"? Most would argue to partake of the Lord's Supper.

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

I'm pretty sure no case can be made from the scriptures. I think, however, that you might make a fairly strong case just from the facts about why we gather in the first place. We come together because we have one common ground -- redemption through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. To commemorate that saving, binding event would be the thing you would want to be sure to do when you gather in worship. Without the cross, the rest would be pointless.

In Revelation 5, the reason that the Lamb is worthy to open the scroll and reveal the plan of God is that He gave Himself as the atoning sacrifice for man's sin. It is the central reason for praise being directed to Him. That may give us a strong argument for saying that the commemoration of that event is the centerpiece of our gathering.

This is not an iron-clad argument, I know, but it's a pretty good one, I think.

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

Perhaps part of the answer herein, is not to be found in the direct statement of scripture persea, but in the emphasis which it found with in the New Testament relative to it. The need to partake of it in a worthy manner, to examine oneself, and others. Why was it so important that the early church meet and do this in rememberance of Him? When I put all of these together it is overpowering as to its highlight in the Worshipppers service upon the first day of the week. Just a thoughtful response, I trust. Bro. Jack

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

Careful, Danny! Before you know it, you'll be saying that there's no scripture that says we have to have church on Sunday, or that we should use a church building, or that we should let instrumental music fall by the wayside! Sorta like a hybrid between Nelta and Lee!

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

The thing that's making me a bit curious here is your motivation, Danny. I don't pretend to know what it is. Perhaps you can explain some.

Are you declaring categorically that the Lord's Supper is NOT the most important part of the worship gathering? Or are you saying it MIGHT be, but we come to that conclusion only by way of something other than scripture? Or are you saying that it definately is NOT because we can't get it from direct statement of scripture? Or are you saying we should get rid of all traditions that can't be seen in direct command from scripture? Or what?

I don't want to put words in your mouth (or in your keyboard). Why this surge of tradition examination?

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

I ran into this just this past Sunday atthe Father/Son Retreat/ The person giving the communion meditation stated catagorically that the ONLY reason we come together on Sunday was for the communion time. The singing, praying, preaching, etc. is great, but not needed.

I found much of the same attitude at one congregaion I served in South Carolina ... and we had very few, if any, converted RC's in the congregation.

My secretary took a hard stance on this as well, and when we discussed it, she said that Acts chapter 2:42 lists communion first, therefore it is the most important. We looked, and it is listed third. So she then stated that it MUST be listed first in the Greek, which would give it more importance ... but again, listed third. So I shared that, by her belief, communion must be the third most important part of the gathering.

Communion IS the most important part of the service ... for some folks. For me, it is the study of the Word. For some, the weekly fellowship ... and for others the time of prayer or singing praises to the Lord. ALL are important, and we all tend to focus on one part of the service as OUR most important.

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

Let me shift the thoughts of where the focus might should be in our assemblies.

Hebrews 10:25 tells us that we should not neglect the assemblying of the saints. But note that the passage is in a context. It is drawing a conclusion about what our activity should be from previous verses. Verse 24 tells us to consider how to spur on each other to love and good deeds.

I Corinthian 14:26 gives a list of things to be done by individuals at a service in Corinth, and concludes with "All of these should be done for the strengthening of the church".

There is another scripture somewhere like this, talking of assemblying together was a means for us to encourage one another, but it eludes me its location at the moment.

Still, I have always (ok, last 15 years or so) taken the purpose of assemblying to be encouraging one another and spurring one another to love and good deeds. God as our creator knows his creation well, and knows that singing, teaching, a memorial service (communion), etc are THE effective ways to achieve that, thus the commandments we have to do those. Going through the motions doesn't cut it, no one is strengthened by doing that.

So, for some, communion may be central, if they are wired by God that way. Singing might be more effective with others, thus they may consider singing more central. Same for other God commanded parts of our assemblies.

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

Danny,

No, I don't think they have given proper consideration to the other aspects of gathering together. Either they have been taught improperly, or in their own study and examining their own "wiring", they have been selfish, neglecting to consider how others might be encouraged. Or worse, they see Christianity as a methodology, a "paint by numbers" religion.

Furthermore (and I hope saying this sparks too much of an inappropriate tangent), in the light of the volume of "one another" commands in the New Testament, I think showing up late and leaving immediately after the last "amen" is wrong. Myself, some Sundays the best encouragement I have gotten and certainly usually the best I have given is in the time before and after any "official assembly time". I make it a habit to show up at least 10 minutes early and stay after at least 5 minutes (and if you stay at least 5, you end up staying 15 or more).

Of course, maybe that attitude is a reflection of being wired for one on one fellowship?

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

You see.....you jumped to the conclusion that because I questioned our language and that I was questioning the practice of communion in general.

Danny, the only conclusion jumping being done is by you. I truly wish you would read what I write and not interject other things into it.

BTW....to equate Lee in any way with Nelta is offensive to me...let alone I'm sure Lee doesn't appreciate it.

Danny, I did not equate anybody with anybody. Look again at what I said . . .

or that we should use a church building, or that we should let instrumental music fall by the wayside! Sorta like a hybrid between Nelta and Lee!

One of Nelta's big things is doing away with the organized church. One of Lee's big things is doing away with the instrumental music. To do both would be to combine some of Nelta's approach to ecclesiology with some of Lee's. That's all I said. Don't make it more than it was.

I can take the instrument....or leave it. I can meet in church buildings or not.

My motivation?? Simple!! We are supposed to be a people of the book....giving Bible names to Bible things, etc. I think we discredit ourselves on the important things (i.e., baptism)...where the Bible clearly speaks....when we then stretch the Bible to say things it obviously does not say.

Listen to me carefully.....I can find no justification for the belief that the communion is THE most important part of worship in the N.T.

And listen to ME carefully . . . what is the big hairy deal here? The statement "Communion is the most important part of worship in the NT" is NOT a traditional position of the Restoration Movement. It holds no status as one of the "shibboleths" of our people. I know that there are some people who would make a big thing of it, but I would not guess that they are in anything like the majority position, and I know of few preachers who would work the positive as strongly as you are working the negative. To say that it is "our language", as you do above, is to give the idea much more credence than I think it carries among our churches.

I can't remember whether you are a preacher of not

Have been, am, and will be again, in regards to various similar positions in the church (preacher, youth minister, traveling ministry teams [read "CIY"], elder, worship leader, Sunday School teacher, etc.).

.....but any preacher worth his salt ought to continuously confront traditions that hinder a correct biblical understanding. Jesus did it on a daily basis.

BTW...this is not something new for me. Ask people that know me. I'm noted for questioning things. It's gotten me in trouble quite a bit by "shaking the establishment."

That's fine. Shake the establishment all you want. Question all you care to. You have my blessing and encouragement. I was just wondering why this was such a big issue. I haven't seen it be such, outside of a few scattered examples. Maybe it's bigger than I have seen.

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

Brother Danny:

I appreciate your clarification, which is what I suspected was your purpose in speaking of this issue, that shows your intent is to correct an egregious error and not to diminish the significance of our communing with our Lord at His table. Your words were as follows:

So my motivation, Sam, is to correct wrong thinking (i.e., communion is the most important part).......that then lead to wrong practice (i.e., taking communion and then getting up and walking out of the service).....and also leads to stupid remarks (i.e., putting it in the center of the bulletin means it's the most important part of the service).

I must state that I agree with your point that you have made here and I wish to offer some words explaining why with the hope that I can be helpful.

We do have a tendency to think in terms of what is central and most important. But God has not given his commandments to us in the order of their importance. And though I cannot say why he has done this, I do suspect that it was because of the propensity of man to perfunctorily do what is most important so that he can meet the minimum requirements and neglect all else. The only place that I know where Christ discussed the importance of one commandment over the other is when the Pharisees asked him the same question that has been asked so often. What is the greatest commandment of the Law and he replied,  Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy strength and with all thy mind and the second is LIKE UNTO IT love thy neighbor as thyself, upon these hang all the law and the prophets. When, however one begins to examine and practice these two commandments he will find that he must obey all of Gods commandments without neglecting any or placing any greater importance upon one over the other. Jesus said, If ye love me KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS. And whatsoever we ask we receive of Him because we keep his commandments and do that which is PLEASING in His sight. And this is His commandment that we believe in the name of His son Jesus Christ, and love one another even as He has given us commandment. (1John 3:22). If one says that he loves God and hates his brother he is a LIAR. If one says that he loves God and disobeys any of His commandments he is also lying to God. If we think that we can neglect the assembling of ourselves together we do not love God because He commanded us to do so. If we think for one moment that we can neglect Gods commands that we pray, continue in the apostles doctrine, break bread, and fellowship one another we are woefully self deceived. If we think we can neglect any of Gods commandments so long as we keep the ones WE HAVE DECIDED are the most important ones we have miserably wandered from the faith once delivered to the saints.

Thus we can see that we cannot do what Christ said was the most important, which is to LOVE GOD. We cannot LOVE GOD with all of our hearts and neglect any of what He has revealed through his word that we should do. Therefore, while it is without question true that the Lords Supper is crucial and important because it is a communion with our Lord Jesus Christ. And because we commune with Him there we may have the sense that this is the ONLY thing that matters and that it is by far the MOST IMPORTANT AND CENTRAL. We must know that the singing and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs and the singing and making melody with our hearts to the Lord are no less important. For to neglect to do so is to demonstrate a lack of LOVE FOR GOD for if we love God we will keep His commandments and this is also one of his commandments. Prayer is also commanded and is just as important to our demonstration of LOVE to God. So also is our diligence to continue steadfastly in the apostles doctrine. Even the taking of the Lords Supper requires that we examine ourselves and take in a worthy manner. This examination, if done properly, would cause us to consider if we have loved God by keeping His commandments. So that one who neglects all that he considers less important commands of God than the taking of the Lords Supper is never going to be able to pass the examination of Himself prior to communing with the Lord. He will only stand in grave danger of drinking damnation to his own soul.

For one who loves God and keeps his commandments, the issue of which commands are more important than others never arises in his heart for he has set his mind to do according to all that God has commanded and is diligent to not willfully neglect any of Gods will.

I believe therefore that Brother Danny is correct in that he is attempting to correct this egregious practice of rushing in to take the Lords Supper and rushing out shortly thereafter as if all else that God has commanded is insignificant by his HUMAN comparison. I once knew of a brother who, during the summer, spent his entire weekends on the Lake and he would do this. He finally made things more convenient when he realized he could make good use of the communion kits that were being used to take the communion to the shut ins. He just took the Lords Supper with him and he therefore did not even need to leave his fishing boat while he communed with the Lord. I am not sure what would have happened if he snagged a BIG FISH while in the process of so communing with the Lord on the Lake. But I would venture to say that his view that the Lords Supper was CENTRAL would undergo a rapid reassessment and that he would be very busy reeling in the BIG ONE which his actions had already demonstrated was the truly IMPORTANT thing in his life!

But, and I think brother Danny would agree, that we do not in any way imply that the Lords supper is less significant. Nor do I believe that such a position denies the natural central place that CHRIST has in our worship. Christ is without doubt the focus of all our worship and the Lords Supper is the place where he has promise to sup with us and commune with us. Because we sense the presence of Christ with us as we commune with Him it is natural to have the perception that this is the MOST IMPORTANT. But without faithful obedience of all else that He has commanded us the Lords Supper cannot have a central place. Therefore, unless Christ is the center of our lives nothing can be central in our worship for we cannot approach him in a spirit of disobedience. If He is not our Lord we may come to the table but we may find ourselves eating alone. How could such be central to our worship? He will eat with whom He Chooses. But those who are faithful can expect to eat with Him. None, who continue to neglect the commands of God which they have determined for themselves to be less important than any of Gods commands, including the Lords supper, can have any such assurance unless they repent and ask for forgiveness.

So I will finish my comments upon this by stating that CHRIST OUR LORD IS THE CENTER AND FOCUS OF OUR Worship and our service and our entire lives. Whosoever forsaketh not all that he has cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:27, 33. Those who seek to please themselves by following their own view of what is important and are therefore unwilling to sacrifice themselves and their desires to the will of Christ cannot be His disciple. This abuse of the Lord's Supper is not the only example of such relagation of God's will beneath the will of Man. The only safe way to avoid such nonsense is to always have a "THUS SAITH THE LORD" for all that we believe and practice in our work, worship, and service to God. We must sacrifice ourselves first to God which is our reasonable service. ( Romans 12:1,2). By doing so we can be "transformed". Without it we may only be slightly reformed though stilled basically CONFORMED to this world. But with having made such a total sacrifice we will be completely TRANSFORMED into the image of Christ our Lord who never selected any of God's commandments as being more significant and important that God Himself revealed them to be.

I pray that we will focus upon Christ and sacrifice ourselves to His service and follow all His commands without any HUMAN distinctions of one over and to the neglect of any of the others.

While this is true, let us not overlook the fact that Christ must always be at the center of all that we do. " And whatsoever ye do in word or deed do ALL in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ..." (Col. 3:17). TO do something in the name of Christ means to do it by HIS AUTHORITY. Therefore we must "speak as the bible speaks and be silent where it is silent" and we must have a "thus saith the Lord" for all that we do otherwise we cannot obey the injunction to do all in the "name of Christ". There are many things that are being done in the "name" of our own desires and human wisdom that are not authorized by Christ. We must illimante those and do as you have recommended. "Speak as the bible speaks and be silent where it is silent" and to to "bible things in bible ways". We therefore must have a "thus saith the Lord" for all that we do. If all would seek for such before they begin to introduce practices or behaviors among Christians we would have far less confusion and lack of true faith among us.

Your Brother In Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

Alright Sammy Boy.... Next time you are in full time ministry.....make a change of worship.....put communion after the sermon.....and find out just "what a big hairy deal" it is!! :)

Actually, we have . . . in every church I've served with over the years. We've moved it all around the service, except for being at the very beginning. Rural Illinois, eastern North Carolina, "big- town" Oklahoma (not that there ARE any big towns there), metropolitan St. Louis . . .

I acknowledge that it is a problem for some people. One time, on a weekend traveling with CIY at a small church in Virginia, our team leader made the egregious error of (don't feint, now) walking in front of the communion table after it had been prepared for the morning service. He was soundly thrashed by an elder at the church.

I would think that this is a bigger problem in some denominational churches overall. But I do acknowledge your concerns and corrections.

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

I've been following this thread at a distance. debating if I should make a comment. Communion is another of those subjects that my aversion to Catholicism comes out on.

In the Roman Catholic tradition, comuunion is the focal point of the whole service. The sermon is probably only 15-20 minutes long. The whole service shouldn't last more than 45 minutes. Why? Because the central point of the service is the Eucharist (the proper term). The Eucharist is the central point of the service (the Mass) because Roman Catholic doctrine holds that the wafer _physically_ and _actually_ becomes the body of Christ, and the wine _physically_ and _actually_ becomes the blood of Christ. Thus, where they are gathered Christ is "with them." The doctrine is called transubstantiation.

What's that got to do with anything? The Romish concept of communion is non-biblical. For a "Protestant," "Reformed," or "Restored" church to follow that practice is unbiblical. Making communion the central point of a church service is essentially creating a watered- down Roman Catholic Mass. I can never understand why anyone wants to introduce Romish practices into our churches. The only reason I can think anyone would want it is because RC ritual is like clockwork and doesnt require any work on the part of the participants. The clergy does everything; its the lazy man's way out. 45 minutes of religious ritual puts you in good with God for the whole week, and maybe for eternity.

The early churches "broke bread" during a common meal and at the same time remembered the broken body and shed blood of Christ for them. No magic rites, no ceremonies. They did it as they fellowshipped together. As part of these fellowships they also were taught from scripture. When I read the book of Acts the most important part of these get-togethers was the people being taught by an apostle, not having communion. Let's keep the concept in context. There were no church buildings, no clergy, no special anything (other than the apostles), just believers who joined together in a common purpose to worship and learn about their new faith. Everything that happened was practical, not ritual.

The Gospel and New Testament practice is pretty simple. But because (in my biased opinion) no church or organization has 100% purged Roman Catholic practices from their services, there exists confusion about true NT practice. This is because we unconsciously or consciously compare NT practices to what we have seen or grew up with, which are modified RC rituals. This confusion especially exists around the subject of the Lord's Supper. The primary thing which differentiates a Roman Catholic Mass from the Protestant/ Reformed/ Separatist/ whatever service is that the PREACHING OF THE WORD is the focal point. In my estimation, to change that emphasis is to turn away from historic and biblical Christianity, and to embrace Catholicism.

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

Excellent, Dr. Jon.

I couldn't agree more.

Watching and waiting.

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

The teaching or understanding that causes people to 'centralize' communion above other things (and to stick around until after it and then leave) is the belief that it is necessary for the ongoing forgiveness of sins. I believe this understanding is quite prevelant in the Christian church and also comes from the Roman Catholic's, doesn't it?

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

Brother Danny:

I am glad that we agree on this issue and that we basically understand each other. I do however want to correct one thing that I believe is a misunderstanding in your following words:

My only difference with you is in application of the principle of silence (as I'm sure you are aware of this already). Where as your position is silence prohibits....my postion is where there is silence there is Christian liberty....checked by biblical prohibition.

My application of the principle of silence is not as you have stated. You say that my position is silence prohibits. This is not exactly correct though it is what many seem to perceive my position to be. My position is that when God specifies he thereby excludes all other than that which he specified. Thus his specifications are the thing that prohibits or excludes that which is other than the thing specified in the command. The silence is the natural result of such and hence is evidence of such specification rather than the thing that prohibits all else. A scriptural example of this principle of Gods specifications excluding all other than the thing specified and how silence was evidence of the specification is found in Hebrews 7:12-14 which says,  For the priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these things are said belongeth to another tribe, from which no man hath given attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe MOSES SPAKE NOTHING CONCERNING PRIEST. (Heb 7:12-14). Now from this passage we know that God had specified which tribe was to give attendance at the altar. We know from the Old Testament that he had specified the tribe of Levi. When he made this specification he thereby naturally excluded all from any of the other tribes from being priest. The silence concerning all of the others was the natural result of his specifying the tribe of Levi. There was no need for him to specifically FORBID each of the other tribes in order to prohibit them from serving at the altar. His specifying the tribe of Levi was sufficient to prohibit all others. Hence his silence concerning all of the other tribes was only further evidence that he has clearly specified only one tribe, the tribe of Levi, to serve as priest. And this prohibition, of which his silence was evidence, was clear to all without any misunderstanding at all. And Paul, whom I believe wrote the book of Hebrews by inspiration, refers to the silence of Moses as evidence that God did not authorize anyone but the tribe of Levi to serve as priest under the Law. In support of his assertion that no one from the tribe of Judah could serve as priest under the law, the Hebrew writer says, of which tribe Moses SPAKE NOTHING CONCERNING PRIEST as evidence that God had spoken of only one tribe to serve at the altar. All others were prohibited by his specification of only one tribe, the tribe of Levi, and his silence concerning all of the other tribes was evidence or conclusive proof that he had specified that tribe only and thereby excluded all others. Therefore, it is not silence alone that prohibits but specification previously made and re-enforced by silence concerning everything other than the thing specified that prohibits all else.

There are many things that God has been silent concerning which we are at liberty to do or not as we chose. But there is nothing that God has specified and re-enforced with silence concerning things outside of HIS specification that we are at liberty to do. We are not at liberty to do anything other than that which God has specified that we should do in the commands that he has given wherein he has specified the thing to be done. Therefore, if the silence is connected thusly to a clear specification of God it is evidence of a specification that excludes or prohibits all else. But it is not the silence that prohibits, rather it is Gods specifications that prohibit our going outside of his specific requirements.

I hope that this clears up the matter of silence forbids being my position. For such is a complete misunderstanding of the position that I believe to be scriptural. I agree that this is a subject to be taken up later in our debate with Brother Jack. But this principle applies to more than the instrumental music debate. As can be seen from the passage I have quoted above from Hebrews, it applied in the prohibition of any tribe other than the tribe of Levi serving as priest. God prohibited all others by specifying the tribe of Levi and re-enforcing that specification by his silence or speaking nothing concerning any other of the tribes concerning the priesthood.

But you are not responsible totally for your perception. I believe that we have often left the perception that Gods silence alone is the thing that prohibits. This is not an accurate perception and I hope that I can correct this perception that we have inadvertently given by emphasizing the silence which is evidence of Gods exclusion by specifying only one thing and speaking nothing of anything else rather than the actual specification that excludes all else. I do sincerely think that this is one of the reasons that we have never been able to resolve our difference over the issue of instrumental music as well as several other issues throughout the restoration movement.

I only offer this as an effort to explain that I will not be coming to the debate with brother Jack with the hermeneutic that silence prohibits but rather it is evidence of a prohibition found in the definite specifics of Gods commands.

I sincerely hope that this gives at least some food for thought and will prepare others to not assume their perception that I am arguing that silence prohibits is a correct one. I would say silence is evidence of an existing prohibition. Such prohibition resides within Gods specific requirements wherein God has specified the thing to be done and thereby excluded all else. His silence concerning all else is evidence that he has excluded anything outside of His definite specifications as the example from Hebrews above demonstrates.

I know that you are wise, Brother Danny, and I will listen intently to you, as I will Brother Jack. You are correct in saying that this will be discussed in more detail later. I just wanted to clarify my position before others absorb an incorrect perception before the debate begins.

I hope you understand my purpose in writing this post.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

Danny,

If, as you say, "The Lords Supper is a memorial feast" (which I agree with)... and if, as you have said on the previous thread that the Corinthians problem was NOT the fact that they were not "remembering" the Lord properly... then what about the person who does not properly remember the Lord while partaking of the Lords Supper?

I think (forgive me if I am wrong) that this was Robins point on the previous thread... the fact that we are to examine ourselves in ALL areas of our life... not just whether or not we are right with the other Christians, but whether we are right with God and part of this is a proper understanding and remembrance.

I hope this makes sense... this is VBS week and my mind is not at full capacity:)... and we are getting ready to move and could use your prayers as we move and start working for the Lord in a new area.

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

Danny,

Thank you, I think that is what I was trying to say... just maybe not as clear:)

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2000

Lee;

Only one problem with your analogy. "Moses spoke nothing concerning priests" from the tribe of Judah, this is true; but it is not true that He was entirely silent on the subject of who may and may not serve as priests. In fact He was quite specific that only those from the tribe of Levi, of the direct line of Aaron, had that right. Anyone else presuming that office was "offering strange fire" and was to be put to death. That point is stated several times in the Old Testament, so there was really no need for Moses to speak anything specifically relating to priests coming out of Judah; that would be redundant. It was understood to be inclusive in the already stated (not silent) prohibition.

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2000

(Not meaning to start an argument ... its just that I go around this mulberry bush with Mormons, who want to be priests too and want to use this "out"; so it touched a sore spot. Sorry.)

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2000

John:

You need to read my post again. I made it clear that Moses specified the tribe of LEVI and it was the inspired writer of Hebrews who said that MOSES SPAKE NOTHING CONCERNING the tribe of Judah serving as preist. Now my point was that those from the tribe of Judah could not serve at the alter because 1.) God had specified the tribe of Levi and 2) he said nothing concerning the tribe of Judah. In fact he said nothing concerning any other tribe serving at the altar. My point was that it was the specification of Levi and the silence concerning Judah and the other tribes was evidence of this specification which prohibited the other tribes. It was the specification of Levi that prohibited Judah and the other tribes from attending at the altar.

I did not say that it was the silence that "prohibited" but it was the specification of Levi that excluded all others and it was the Hebrew writer that made an argument from "silence" to show that Judah could not sever as priest. He said that our Lord sprung from Judah of which tribe MOSE SPAKE NOTHING CONCERNING PRIEST. This silence was evidence that God had specified Levi and no other tribe but it was not the cause of the prohibition. I will not be arguing that silence is the what prohibits instrumental music but rather the specification of God concerning the Music that he has specifically required.

Now that was my point and if you would read what I said rather than what you "expect me to say" you would see that I have not argued as you claim in your response. you have completely missed the point. i said that the specification is what prohibits and that the silence is often evidence of such specification as it was in the case of the rtribe of Judah according to the INSPIRED WRITER of Hebrews.

And your comparing me and my argument with that of Mormons is completely unjustified and is clear evidence that you did not read what I said at all. Go back, John and read what I said rather than what you would like for me to have said. Read what I actually said. And please be fair and reconsider your unjust comparison of my argument with that of Mormons. I have debated mormons often and do not hold any positions soimil;ar to theirs and my position on this passage is not even remotely related to their contentions. And you should be able to know that difference clearly.

Try to read it again for you have missed the point entirely and you have assumed much that I have not said and you appear to even be denying what the inspired writer of Hebrews said. It is obvoious that at least, form even your view, the tribe of Judah could not serve as priest because God specified Levi and SPAKE NOTHING CONCERNING JUDAH. No that is what the Hebrew writer said. You do not appear to have really read and understood my argument. For I have not claimed that silence alone prohibits. I have claimed and I will prove in the debate that God's specifications prohibit and silence is in some matters evidence pointing to the thing specified.

God specified clearly the tribe of LEVI and the Writer of Hebrews uses the silence of God concerning the tribe of Levi to point toward the specification of Levi and Levi only as priest. That was my argument.

Now I do not think that you desire to deliberately misrepresent me. So please read again. I am not making an argument solely from silence. If you cannot understand what I have written then I do not have time to repeat myself. But you are either misunderstanding me or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I have said. I prefer to think that you have misread what I have said.

But comparing me to the Mormons no justification whatsoever, if that is what you intend to be doing with your comment concerning mormons.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2000

Danny

Another tradition. "broken body" & shed blood. Crucified, beaten with a whip, slapped, spit upon and speared, but, "not broken". Perfect sacrifice as in Passover sacrifice. I have heard this, "broken body", said for years. I suspect that the majority of people that pray using this phrase are refering to the abuse to the body of Christ rather than infering "broken" as in bones. This is a phrase/tradition I can do without.

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2000

Faris,

I always heard that phrase as taken from KJV I Cor 11:24.

Keith

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2000

Keith

I'm at work, no books, so this will be brief. Thanks for the reply. I checked the NIV and do not find "broken". Can you tell me the Greek for 1 Cor. 11.24. "Broken" seems a contradiction to the requirements for the Passover sacrifice. When I hear "broken" I automatically think of broken bones. Perhaps I read to much into it.

I have heard far better men than Me pray using this phrase. I guess my point would be that we learn from those that go before us. Sometimes tradition is good and sometimes it is established in error. We need to correct that which is error. I suspect that most who pray or speak of the broken body are repeating something heard from other faithful men. But, that does not make it true although it does seem to establish tradition.

Don't run "in the church"? Don't eat "in the church"? When we come in to the church we should be very quiet because this is "Gods house"? We are having company so we are going to leave right after communion?

It has been my observation that many of the fast growing congregations are those that have abandoned tradition and strive to remain true to scripture.

It is not my purpose to belittle others that have said or done these things,"I still have a problem with the log in my eye" but am always hopeful that we constantly strive to abandon tradition when tradition is in conflict with the word of God.

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2000

klao -- to break
used in the NT of the breaking of bread

Strong's number 2806.

The Greek word behind John 19:36, refering to bones not broken, is transliterated suntribo, and can be translated break (into pieces) or to "tread down", tramble, crush, shatter one's strength, i.e. utterly defeat.

If stuck away from books but with internet access, try http://www.biblestudytools.net/

Using the parallel bible feature on that site, which has a dozen or so translations, some have variations on "which is broken for you" and others "which is for you". A footnote on three or four of them which have "which is for you" says variations on "some ancient manuscripts `which is broken for you'"

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2000

Mark

Thanks.

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2000

When a dog bites, and punctures, the skin, the skin is said to have been "broken". The doctor will ask, "Where did he bite you? Did he break the skin?", meaning, "Was the surface of the skin torn or puctured in such a way that disease could enter?"

To speak of Jesus' broken body, while perhaps not a scriptural term, is perfectly appropriate. If the surface of the skin is torn, then it can be said to have been "broken." Has nothing to do with bones.

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2000

Thanks Mark, I didn't get home until after 11:00 p.m. so I could not answer until you had already answered it.

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2000

Lee;

I apologize if I gave the impression that I was comparing you to Mormons. That would be offensive! I merely meant to say that the logic sounded similar.

I still say that your logic doesn't follow through, to bring it over as a "non-instrumental" prooftext is invalid. Here, we have silence with regard to Judah, because we have God speaking plainly in regard to Levi (specifically Aaron) and only that tribe. Now you say we have silence with regards to instruments in church, and with that I would agree. But unless I am not following you, you seem to suggest that that is a parallel to Moses being silent with Judah. For which I would say, where then is the specific written prohibition against instruments (or pro-voice only) that would correspond in parallel to Moses' specific prohibition of non-Levitical priests? If the first is a parallel, then there must needs be the other or it is an erroneous comparison.

-- Anonymous, June 17, 2000

Brother John:

I appreciate your clarification that my arguments are not the same as the "Mormons". I am happy to know that you did not mean it that way. I am also happy to notice that you understand what I am saying with these words:

"For which I would say, where then is the specific written prohibition against instruments (or pro-voice only) that would correspond in parallel to Moses' specific prohibition of non- Levitical priests? If the first is a parallel, then there must needs be the other or it is an erroneous comparison."

I am saying that God has specified the voice to be accompanied by the heart only just as he specified Levi only to be priest. I have not said anything about a specific "prohibition" of instruments other than the specification of the heart only as the authorized instrument designed "metephorically" to accompany our singing. THis is going to be my contention that as Levi was specifically commanded to serve as priest and this specific command excluded anyone from the tribe of Judah serving as priest and thereby forbidded them from serving as priest even so the specification of vocal music metephorically accompanied by the "plucking and playing or making melody" upon the specified instrument of our hearts excluds any other instruments that were not specified in that command. We are commanded to sing and to accompany that singing with the heart. Christ "spoke nothing" concerning the use of any ather instrument. Just as God through Moses specified the tribe of Levi and in so doing excluded Judah and the other tribes from serving as priest so Christ has specified the heart as the instrument to accompany our singing and thereby has excluded all else is exactly my contention. Therefore I believe that I will be able to show a "thus saith the Lord" concering the "heart" as the only authorized instrument to be "played" in accompaniment to our singing as commanded by Christ our Lord.

Now this response is not intended to develope that argument in detail, which I will reserve until Brother Jack and I debate the matter, it is designed only for the purpose of not ignoring the things you have said. I am trying to respond when I can to your comments, Brother John, but I am very busy in my new Job and cannot respond to much until the debate which will have a set time when both Brother Jack and I will have the time to respond accurately and thoughtfully to each other.

So I am saying that we have a "thus saith the Lord" indicating the "voice only" as you put it though I would say it indicates the voice accompanied by the playing upon the instrument of the "heart". The word "only" is not a part of the command for as it was not a part of thecommand specifing Levi. The specific command excludes anything other than that specified in the command as was the case with Levi. Judah was excluded by the simple fact that LEVI was specified. Even so, all other instruments have been excluded by the simple fact that our Lord has spicifed the Heart to accompany our singing.

Please understand that I do not want to go much into the specific details of this argument before the debate. I sincerely hope you will respect that fact. I only wanted to indicate that you appear to be accurately understanding just what I mean by my argument from the passage in Hebrews, now that you have seperated it from the arguments made by the "Mormons". I do appreciate the fact that you have done that.

I am also thankful for your following admission:

"Now you say we have silence with regards to instruments in church, and with that I would agree."

It is true that Christ, our Lord has not commanded that we use any mechanical instruments of music to accompany our singing when we praise God or "teach and admonish" one another in song. This is a very important point to keep in mind during the debate.

I apologize for the delay in responding to what you have said but I am very busy these days. I would sincerely appreciate it if you will understand that I do not wish to develope this argument further until the debate itself. I am not in any way seeking to ignore your words but only asking that I be allowed the opportunity to develope this argument in detail and in a logical and connected seguence with other arguments that strengthen this position in the debate. For that reason I will refrain from any further conversation about it in the forum. But it will be covered in detail in the debate and Brother Jack will respond wisely to it and I promise you that I will listen intently to his response and give him my serious and sincere attempt to understand and if possible agree with what he has to say concerning it. If he can show me from the word of Christ that I have misunderstood or that I am in error about the matter I will be happier than any man to know it. But until I am convinced otherwise, I will continue to claim that my proposition is the truth from Christ our Lord.

May our Lord abundantly bless you in all things good. I want you to know Brother John, that I am in fellowship with you in every way possible. You and I have joined hands in refuting the serious errors of numerous false teachers that have sought to pervert the gospel of Christ and in this way we have enjoyed fellowship in the defense of the truth. Because we differ about this subject does not mean that I have a breach in my fellowship with you as a brother in Christ. It does however prevent us from enjoying fellowship with each other when we sing and admonish one another for I cannot conscienciously worship God with the use of any instrument other than the one that he has clearly specified to be used to accompany our singing praises to Him and teaching and admonishing one another in song.

So please understand that though we cannot fellowship or "jointly participate" in the practice of using mechanical instruments in the worship, which you agree Christ has not commanded, does not mean that I am not in fellowship with you as a brother in Christ. I do not see any reason why I cannot fellowship with you in joint participation with you in all that we agree that our Lord has commanded us to do and preaching the gospel is one of those things.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Brother Danny:

You have said:

Lee has chosen not to lump you in with the rest of us preachers in the Christian church who are "openly deceiving" the ones we teach.

What I have said of Brother John applies with equal force to all of my Brethren in the Christian Church. As always, when you question anything that I say I stop, look and listen. I sincerely seek to examine all that I have said and determine if there is any that I need to reconsider and repudiate. I have done just that because I highly respect you, Brother Danny. I have read and reread my words and have not yet found anything that I see could be justly construed to mean that my brethren in the Christian Church are openly deceiving those whom they teach. It may be that I just do not know what you mean by openly deceiving. I assume that you mean, deliberately deceiving. Now, there is no doubt, and I have never denied it, that I believe that you are in error on this subject and that when you teach others this error you are perpetuating it. You see this is one of Satans great weapons. He loves to deceive good men and use them to deceive others very much against their will. If it turns out that I am in error concerning this subject and since I have been teaching this error for so many years I would equally apply to me that I have been used, by Satan, against my will to deceive others. But that does not mean that I can be justly accused of deliberate deception. Just like Paul, who persecuted the Church thinking that he was rendering a faithful service to God. He said that he did it ignorantly in unbelief. He also affirmed that he did it in all good conscience. But he did persecute the church. Now there is no doubt that in many subjects good men have been deceived into believing a lie and perpetuating it in their teachings. This could happen to me as well as any Christian church preacher that I know. I believe, in relation to this subject that they are in error and are unwittingly being used by Satan to perpetuate it. Now it may be that I am the one in error and Satan has been using me to perpetuate error. The only thing that will help us to avoid being deceived by Satan is to continually examine our beliefs in the light of Gods word. That is the reason that I have been urging that we debate this subject so that we can examine ourselves and be sure that we are following the truth.

I do not doubt that all of us sincerely believe that we are right. But I do deny that it is impossible, because of such belief, for us to sincerely review our arguments and have them reviewed by our brethren so that we can prove all things and hold fast to that which is good.

Now you have not told us just exactly what I have said that caused you to draw the conclusion that I have said that you and the other Christian Church preachers are openly deceiving, by which I assume you mean deliberately deceiving those whom you teach. Would you please quote my exact words that caused you to believe that I have said such a thing? If you will do that and I can see that there is the slightest possibility that my words could justly be construed to mean such a thing you will not have to wait for an apology from me! For I do not believe any such thing and therefore would not wittingly or willingly say such. But I have searched through my words and I have not found anything that I believe could be justly taken in that way. Now I know that you have good reason to think that I have said such a thing but I cannot apologize in sincerity until I know that I have in fact said something like that. For I can assure all of you that I do not believe that to be the case and if I have said such a thing I will promptly apologize for it.

So Brother Danny, please give me the benefit of having the opportunity to know just exactly which words have I said that caused you to believe that I accuse my brethren in the Christian Church of deliberately, knowingly and openly deceiving those whom they teach concerning this subject. If I have even remotely said such a thing I can assure you that you will promptly receive a sincere and well- deserved apology from me.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Lee, you wrote,

Christ "spoke nothing" concerning the use of any other instrument.

Yet Moses spoke reams regarding any other priests but of the tribe of Levi, so your parallel does not hold water.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

John, of course he spoke concerning other priest of the tribe of Levi. But he spoke nothing concerning priest of a different class or tribe. So my case is exactly parallel. Christ spoke of singing and he chose the instrument which is the human heart which is used in singing and it is not a different class or outside of the human being that he wants to be completely offered to Him. (Romans 12:1,2). But your mechanical instruments are of a completely different class of music or tribe you might say. Yes they are exactly parallel though you do not want then to be the fact is that they are and the fact that Moses spoke of priest from different priest from the same tribe does nothing to negate that simple fact. Actually if you go and study the details, which I have told you I will reserve for the debate you will even find restrictions within the very tribe of Levi which are made in this same fashion. But for now, I will simply do as you have done. I will simply assert that they are in fact very much parallel.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Lee, you said,

But he spoke nothing concerning priest of a different class or tribe.

Quite the contrary. Consider the following:

The LORD said to Moses, "Bring the tribe of Levi and present them to Aaron the priest to assist him. They are to perform duties for him and for the whole community at the Tent of Meeting by doing the work of the tabernacle. They are to take care of all the furnishings of the Tent of Meeting, fulfilling the obligations of the Israelites by doing the work of the tabernacle. Give the Levites to Aaron and his sons; they are the Israelites who are to be given wholly to him. Appoint Aaron and his sons to serve as priests; anyone else who approaches the sanctuary must be put to death." (Numbers 3:5-10)

Numbers 18:1-7 The LORD said to Aaron, "You, your sons and your father's family are to bear the responsibility for offenses against the sanctuary, and you and your sons alone are to bear the responsibility for offenses against the priesthood. Bring your fellow Levites from your ancestral tribe to join you and assist you when you and your sons minister before the Tent of the Testimony. They are to be responsible to you and are to perform all the duties of the Tent, but they must not go near the furnishings of the sanctuary or the altar, or both they and you will die. They are to join you and be responsible for the care of the Tent of Meeting--all the work at the Tent--and no one else may come near where you are.

"You are to be responsible for the care of the sanctuary and the altar, so that wrath will not fall on the Israelites again. I myself have selected your fellow Levites from among the Israelites as a gift to you, dedicated to the LORD to do the work at the Tent of Meeting. But only you and your sons may serve as priests in connection with everything at the altar and inside the curtain. I am giving you the service of the priesthood as a gift. Anyone else who comes near the sanctuary must be put to death."

Moses was VERY SPECIFIC concerning priests of a different tribe (which is why he didn't say anything specific about any one tribe, such as Judah -- this globally covers them all) ... he says very plainly that they were to be put to death.

I just don't see this sort of extremely specific prohibition against musical instruments anywhere in the New Testament.

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2000

If you will read those verses in context, Brother John, you will find that they are speaking only to and about the tribe of Levi. Nothing is said in them about any other tribe. THis was God's instruction making it clear that even within the tribe of Levi only AARON's SON's could approach the sactuary. All other Levites would be put to death for approaching such. But nothing is said forbiding the tribe of Judah or the other tribes. But this specification clearly prohibited all others and once again you fail miserably, John, in showing that this case is not exactly parallel. If those from the other tribes were like you and others they would say, God has not specifically said anything against someone from the tribe of Judah serving at the alter or being priest. All of these restrictions are addressed to the one tribe of Levi and AARON and his sons. But GOd has not said any word of prohibition about the tribe of JUDAH. You do not find any words which were addresed to restrict directly the tribe of Judah from serving as priest. The simple fact that Levi is the only one that was given authority to attend to the altar and that even within that tribe others were restricted was sufficent proof that no other tribes were authorized. So again I tell you John these matters are exactly parallel. And again I will tell you that it is my intent to develop the details of this argument in the debate. I do not have the time to do it right now.

But remember, it is not me that made this argument from "silence" as you would call it. It is the inspired writer of the book of Hebrews. He said plainly of the tribe of Judah that Moses "SPAKE NOTHING CONCERNING PRIEST". But you are saying that the inspired writer of the book of Hebrews did not know his old testament very well because Moses had "lots to say" about these other tribes including Judah". Now whom do you think we should believe? THe inspired writer of Hebrews or Brother John who has failed to read the entire context of the passages which he quotes. Even reading them as you find them quoted here will not find any direct reference to Judah concerning priest.

So, brother John, while I do not have time to go into the details of this with you, I do suggest that you wait until the debate and allow me the opportunity to develop the argument in all of it's detail before you make judgement upon it. So far you have not said anything that has proven the inspired writer of the book of Hebrews to be wrong when he said concerning the tribe of Judah that, "concerning which tribe MOSE SPAKE NOTHING CONCERNING PRIEST". THose are not my words, Brother John, they are the words of the inspired writer of the book of Hebrews.

SO if you must continue to argue about this argue with the inspired writer of the book of Hebrews. For he said that Moses "SPAKE NOTHING" and you say he said a lot. You and the Hebrew writer are not in agreement. One of you is wrong. I put my "money" on the writer of the book of Hebrews.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2000

Brother Lee;

"... anyone else who approaches the sanctuary must be put to death." "... no one else may come near." "Anyone else who comes near the sanctuary must be put to death." This SPECIFICALLY excludes all other tribes other than the one being mentioned. "No one else" means NO OTHER TRIBE. HE is speaking about the one tribe, but he is making it excruciatingly clear that all the other tribes are implicitly excluded. It seems pretty plain to me. But I have yet to see such a plain and specific exclusion of instruments spelled out as clearly as Moses spells it out here about priests. If such a plain and specific implied exclusion does not exist (and it does not), your parallel is invalid. Further, the passage in Hebrews isn't even relating to music in worship in the first place, so to impose it on music in worship as you have done is a stretch at best and a prooftexting at worst.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2000

Brother John:

All I can do is recommend that you go back and read the passage again. Only thid time take a very close look at who is being addressed. It is the tribe of Levi. THerefore, if anyone else, from the tribe being spoken to which was the tribe of Levi, if any one else other than the sons of AAron from the tribe of Levi approaches the alter they would be killed. Now there is no doubt that everyone understood, without it being specifically forbidden to them in words that if not even others of the same tribe wre allowed to approach the alter then surely none outside the tribe were allowed.

Now on no other hypothisis can you explain the fact that the INSPIRED WRITER OF THE BOOK OF HEBREWS said that "Moses SPAKE NOTHING" concerning the tribe of Judah serving at the alter. Now you are trying to use these passages to show that the inspired writer of the book of Hebrews was WRONG. But he was inspired by God to say what he said therefore you are claiming the John understands things better than GOD HIMSELF who told us clearly that "moses spake nothing" concerning the tribe of Judah. But John has learned that God was wrong because he has found a verse that shows that Moses "SPOKE MUCH" concerning the tribe of Judah serving at the alter.

GOd says: "Moses spake nothing". John says: " Moses had a lot to say"

I will agree with God.

Go back John and read the entire context and see just who was being addressed in this passage. And once again I ask that you allow me the opportunity to fully develop this theme in the debate before you judge it and that way you can have time to do the reading and research that you need to do before you draw conclusions that make God sound as if he is lying when he told us that "Moses SPAKE NOTHING" concerning the tribe of Judah serving at the alter.

I would sincerely appreciate the opportunity to give a complete and full development of this argument. I hope you can understand why I ask to be allowed to do this. I do not have the time to constantly be putting out these fires while I work and prepare for the debate. You will see this argument again and will see the full development of it and you will see why I believe that God was right when he said "MOSES SPAKE NOTHING" concerning the tribe of Judah and the way I intend to argue from that fact.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2000

Now you are just bandying semantics. "God spake nothing" specifically regarding Judah and the priesthood, because his words concerning Levi specifically implied all the other tribes including Judah. "God spake nothing" because He had already spoken implicitly in setting Levi apart. Anyone can plainly see that the commandment calling Levi's tribe into the priesthood ministry clearly excludes all of the other tribes including Judah, so there was no need for God to speak further. So, of course, "God spake nothing."

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2000

The Mormons claim that, according to the Book of Mormon, men of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh became priests in the New World. Was it Biblically acceptable for Ephraimites and Manassites [sic] to become priests? (After all, "God spake nothing" concerning those tribes either.) Of course not, because the previous command concerning Levi excluded those tribes also. There was be no need (and indeed it would be silly) for God to speak about each tribe individually as to whether or not they could be priests when He had already said that only Levites could.

I have yet to see a clearly implied instrumental prohibition that would be a Mosaic parallel.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2000

Brother Lee,

If you don't want to defend your arguments or answer questions about them before the actual debate, it would seem to be wiser for you to not even bring your arguments up ahead of the debate. If you insist on bringing your arguments up ahead of the debate, it's only natural that people will want to comment on them ahead of the debate and to want to discuss them with you before the debate. (BTW, I personally have a number of comments on the arguments you are using here, but am trying to refrain from making them, to you at least, before the debate.)

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

This really doesn't seem very important to me, but it may be significant to someone, and it shouldn't take long to answer. A few days ago someone asked if the phrase "which is broken for you", in reference to Christ's body, was in the Greek text for I Cor. 11:24. It depends on which Greek text you use, and what manuscripts it is based on. I don't have the "Textus Receptus" as such, so don't know what it says, tho' if the KJV includes the words (one word in Greek, a participle), the TR probably does too. "The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text" (Hodges & Farstad, pub. by Nelson) is generally the same as the TR, and it includes the participle KLOMENON, from KLAO, meaning "I break". The UBS text omits this from the main text, but includes it as an alternative reading, along with yet another textual variant, THRUPTOMENON, from THRUPTO, meaning, "I break in little pieces". (And, of course, each variant has a list of which manuscripts have that reading.)

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Brother Ben:

You have said:

Brother Lee,

If you don't want to defend your arguments or answer questions about them before the actual debate, it would seem to be wiser for you to not even bring your arguments up ahead of the debate. If you insist on bringing your arguments up ahead of the debate, it's only natural that people will want to comment on them ahead of the debate and to want to discuss them with you before the debate. (BTW, I personally have a number of comments on the arguments you are using here, but am trying to refrain from making them, to you at least, before the debate.)

Now Brother Ben, I have defended my arguments by responding to Brother John at each time he has said something to me about them. I was only expressing the fact that since I have a limit on my time I would appreciate his willingness to allow me to go into further detailed explanation in the debate. Which is clearly needed in order to clarify the misunderstanding that I believe John has because he is not reading the entire context. In making that argument I did not foresee that I would be required to go into more background and detail from Numbers the 8th Chapter which I do not have the time to do right now. I therefore asked John to allow me to develop it further in the debate.

As to how I make my arguments and respond to arguments opposing them it is my business entirely and as to whether Brother John is willing to grant my request is his business. I have not demanded anything of him. I only made a request. If I have used bad judgement in attempting to respond to what others say here then it is my error and none of your business. I will respond when I want to and I will make request of others as I so desire. If you do not like it then express your displeasure but do not try to tell me what to do. For I will do as I please in these matters and there is just nothing you can do about it.

As to what seems to be wiser I will decide that for myself. And if I need any advice I will seek my own counselors. I do not accept those who appoint themselves as my counselors. They normally have ulterior motives. You are on the opposing side of this issue and I do not seek your advice.

Brother John:

I do not have time to go into the details but if you will read Numbers the 8th chapter you will find there the commands given by Moses wherein he consecrated AARON and his sons as priest. This is the circumstance that the inspired writer of the Hebrews refers. When Moses consecrated Aaron as priest he spoke nothing concerning any other Tribe. He made specific prohibitions concerning others within the tribe of Levi but spoke nothing concerning any other tribe. In other words he did not specifically forbid any of the other tribes from service as priest by stating something like a specific prohibition for each one. He simply specified the sons of Aaron as priest.

Now one mistake I have made in conversing with you about this is that I forgot that when I ask that someone read the context they will often assume that I mean read the whole chapter to which they refer. But sometimes reading the context means that one must read several chapters. I was suggesting that you read Numbers chapter 8 and then read Numbers 16 Numbers 18:7.

In reading that context you will find that Moses consecrated Aaron and his sons as priest without saying ANYTHING concerning the other tribes. By specifically consecrating Aaron and his sons of the tribe of Levi as priest he thereby excluded all others. Then in the 16th chapter Korah said, all the people are holy and accused Moses of assuming too much to himself and Aaron. He was basically saying we are not forbidden from being priest. And Moses did not respond by pointing to his specific prohibition because he had not made any. For he had not spoke anything concerning the other tribes. But God was angry with Korah and those with him. Korah was of the tribe of Levi but not one of the sons of Aaron. There was even one who was of the tribe of Rueben who joined with Koran in his rebellion. Korah had correctly stated that all the people are holy for God had separated them. But he ignored the fact that Moses had specifically consecrated Aaron and his sons as priest and that his specification had excluded all others of the tribe of Levi and all other tribes of Israel from serving as priest. Up to this point Moses SPAKE NOTHING  concerning the other tribes serving as priest. Then you will notice that in the following chapters God killed Korah and those with him for their rebellion! Then, after the rebellion of Korah and those who died with him, Moses did speak specifically concerning the other tribes, in the verses that you have mentioned. But the Hebrew writer is referring to the way in which Moses consecrated the sons of Aaron ONLY, as priest, which is described in Numbers the 8th Chapter, he spake nothing about the tribe of Judah. Therefore by specifying Aaron he excluded all others from being priest without making ANY specific prohibitions concerning them. Now, after the rebellion of Korah, in order to protect the people from suffering the same fate as korah he specifically prohibits the other tribes. But before that time he had specified Aaron and spake nothing concerning anyone else serving as priest. And God destroyed Korah even though there had not been up to that time any specific prohibition against Korah serving as priest. Korah had been excluded by the specific consecration of Aaron.

Now my contention is not so much that everything in this story is parallel, as you put it, to the issue of instrumental music. I am only pointing to the fact that the PRINCIPLE of Gods specific commands is the same in both cases. When God specifically commands something to be done thereby excludes all that is not specified in that command. He does not have to specifically prohibit anything that he does not want to happen in order to prevent it or punish those who step outside the bounds of his specific command. Such was the case when Moses specified Aaron and his sons to serve as priest. His specification was sufficient. He did not need to follow that specification with detailed prohibitions for each of the twelve tribes of Israel in order for him to be justified in punish anyone other than the sons of Aaron serving as priest. Korah did not understand this and he died and all that followed him died because of it. Then after Korah died Moses, in order to protect this rebellious people from the same danger he specifically forbids the other tribes. But this fact did not change the fact that they had already been prohibited by Gods specific command without Moses speaking anything concerning the other tribes.

Now this is the principle that I am referring to in the instrumental music debate. When God gives a specific command he thereby exclude all that is not specified in that command. For this reason, the inspired writer of Hebrews is able to use the fact that Moses spoke nothing concerning the tribe of Judah serving as priest at the alter as evidence of a specific command. A command that spoke only of Aaron and his sons of the tribe of Levi serving as priest and this specific command had excluded anyone from the tribe of Judah serving as a priest. This is the reason that the LAW had to be changed or Christ could not have been our high priest for the Law forbade it by the specific consecration of Aaron and his sons, which excluded all others. But since the priesthood was changed there was a need also for the Law to change. This is conclusive proof that we are no longer under the Law of Moses. But the principle that he refers to concerning the silence of Moses` in respect to the other tribes WHEN HE CONSECRATED Aaron and his sons as priest was an indication of a specific command that had excluded all that were not specified in that command. Now I will argue, and I will give the details in the debate because I do not have time just now to do so. That God has specified the music that he wants to be used when we teach and admonish one another in song and when we sing praise to Him. That specific command excludes everything not included in that command, just as the specific consecration of Aaron and his sons excluded Korah and anyone else in Israel from serving as priest. Korah died without ever hearing a specific prohibition. All he had was a specific command for Aaron and his sons to be priest that did not include and thereby clearly excluded him from being priest.

John, I do apologize to you for bringing up this argument without having the time to purse it in all of its details with you. As you can see it does involve much to consider. But I only wanted to respond briefly to correct those who were saying that I would argue from a position that silence prohibits and I only wanted to say enough to demonstrate that they misunderstood my position. I did not offer the argument in all of its details. I only wanted to explain that I do not hold the view that silence alone prohibits anything. It is my view that specific commands exclude all not contained in those commands and that silence sometimes points to or is evidence of a specific command that is exclusive of anything not contained in that command.

So,even though Ben is trying to make it appear that I wanted to make an argument and not discuss it he fails to notice the context in which it came up and my purpose in stating it. I have accomplished that purpose.

Now please understand that all of the rest of what I will say concerning this particular argument will be in the debate. I do hope you will try to understand my reasons for that and not be offended that I do not have much more time to go into this matter.

I do respect you John, and I do wish you would stop comparing me to the Mormons. You know that such comparisons are not justified or true. Please try to not prejudice those who do not know me with such false comparisons.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Dear Benjamin,

Thank you for the clarification on 'My Body, which is broken for you' or, 'My Body, which is for you'. In our church it is read: 'My Body, which is for you', but when I quote it, if not typing directly from the Bible, (off the top of my head), I write it the way I learned it 40 years ago, which is: 'My Body which is broken for you'.

Is the distinction which is being made now not because the Scriptures specifically state that His bones would not be broken? In another post, someone mentioned 'the skin being broken' can mean 'penetrated', as of course Christ's skin was.

Respectfully,

Connie

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

BROTHER Lee,

I was NOT "trying to make it appear that [you] wanted to make an argument and not discuss it", or at least certainly not in the sense that you seem to mean it here. I was NOT trying to "appoint" myself as your counsellor. I do NOT have "ulterior motives" for the suggestion I made. I am sure that there are some who are wolves in sheep's clothing or have knives hidden beneath their togas, as you described elsewhere, but I have NEVER been one of them. Despite the wrangling that has characterised so many of our recent exchanges, I do NOT bear you any personal animosity. I do NOT automatically go into "react mode" and attack everything you say just because it has your name on it.

What I said was NOT intended as an attack on you or your position, and the fact that I am on the "opposing side" of the musical instrument question has nothing to do with it. I made a simple suggestion, out of Christian love and concern for both you and the other participants in this forum, that a slightly different approach on your part would cause a lot less frustration both for the other participants in the forum and for you personally.

As you have said a number of times, all the regular participants in the forum know that you oppose the use of musical instruments in worship, even if they don't understand or agree with the reasons. Everyone, by now, knows that you do not want to give a full explanation or defence of your views outside of a formal debate on the subject, and everyone also knows, by now, that this debate is in the process of being arranged. All you would need to do, whenever someone brings the subject up or asks you questions about your position, would be to say, "I'll cover that in the debate; please wait for the debate." If you think someone is mis-representing your position, all you would need to say is, "That's not my real position -- see the debate for my true views." Instead, with increasing frequency as the debate draws nearer, you give partial answers, partial explanations and partial reasons -- just enough to make people want to start responding to you, either to ask more or to try to refute your reasoning -- and THEN you say, "Sorry, that's as far as I'll go now; wait for the debate for the full explanation."

My suggestion was that it would cause a lot less frustration for other people -- and probably a lot less frustration for yourself, and certainly a lot less drain on your time -- if you would not do that, but would just tell people AT THE VERY BEGINNING, "Wait for the debate."

This was a SUGGESTION, and a SUGGESTION ONLY. If you will re-read what I said, you should see that I did not "command" you to do anything, I did not say that you "must" do anything, I did not even say that you "should" do anything. I simply said that "it would *seem* to be wiser" to handle this a little differently, and I told why it "seems" this way TO ME.

This SUGGESTION came neither from any desire to dictate to you what you can or cannot do, nor out any animosity toward you. It came out of Christian love and concern for you and for the forum as a whole, and out of a desire to save time and frustration for all of us. If you don't like the suggestion, you don't have to take the suggestion, but PLEASE don't pretend that I have been trying to force myself onto you as some kind of self-appointed counsellor. If I have thoughtlessly done so elsewhere, I apologise. I MAY PERHAPS have been too "demanding" in some of our earlier exchanges on the subject of debate versus discussion. But there was certainly NOTHING of the sort here.

As for the fact that I am on the "opposing side" of the musical instrument question, my allegiance (and yours too, I hope) is not to any particular "side" or "position", but to God and His Word and to Truth. I have studied the issue of instrumental music at some length, and have already come to certain conclusions, but I am always open to being convinced by the Word of God if I am wrong on this or any issue. In this debate/discussion, as in any discussion about Christian doctrine, if I think I see anyone mishandling the Word of God, or using faulty logic in the conclusions they draw from it (and logic has always been one of my strong points), or misrepresenting what the other side has said, I will be just as quick to point it out if it is done by "my own side" as if it is done by the "opposing side." (This is another of the reasons why I do not want to be one of the main contenders in a "real debate" on this particular issue.) I have done this in other discussions previously -- and gotten criticised for being "wishy-washy" or "sitting on the fence" -- but if I think it is happening again, I will do it again.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Brother Ben:

I appreciate your words in your last post. THey clarify things very well for me. I beleive that you have very wisely and in an excellent way made your point clear and I agree that You suggestion is a good one. I will try to follow it.

I appreciate the kind way in which you have dealt with me on this matter and apologize to you for all of the "frustration" that I have caused you while discussing these matters.

You can rest assured that I would not be doing any of these things if I did not have a strong committment to Christ and His word. If I did not care I would not spend the time and ernergy that I spend on these matters. I would easily be able to find other things to do.

May our Lord abundantly bless you.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2000

Hey guys, is this a discussion of the Lord's Supper or the instrument. It's hard to tell

-- Anonymous, July 21, 2000