Question #10: How Do You Determine Scriptural Authority?
If the “Church of Christ” claims to worship God only as “authorized” by scripture because they sing only (and do not use instrumental music), then where do they get the “authority” to use hymnals, pitchpipes, pews, and indoor baptistries in their worship services? If the answer is that they are “aids to worship,” where does the Bible allow for that? Where is your required authorization? If a pitchpipe can be an “aid to worship” for the song service in the “Church of Christ,” then why can’t a piano be an “aid to worship” for Baptists who may need more help in singing?
The “question” here expresses the kind of confusion over how to correctly ascertain authority that has been fostered by denominationalism. God created us with a brain and he expects us to use that brain. He created us to be thinking and logical beings after his own image (Gen. 1:26). When a person is honestly striving to please God according to what he has commanded in his word, they don’t have any problem determining what is authorized and what is not authorized. The problem with how to correctly ascertain biblical authority, and the principle of authority in general, only arises when people are trying to justify doing something for which they have no authority from God to do.
In ascertaining biblical authority we find two levels of authority. The first and primary level is specific authority. That is, we are authorized to do those things that are specifically authorized by Scripture. Specific authority comes in three ways.
First, we have specific authority to do those things that are explicitly stated. For example, we are explicitly commanded to sing in our worship to God (cf. Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; cf. 1 Cor. 14:15; Heb. 2:12). We are explicitly commanded to be subject to the civil authorities (Rom. 13:1-7). We are explicitly commanded to give on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1, 2). We are explicitly commanded to be in subjection to the elders (Heb. 13:7). Explicit statements like these simply state what is required. Obviously, such explicit statements authorize us to perform the action commanded.
We also find specific authority in approved examples. We have examples of the approved activities of the New Testament church to follow in our work and worship today. By approved we mean that the example is given as something that the church was doing in obedience to God and is recorded in a positive manner. For example, in Acts 2:42 we have the approved example of the Jerusalem church assembling on the first day of the week to hear God’s word, take the Lord’s Supper and pray. The text refers to the church engaging in these activities in a positive manner with no indication that they were doing anything wrong. This is an inspired example of the activity of the New Testament church and gives us inspired authority by way of that example to do the same today.
We also have specific authority conveyed by means of necessary inference. Simple inference does not provide authority. It must be necessary inference. Necessary means that it is an unavoidably required conclusion to the information provided. For example, Jesus used the principle of necessary inference when he corrected the Saducees on the doctrine of the resurrection (Luke 20:37, 38). If Moses said that God was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob after those three men were dead and God is the God of the living and not the dead then the necessary inference is that when a person’s body dies that person does not die, his soul lives on. That is the unavoidable necessary conclusion.
It is by necessary inference that we know the doctrine of water baptism is included in what it means to preach Jesus (Acts 8:35, 36). The text only says that Philip preached Jesus to the eunuch. However, when the eunuch heard and believed he knew he needed to be baptized in water. Therefore, we must conclude that Philip taught him to be baptized in doing what the text calls “preaching Jesus.”
It is by necessary inference that we know only men are authorized to serve as elders (1 Tim. 3:2). Because an elder must be the husband of one wife and only a man can be a husband (according to God’s divine definition of such) we know that only men are authorized to serve as elders in the Lord’s church. This is how necessary inference works and one of the ways we receive specific authority from God’s word.
When people ask why we do the things we do, we should be able to turn to a passage that grants us the specific authority for that activity by one of these three means. If we cannot find such authority for whatever we do in word or deed (Col. 3:17) then it cannot be said to be done with the authority of God.
But what about the way we do certain things. That is, not so much the specific what but the way we do it. For example, some congregations sing using song books while others sing using projected lyrics. Some congregations have the sermon first and then take the Lords Supper while others do it the other way around. Some congregations sing six songs and have three prayers during their worship service while others may sing eight and have four prayers. Some song leaders use a pitch pipe to get the pitch of a song while others may hum the pitch before beginning the song while others just start singing.
So which way of doing these things is authorized or are they all authorized? To answer this we go to the second level of authority, generic authority. Now the “question” asks for proof that such generic authority exists and where it is biblically authorized. Most thinking, rational people use and understand this level of authority in every aspect of their lives. They only want it thrown out when it interferes with them doing whatever they want and calling it worship. Not to worry though, generic authority is very easy to demonstrate from the Bible, thus establishing its Scriptural nature. Before we do that, however, lets notice some important fundamental elements of generic authority.
Generic authority only exists where specific authority exists. If there is no specific authority for an activity then it cannot be said to be authorized on the generic level. Generic authority is subordinate to and dependent on specific authority. Therefore, generic authority can only facilitate obedience to specific authority.
For example, we have already shown the specific authority for meeting on Sunday for the worship of the church. However, nowhere in any explicit statement, approved example or necessary inference is the time specified. So, because we know the specific day of assembly and there is no specific authority for the time of assembly, we have generic authority to specify the time on a local level. We also have generic authority for meeting houses to facilitate a congregational meeting. We know we are commanded to meet but the specific place is not given, therefore we are authorized to specify and maintain a meeting place by generic authority.
We have specific authority to sing in our worship assemblies. We also have specific authority for congregational singing (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). We are also commanded to have all things decent and in order (1 Cor. 14:40). So, from this we know that having a means of facilitating everyone singing together in a decent and orderly fashion is authorized. So, there is generic authority for things like song leaders, song books, projected lyrics or whatever else would facilitate the kind of singing commanded without contradicting or altering the command to sing congregationally.
This is also a good example for how to determine what is not authorized. We know we are authorized in congregational singing because these passages say each one is to sing to each other one. However, this would not authorize things like solos because a solo is not each one speaking to each other one. It is one person speaking to the rest. So, in order for solos to be authorized a person would have to find an explicit statement, necessary inference or approved example of such being done in the New Testament church. Since there are none we know that singing solos in worship is an unauthorized and man-made form of worship.
Because these passages refer to “speaking” and “teaching” and “admonishing” one another we also know that singing words is authorized. Other vocalizations like humming and imitating instrument sounds is not authorized by these verses. A person would need to find a passage or passages that authorized that specific activity. Since there are no passages authorizing this kind of activity it could not be said to be authorized generically because there is no specific authority being facilitated by it.
Likewise, these passages do not authorize the use of mechanical instruments in the worship of the church. These passages describe and authorize congregational singing. Authority for the use of mechanical instruments in the worship of the New Testament church would have to be found in another passage or passages. Because there are no passages or explicit statement, necessary inference or approved example of the New Testament church using mechanical instruments we know that there is no divine authority for that activity. It is not authorized by generic authority because it is a different type of music than that described and authorized by the text. Generic authority cannot be applied to an activity that would alter or contradict a specific command.
While there may be differences in the way generic authority is used to facilitate obedience to specific authority, specific authority is set and doesn’t change from group to group or individual to individual. Specific authority is unalterable while generic authority will vary from instance to instance. For example, one group meets at 9 AM Sunday mornings for worship while another group meets at 10 AM for worship. Are both groups authorized to meet on Sunday for worship? Yes, by specific authority as found in the approved examples and necessary inferences of the New Testament church (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:18; 16:1, 2). Is the one group authorized to assemble at 9 AM? Yes, by application of generic authority. Is the other group authorized to assemble at 10 AM? Yes, also by generic authority. The application of generic authority can vary while the specific authority is the same, i.e. worship on Sunday. Both groups are simply facilitating the command to assemble on Sunday for worship by setting a time when everyone knows to be there. Whether the assembly is at 9 AM or 10 AM or 8 PM doesn’t matter, it is authorized by the specific authority to assemble on Sunday for worship.
What about another group meeting on Saturday instead of Sunday for their worship? They have no specific authority to do so, therefore, what time they assemble doesn’t matter. Since there is no explicit statement or approved example or necessary inference giving them specific authority to meet on Saturday instead of Sunday, there can be no generic authority for anything else associated with that unauthorized assembly.
Generic authority can only facilitate specific authority, it cannot alter it in any way. If a practice alters a specific command then that practice is unauthorized. A person cannot make an appeal to generic authority for an activity that alters something else that the Bible specifically authorizes. This is where our denominational friends miss the mark in ascertaining biblical authority.
Because we make the biblical appeal to authority for what we do and in exposing the errors of denominationalism, denominationalists attempt to show that we too engage in things not authorized by Scripture. They say we cannot show biblical authority for song books, microphones, pews, church buildings, projectors, etc., etc., etc. What they mean is that we cannot show explicit statements where these things are authorized. It is true that we don’t have explicit biblical statements authorizing the use of PowerPoint projectors but that doesn’t mean we don’t have authority for their use. Some of these things are authorized specifically by necessary inference and approved example while others are authorized by generic authority.
We have already seen that buildings, songbooks, pitch pipes, set meeting times, among other things, are authorized by generic authority. One of the most common erroneous attempts to show inconsistency is to point out the use of projectors. We have the specific authority to study God’s word together in the assembly of the church (Acts 2:42; 20:7; 2 Tim. 4:2; et. al.). The method of teaching in the worship assembly is preaching. Do we have approved examples of biblical preachers using visual aids for their lessons? Yes, we do (Matt. 18:2-5; 22:19; 24:1; et. al.). So, if Jesus used visual aids in his preaching then, obviously, the use of visual aids is authorized for his preachers. We have authority to use visual aids by the approved example of Christ himself, not to mention the numerous other biblical preachers who used visual aids.
The kinds of objections raised in the “question” is evidence of rejecting God’s authority more so than ignorance of it. To point out the use of pews as an example of something that is not authorized, as though that would justify doing things that aren’t authorized in other areas, is simply dishonest and illogical. We’ve already seen that the church is commanded to assemble. So, where does the Bible specify where the assembly sits? It doesn’t! Therefore, the use of pews as a seating option is authorized by generic authority. Do we have authority to use something to sit on in our assemblies? Yes, by virtue of the fact that we are commanded to assemble. The same goes for having and maintaining meeting houses. In no other aspect of life would anyone question whether or not an activity necessary to carry out somethings specifically authorized was authorized or not. It is only when one wants to rebel against the authority of God that such illogical arguments are made.
Indoor baptistries are authorized by virtue of the specific authority to baptize (Matt. 28:18, 19). The specific authority is to baptize for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Therefore, having a body of water sufficient for baptizing facilitates the command to baptize and is, therefore, authorized. Where the body of water is does not alter the specific command in any way.
Now let us briefly note some biblical examples of generic authority being applied. Noah was commanded to make the ark of gopher wood (Gen. 6:14). But he wasn’t told where to get it or how to carry it. Would he have been authorized to buy gopher wood at the local lumber yard? Yes, in order to facilitate the specific command. Was he authorized to go out and cut his own gopher wood? Yes. Whether he bought it at the lumber yard or went out and cut it himself, the command to build the ark of gopher wood was being facilitated. He was also authorized to carry it by whatever means would facilitate obedience to the specific command without altering it or contradicting other commands.
Jesus commanded the disciples to go and teach (Matt. 28:19, 20). However, the manner of going is not specified. When we look for examples of how the disciples went in the New Testament record we see them going in all manner of ways (ships, chariots, on foot, by messenger, by letter, etc.). All of these ways were authorized because they facilitated the specific command to go. Likewise, today when we go by way of TV, radio, Internet, tract, book, CD, etc., etc, these too are authorized generically by the specific command to go.
We are commanded to do all things according to the authority of Jesus Christ (Col. 3:17). I pray that this article will aid the reader in knowing how to do that.
Similar Posts:
- Establishing Biblical Authority, Again!
- God’s Second Law Of Pardon
- The Church: Christ’s One Body
- The Necessity Of Water Baptism
- Is It Scriptural To Celebrate Christmas?
“For example, in Acts 2:42 we have the approved example of the Jerusalem church assembling on the first day of the week to hear God’s word, take the Lord’s Supper and pray. ”
I was confused by this – where in Acts 2:42 does is say the church assembled on the first day of the week? Verse 46 says they met every day. I don’t have a problem with meeting on Sunday (that is the day I meet with my local congregation), but I don’t see how Acts 2:42 is an approved example of meeting on Sunday. Can you help?
Sure Jeff, glad to.
The church was established on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). This was the Greek designation for the Feast of Weeks (Lev. 23:15-21; Deut. 16:9-11). In Acts 2:41 it says “that day” (the day of Pentecost) three thousand people were baptized into Christ and added to the church of Christ (cf. Acts 2:47). Acts 2:42 goes on to describe the assembly of the newly established church of Christ. So, that first assembly of the newly established New Testament church was on the day of Pentecost. The day of Pentecost was ALWAYS on Sunday. They were supposed to count seven sabbaths and then hold the feast on the day after the seventh sabbath. The sabbath was Saturday so the day after the seventh sabbath would be Sunday. Of the three high Jewish feast days that God could have chosen to address every Jewish male present in Jerusalem, he chose the one that always falls on Sunday to establish the church. From the fact that the church assembled for worship the very first time on Sunday is an approved example for our worship assembly to be on Sunday.
Hope this helps, let me know what you think.
Hey Norm,
Thanks for the response. I agree that the Day of Pentecost (for all the reasons you gave) was a Sunday. Thanks for the background – very powerful. I think those are very powerful points, in combination with Sunday being resurrection day, that Sunday is the day we are to assemble and remember Christ.
I guess my challenge is that I fear I’ve read into verses 42-47 what I wanted them to say; a continuation of the day of Pentecost in the previous 41 verses. However, after further investigation and reflection, I see verses 42-47 as possibly being Luke’s reflection of the days\weeks following the day of Pentecost, especially in light of verse 46 which says “every day.” Do you think that is possible?
Thanks for you response!
Jeff,
I think you have it right in that the context of Acts 2:42-47 is clearly a brief record of the weeks immediately following the establishment of the church recorded in this chapter. However, the fact that Acts 2:42 describes what we find consistently as congregational worship throughout the rest of the New Testament makes it just as clear, to me, that this overview of events begins with the very day of establishment, the first day of the week. The fact that four of the five acts of worship for the Sunday assembly of the church are listed in Acts 2:42 would clearly indicate that the description of “continuing steadfastly” is in reference to what they did in their worship on that Sunday. The text then continues to show their daily activity stemming from what occurred on that day. I do not believe this is reading into the text, I believe it is using sound logic to conclude that the description of the church found in Acts 2:42-47 begins with the same day the church was established and the same day to which the verse immediately preceding refers (Acts 2:41). If you were to describe the course of events stemming from a particular event wouldn’t it make sense to start on the very day the event took place? I think that is what you have in Acts 2:42-47.
For someone to try and argue that verse 42 is not talking about the worship assembly on Sunday, or even that it isn’t talking about the same Sunday that the church was established, doesn’t make sense to me. What is the point of such argument? Is it an attempt to show that the day of worship is not Sunday? Why is it reading into the text to say that verse 42 is describing what they did in worship on the Sunday the church was established? Doesn’t it make sense to understand that the apostles would teach the newly added souls how to worship God in congregational worship? Especially considering this was the first day of existence for the New Testament church. Should we conclude that the apostles “waited a while” before they taught the disciples about assembling on Sunday to take the Lord’s Supper? I don’t see the point in making such an argument unless you are trying to defend Sabbatarian doctrine, which I don’t believe you are.
Hope this helps, let me know what you think.
<Is it an attempt to show that the day of worship is not Sunday?
If Sunday is "the day of worship," does that mean we are not allowed to worship God on Monday?
Tina
Actually, 2:42 says nothing about these activities being on the day of Pentecost. It is an assumption and a misreading of the Acts narrative. They “continued steadfastly” indicates that it is a continual activity (they didn’t just fellowship, pray and listen to the apostles on the first day of the week alone!). But, any attempt to force the text to say this is on that day is pure assumption. Furthermore, while it is “probable” that this is the Lord’s Supper, the same term is used in 2:47 – “breaking of bread” and it is an arbitrary distinction to say that these are different. We are engaged, then, in “eisegesis” – (reading into the text what we want it to say) rather than “exegesis” (drawing out of the text what it actually says). This is, in part, the problem of assuming what we’ve long held true and trying to prove too much with “proof texts.” It is also, in part, a reading of narrative as though it were a rule book or legal document. Indeed, Acts gives us historical precedent, but the reading of Acts as a legal document is reading into it what it is not. While the overall tenor of the NT and historical Christianity points to the 1st day of the week as the day Christians assembled and partook of the Lord’s Supper, using Acts 2:42 in this way is a misuse of Scripture and of the context of the passage. It’s like using (rather misusing) 1 Corinthians 6:18 (the context of sexual purity) to prove one must not use tobacco. A bad argument, even when a conclusion may be correct, does great damage.
Thanks for your article. I’ve recently been involved in discussions regarding authority. I do have a question regarding your view of solos in the assembly. Does not 1 Corinthians 14:26 include “a psalm” along with other gifts used by individuals for the assembly’s edification? I do not believe here that this is someone getting up to lead a song everyone already knows, but rather someone coming before the assembly with a new song given to them much like a revelation, tongue, interpretation, etc would have been given them on-the-spot so to speak by the Holy Spirit. Would this not have been a solo for the edification of the assembly? And does “teaching and admonishing one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” require everyone to be singing at the same time? Could one side of the aisle sing the other side and vice versa?…a soloist could then be taught and admonished by the remainder of the assembly? In all the discussions I’ve been involved with regarding singing and musical instruments, it always ends with “singing” is specific therefore musical instruments are unauthorized. I agree, BUT, perhaps the command “to sing” is also more generic than we think. I must always read the Scriptures proactively as my new man seeks to serve his holy God more purely and not reactively, simply to prove my denominational friends wrong.
Kev, thanks for your good comment and question. In response to your question about 1 Cor. 14:26, it should be noted that this is in the context of rebuke for misusing spiritual gifts in the assembly. Paul is specifically rebuking their chaotic manner of everyone just doing their own thing in the assembly (cf. 1 Cor. 14:33). When he says “each of you has a psalm” he is not referring to it as a positive thing or an acceptable manner of worship. The chapter ends with an admonition to do all thing decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40). If Paul’s reference in 1 Cor. 14:26 be applied to solos then it is a condemned practiced, not an approved one. I don’t believe it is a reference to solos, however, but, rather, to the practice of some singing while other prayed while others prophesied while others spoke in tongues, etc.
If we want to see the decent and orderly manner of singing in the assembly we need to look at the overall context of it in the New Testament. In Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 congregational singing is most definitely under consideration. The term “one another” in both of these passages more literally means “each one to each other one.” It means that everyone is singing to everyone else. The only way to do this is for everyone to be singing together. Because of the admonitions against chaotic “free-for-alls” in the assembly (cf. 1 Cor. 14:26-40) we would have to conclude that everyone is singing the same thing together for the edification and admonition of all.
Again, in Heb. 2:12, one of my favorite passages on singing, it is said that when the New Testament church worships God in song that Christ is there in the midst of them, singing with them. That is such a beautiful picture of the churches worship of God in song! Notice it says that he would sing “in the midst of the assembly.” That doesn’t mean that he would be singing to the assembly but, rather, with the assembly. Again, the very clear indication here is congregational singing.
We have biblical authority, without doubt, to sing congregationally. But I find no authority anywhere in the New Testament by way of approved example, necessary inference or direct statement for the practice of solos.
Hope this helps, let me know what you think.
Good points, Kev.
John 13:14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.
Galatians 6:2 Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
If someone is washing my feet, do I have to be washing his at the same time or even on the same day? If he is bearing my burdens, in my burdensome situation do I also have to be bearing his? What good would that do either of us? I could just bear my own and let him bear his own.
I believe we are to encourage one another, edify one another, and admonish one another with songs, but I don’t know why I have to encourage someone while he’s encouraging me or edify him while he’s edifying me or admonish him in song while he’s admonishing me.
Tina
I appreciate your article and your taking the time to explain some of the common viewpoints many Christians have been raised in. That being said, the main concern I have with some of your arguments is the misuse of verses to prove your point. You, as many others before you, have used Eph 5:19 as the bread and butter verse for why we are unauthorized to use musical instruments. If the verse is kept within the context, Paul is giving the Ephesians a detailed description of means by which to be filled with the Spirit. He tells them throughout the entire 5th chapter that they are to walk in love, being imitators of God. He goes on to remind them of where they came from (Eph 5: 8) and not to return but rather expose the darkness for what it truly is. Paul then gives them examples of how they are no longer to be drunk with wine, but filled with Spirit…which is where vs. 19 picks up. So in all of that description, in all of Paul’s beautiful encouragement, his words of Eph 5:19 have been minimized to a simple proof text of why we sing acapella and why instrumental music is unauthorized.
I too feel that singing acapella is more close to what God wants in our worship to Him. However, in explaining those reasons, I have learned that simply pointing to a verse and saying, “There, there’s my authority for singing the way I do,” has done a great disservice to the rest of a beautiful passage. It turns what is supposed to be a letter of encouragement, strength, and depth into nothing but a rulebook that I turn to and point to Rule No. 5,367 states: thou shalt not use instruments.
I have questioned many of my current beliefs and convictions in the recent years. And one of my biggest concerns about Christians today, particularly the church of Christ, is what do we want our legacy to be? I have read letters dating back to the 1st century where a Roman soldier described a Christian he was persecuting. The soldier wrote on and on about how peculiar the Christian was because of his intense love for Christ and his love for other Christians, people who outside of Christ he had nothing else in common. That Christian’s legacy was his love. Currently if you ask most anyone today about the church of Christ, they will say, “Oh yeah, they’re the ones who think they’re the only ones going to heaven, don’t use instruments or kitchens.” That is sadly the legacy we have created. I don’t want that to be my legacy anymore.
I want my legacy to be about my love for Christ and being a servant to others.
Meg,
Thanks for your good comments. I appreciate your desire to study and grow in the knowledge of Christ. Unlike the ones you refer to as having been raised in these things, I began my study of the Bible independently in 1996 after I was grown. I had shunned the Bible before that time because I thought it was to blame for the religious divisions and hypocrisies of the denominational world. When I actually studies it for myself I saw that denominationalism is the result of twisting and corrupting what the Bible says. I obeyed the simple scheme of redemption found in the Bible, not man-made creed books, and from that time I have not ceased to study and grow in the word of Christ. I was blessed to attend a school that taught me the principles of Bible study rather than trying to force me into receiving as truth any preconceived notions of others. When we study the Bible according to the sound principles as exemplified within the Bible then we will all understand it alike. It is when we are manipulated and coerced into receiving “the party line” that divisions and contentions arise.
I appreciate your concern for maintaining the purity of the context of passages, however, I think you will find numerous biblical examples of passages being used to demonstrate points of truth that may not be the main point of the context the passages are found in. As long as the point being made doesn’t contradict the context of the passage and cause it to be used out of context then it is biblical to use passages this way. For example, in Exodus chapter three, the context is Moses’ commission to deliver Israel from Egypt. It has nothing at all to do with the doctrine of the resurrection. However, Jesus uses a passage from this context to make a valid point about the doctrine of the resurrection (Luke 20:37-38). Did Jesus use the passage out of context? No, he made a logical conclusion from a passage that in no way contradicted the context or took it out of context. While it is true that the context of Ephesians 5:19 is walking in wisdom, the manner in which singing is described can, and should, be used to demonstrate the biblical manner in which we are to praise God in song, without doing damage to the context or taking the passage out of context. It is not a matter of being “more close” to doing what God wants, it is a matter of determining from clear Scripture what God wants and doing that.
I think, also, that you are attributing to me what you may have heard from others. I don’t teach that Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16; Hebrews 2:12; etc., forbids the use mechanical instruments in worship. I said that these passages authorize us to sing. If we want to play then we have to find other passages to give us authority for that practice. Since we find no approved examples, necessary inferences or explicit statements for the use of mechanical instruments of music in the worship of the New Testament church, such cannot be practiced by God’s authority. The fact is, if we don’t have biblical authority for what we do in worship then our worship is vain and not accepted by or efficacious with God (Matt. 15:7-9). Something is either the doctrine of Christ, and we can demonstrate it as such from Scripture, or it is the doctrine of men that produces vain and ineffectual worship. Since the use of mechanical instruments of music in the worship of the New Testament church cannot be demonstrated from Scripture it must be the doctrine of men that makes for vain and ineffectual worship.
Your comments about a “legacy of love” and turning the Bible into a rule book, while well intentioned as they may be, are misguided. This is one of the ways that liberal minded apostates have attempted to remake the church of our Lord, which he purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28), after the image of man-made denominations. It takes the twisted and sick worldly idea of “love” and attempts to bring the Bible into subjection to it, rather than being transformed into the biblical image of true and beautiful godly love.
That fact is, the Bible is our “rule book” to know how to please God (Gal. 6:16; Phil. 3:16; 2 Tim. 2:5). If I didn’t love the souls of men I won’t spend myself trying to save them through the power of the pure and undefiled Gospel of Christ (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 4:15; 1 Pet. 1:23). If all I cared about was myself and getting my own way then I would just preach whatever would put the most money on my pocket and let my hearers be comfortable in their error. I would not make myself the target of all manner of vile accusations. I would just preach a social “feel good” gospel that would get us all to hell together. It is because I love you that I will suffer whatever I must to try and save as many as I can by the preaching of God’s “rules” without compromise. That is the “legacy of love” that Christ, the prophets, the apostles and the evangelists of the Bible left behind.
According to your desire for a worldly love, you are basically saying that you are willing to compromise anything and everything to have people think you love them. If it is hard or potentially offensive to someone, according to this idea, it should be put aside (i.e., compromised).
Please do not allow what others say about the church shape your thinking about the church. You are listening to liberal minded enemies of the truth and letting them shape your thinking about the church. What if we did the same with how we think of Christ? (Matt. 9:3; 26:65-66; Jn. 10:33; Mark 3:22). The Bible doesn’t teach that everyone will love us (2 Tim. 2:12; Jn. 15:20; Gal. 1:10; 5:11). The antichrist world will never love us because they hate the truth that we stand for. Our “legacy of love” is for Christ and his righteousness (Rom. 8:35). Because God so loved the world that he gave us his only begotten Son to be the sacrifice for our sins (Jn. 3:16), we love him (1 Jn. 4:19). Because we know the love of Christ, we are constrained or compelled to express his love to the world (2 Cor. 5:14). How did Jesus express the love of God? He told people unwaveringly and unapologetically how they had sinned against God and what they needed to do to repent! Why would we think that we show the love of Christ by tolerating sin and every manner of man-made whim being practiced in his worship? Christ didn’t do that! He told people their worship was vain because of their man-made innovations. He told people they were hypocrites and blind guides. Did he love them? Without a doubt! If he didn’t love them he would not have worked so tirelessly to get them to repent and escape the devil’s hell. Did they love him in return? No, they reviled and persecuted him. They spat on him and beat him. They hung him on a tree!
Meg, the fact is, you cannot find the kind of “legacy of love” you are talking about being expressed toward any of God’s righteous servants in his word. The righteous prophets of the Old Testament were killed by those who rejected God’s love. The righteous apostles, prophets and evangelists of the New Testament were persecuted and killed by those who rejected God’s love. How we dishonor their righteous souls when we seek to avoid any manner of persecution by appealing to the world’s sick twisted corruption of “love” in tolerating and even welcoming man-made rejections of God’s love.
I pray this will help you stand strong in defending the truth of God’s word (Jude 3) as it is the expression of God’s love for man. He didn’t leave us to wonder how to please him and come up with our own vain attempts. He gave a clear and easy to understand word to guide us in serving him. Don’t ever let anyone tell you that you are being unloving because you uphold the truth of God’s word and reject any compromises.
I hope this helps, let me know what you think.
Great thoughts, Meg!
Tina
I had doubts about the use of song books, microphones, etc during the worship, But I learned from the theme Ascertaining Biblical Authority
there are two levels of authority, Specific and General Authority.
Thanks Bro Norm for your wise and comlete explanation.
QUE BUENO SERIA QUE PREDICARAS EN ESPAÑOL.
You said: “For example, Jesus used the principle of necessary inference when he corrected the Saducees [sic] on the doctrine of the resurrection (Luke 20:37, 38). If Moses said that God was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob after those three men were dead and God is the God of the living and not the dead then the necessary inference is that when a person’s body dies that person does not die, his soul lives on. That is the unavoidable necessary conclusion.”
That is not the unavoidable conclusion I come to. If Jesus was discussing the doctrine of resurrection, which He was, then the unavoidable conclusion is that these men are dead and therefore, since God is the God of the living, these men will be RESURRECTED. I don’t see that it has anything to do with their soul living on. Jesus is proving the resurrection, not the immortality of the soul. That’s how I see it anyway. If their souls live on while they aren’t resurrected, then Jesus’ words didn’t prove the resurrection. They didn’t NEED the resurrection for God to be the God of the living since they were still living somewhere. But since they were dead, NOT living, the resurrection had to take place for God to be their God and be the God of the living. Maybe I’m wrong but that’s how I see it.
Tina,
Thank you for your question concerning necessary inference and bible authority.
I believe that you are half way there, but just not going far enough to answer the question. “What is being resurrected?” Something MUST be immortal, in order for a person to live on after the body has ceased to function (died). It certainly is not the physical body, for it is in the grave decaying. You are correct that Jesus is making a case for the RESURRECTION – but WHAT is going to be resurrected?
Jesus reminds us, “be not afraid of them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matt 10:28ASV).
Now then, what is able to be killed? ANSWER: The physical Body – What is NOT able to be killed? ANSWER: The immortal soul.
The word “destroy” should not worry us, because it is not the same term as we often think of, as being ‘annihilated’ – but this word in the Greek simply refers to God’s ability to deliver the lost soul to eternal misery. BOTH the immortal soul and their new spiritual body (1 Corinthians 15:42-44).
“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Mark 8:36-37KJV).
Jesus here is showing the value of the immortal soul. It is the soul, the immortal side of our being that we were created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). It is the ‘soul’ that lives on, and the ‘soul’ that will be resurrected at Christ’s return.
Yes, Jesus was proving to the Sadducees that there will be a resurrection of the ‘physically dead,’ yet ‘spiritually alive’ (the immortal soul). Therefore, God IS the God of the living. Therefore it is the case that Jesus’ words DID prove the resurrection, as well as the existence of a immortal soul. IF not, WHY not?
Since the resurrection of Jesus was after three days, “Praise God, He Arose.” When we are baptized, born again, and arise to walk in Newness of Life, Q.: “Are we not re-enacting the gospel, the death
on the cross, burial And Resurrection… in baptism Contacting the
blood of Christ the forgiveness of sins-receiving the Holy Spirit Promised gift? When our physical body dies, if we were born again while we were alive and our soul is safe “in-Christ,” there is no fear of the Second death. As being Resurrected in Christ, will also share in the Second Coming and the promise of Salvation.
We are alive again(because we “were” dead in our sins) and if faithful unto physical death, (it seems that in Luke 20 Jesus is saying, don’t worry about if we are married in heaven or not, this will be the “New Age).”Sounds like this does infer that Abraham, Issac, Jacob are the servants that died “saved”(under the old law, obedient, are physically dead, yet alive spiritually in God(they are to be included in the resurrection.) “For He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him.” This only makes since to me that he is God to those who have put God on and have decided to live for Him during the lifetime they lived physically.
But, the scribes decided not to ask Jesus any move questions, maybe they were getting too close to seeing His Righteousness.
Jesus connected himself to the past to wash away all sins under old law as well as new, he spoke with authority of how God will be in view in the Resurrection. As Mary(the sister of Lazarus) realized Jesus was the Resurrection and the Life.
Does this perhaps reinforce that the saved of all ages, unto God, will be blessed with the “New Age” of Heaven? Those who are His He Knows. Those who have been his in the past can be resurrected and rewards with eternal life after the grave. Anyways, those dead in sins are not living reborn in Christ, even though they are physically alive.
Regarding the point about alive vs dead. Mike that was an excellent answer. But my Q. is: Doesn’t dead carry different meanings. Dead in Sins. Dead meaning asleep, or in the bossom of Abraham (*safe)or without water for the tongue(*unsaved? well, that is another topic. Jesus did preach to those below during the three days, declaring His Victory accomplishing God’s promised being the Messiah. At any rate, there will be a grand reunion of the saved at the end of time at judgement day where all will be judged and Resurrected.
Also, Tina,regarding worship, Everyday it is important to be
the Living Sacrifice His children are to give Him, not only exemplify
the Christian Life on Sunday, as Obedient to the Assembly,but
we must obey Him everyday, and edify each other so that we are not Hardened by sin. Hebrews 3:13. Gal. 6:10 Be good to all men, especially the household of faith.
Either we prove His Word or we are offending Him. This study is extremely important. We must be Sound in Faith and Sound in Doctrine according to Timothy and Titus. I believe Norm is right on track when it comes to getting our Authority from Christ, the Bible
speaks Commands to Obey, Gives Approved Examples, and Necessary Inferrence.
Bro. Norm:
I am studying about congregational singing in New Testament church. I want to clarify two questions.
1.-Is it true that Amos pronounced a curse upon those who, like David introduced instrumental music into Hebrew worship?
2.-Choirs and solo supporters say that the entire congregation must sing every word simultaneosly. They say “If we can not have choirs and solos, you can not sing in four-part harmony.
How can I respond to them?