Why Do Churches of Christ “Just Sing”?

Posted by John on January 1, 2004 under Articles

This is a question most often asked. We feel that there are very sound reasons for NOT using physical instruments in our worship. Contrary to what some claim, our practice is based on what the New Testament actually SAYS rather than what it is silent about. That is, we believe that a clear picture emerges that shows worship occurring in a NEW TEMPLE that replaces the OLD Temple of Judaism. Please consider the following:

First, the issue of music in worship must be understood in the context of a New Covenant. (1) Worship patterns in the NEW will be different than in the OLD (John 4:21ff). (2) The physical forms of the OLD were symbols of their true realities in the NEW (Hebrews 10:1ff). (3) When the NEW came, the symbols were no longer needed. That is, the physical Jewish Temple itself has been replaced by the bodies of Christians (1 Corinthians 6:19). Each Christian is a NEW living “house of prayer” (1 Thessalonians 5:17) in which the Spirit of God dwells (1 Corinthians 6:19, Acts 2:38) and helps in prayer (Romans 8:26). Also, this NEW TEMPLE is mobile and can worship God at any place and at any time (e.g., John 4:21ff, Acts 16:25, James 5:13) as contrasted with the fixity of the OLD Jewish Temple. It is clear that a better and more spiritual Temple has come into being under the NEW Covenant.

In the same way, as physical instruments of music were inside the OLD Temple for praising God (2 Chronicles 29:25ff, Psalm 150, Psalm 147:7), spiritual instruments are inside the NEW Temple for praising God. In Ephesians 5:19, singing is to be accompanied by the vibrating of the strings of the “HEART.” [The Greek word psallo, which is translated “making melody” in Ephesians 5:19, literally means to “twang, pluck, or vibrate.” Just what is to be vibrated immediately follows (i.e., heart).] Like the examples above, the outward of the Old is again replaced by the inward of the New. Hence, singing accompanied by a spiritually-tuned, vibrant heart is the style of musical praise now!

Second, in another strand of thought, the very PRIESTHOOD of the Old Covenant has also been replaced by Christians themselves. NEW sacrifices are now offered that are spiritual in nature (1 Peter 2:5). A person’s daily life is put on the altar (Romans 12:1). This offering will naturally include sacrifices of praise … specifically, the fruit of lips that confess His name (Hebrews 13:15). Only speaking, singing or chanting exactly fulfills this (Colossians 3:16, Ephesians 5:19, 1 Corinthians 14:15), but a harp, horn, drum or tambourine, etc., cannot. Again, the material has been replaced by a more spiritual way.

Third, if musical instruments in Christian worship was just an “optional matter,” it seems that those converts coming from Judaism would naturally and immediately use it in worship from the start. After all, inspired texts –such as Psalm 150– encourage the use of instruments in praise to God! Yet with these texts right before their very eyes, the Jewish-converts just sang and never brought over the instrument (neither did pagans) as over 500 years of early church history confirms! This surely shows that a new pattern or design for worship has come about (See McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII, p. 739; Schaff-Herzog, Vol. III, p. 1961, “When did churches start using instrumental music?” at www.christianitytoday.com.)

CONCLUSION: A coherent picture emerges that shows that worship via the physical, ritualistic and symbolic style of the OLD TEMPLE has been replaced. NOW there is a NEW living Temple that is a mobile, dwelling place for God, where daily spiritual sacrifices of praise are offered and singing is accompanied by the vibrating strings of a joyful heart (not a harp, etc.). Something new and better has arrived that makes the former way obsolete. Hence, using physical instruments in praising God is conceptually “out-of-place” in New Covenant worship. It changes the design.

APPLICATION:

1) In light of the conclusion above, using musical instruments in Christian worship would move us backward toward the physical style of the Old Temple … clearly a move in the wrong direction.

2) Since “just singing” was the norm for at least 500 years after Pentecost, such reinforces the conclusion and makes this practice a move in the right direction.

Some questions:

What is God’s Agenda?

Posted by John on January 1, 2003 under Articles

The New Testament writings provide some very clear information on God’s agenda for preaching/teaching/writing to the general public. It is the presentation of evidence that Jesus is the Son of God! This was Luke’s stated purpose (Luke 1:1-4). John’s work centered on this theme (John 20:30-31). And Matthew structured his work around the fact that Jesus fulfilled the ideas/prophecies of the Old Testament. Mark tells what Jesus did that sets Him apart from being just another man. Acts clearly shows that proving that Jesus is Lord and Christ was the major thrust of the apostolic message to the public. To convince is the first step in “disciple making” (Matthew 28:18ff; Acts 2).

It is interesting to note what was not proclaimed to the public. While “doing good to all men” is what Jesus’ disciples would joyfully do (Acts 10:38; Galatians 6:10; Ephesians 2:10), such do not prove that Jesus is the Son of God any more than the “good works” of Mormonism prove that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Hence, the message was not “join us because we are a sharing-caring group like no other” (example: Acts 2:44-45). Neither was it “come worship with us in a way that’s simpler and better than the Temple … and be sure to note that the instruments have been replaced by voices” (example: Acts 2:42; Ephesians 5:19) or is it “let’s show you how baptism is really done.” The need for the unbelieving public was to convince them that Jesus is the Son of God. And the Spirit drove the early church into this proclamation (Acts 2:14ff). That was God’s agenda then and it has not changed: the public (and especially the campus) stills needs convincing!

How have Churches of Christ fared in effecting such an agenda? First, the Jule Miller Filmstrips was/is often the major “evangelistic” tool to reach the lost. But what does it try to convince people of? The main thrust is to “convince” people that the Church of Christ is the “door to heaven” … that there is salvation in no other Church!! Little time is given to prove that Jesus died for sinners and how that is vindicated by His resurrection. Instead, it can become a “selling-of-the-church” instead of selling the Christ!

Second, as evidenced by our local newspaper, one preacher sees his public work is to “write wrongs” of other churches. There is never an appeal to the public to consider who Jesus is and what He did for mankind. Oddly, those like him call themselves “gospel preachers” even when the facts of the gospel are not even given serious coverage (1 Corinthians 15:3ff).

Third, it would be great if those in the pew never had any questions or needed any strengthening of their faith (Hebrews 6:1), but such is not realistic in today’s unbelieving world. Disciples, new and old, often need to be assured that Christianity is true. Yet, little is done from pulpits or classes to meet these needs. As a result, disciples have a flimsy explanation for why Christianity is truth and something else is not. This is probably so because many have been “converted-to-the-church” instead of to Jesus as the Lord. And this could explain why many leave the faith at a later date.

Application: Dale Thompson (here in Fort Smith) recently gave a series of lessons on “Ten Reasons for the Existence of God.” The public was given something to consider and probably First Baptist Church would be where they would gravitate to for more information. No matter how one sees his theology, he met the public at the right door. One part of God’s agenda was served. And the faith of many in the pew was also firmed-up.

Those of us who are committed to “restoring” the basic shape of Christianity, like it originally was under the oversight of the apostles and Holy Spirit, would do well to start restoring the practice of meeting the public, campus and disciples right where they have questions … that is, is Christianity truth or hokum?

Issues Resolved by Looking at Contrasts of Old and New Covenants

Posted by John on under Articles

The NEW Covenant has a different look and character than the OLD Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34). The OLD had a physical Temple, garbed priesthood, incense, holy days, seasons, the Sabbath, circumcision, infant membership, and an army to literally fight for the Lord. All of these pointed to a time when they would be REPLACED with the true or spiritual. The shadows would give way to the substance (Hebrews 9:10, Colossians 2:16, 17). If something is REPLACED by a BETTER way or design, then what has been replaced is no longer needed and is discarded.

One major problem of the church in the transition from the OLD to the NEW way was that many were not discarding but continuing in the OLD (e.g., Colossians 2:16, 17; Galatians 5:2,3). And by not letting the symbolical give way to its TRUE counterpart, Christianity would have the character of both. This was something that was clearly not acceptable to the Apostles and other early Christian writers (e.g., The Letter to the Hebrews).

Yet, it is understandable why a transition from Judaism to Christianity would be a major problem. Since the first converts were Jews (Acts 2), it would be difficult to grasp that what once pleased God did not honor Him any more. And this is because Jesus came to FULFILL and not PERPETUATE the OLD way (Matthew 5:17,18; Luke 24:25ff; Hebrews 7:1-28). A change in the manner of WORSHIP would also follow (John 4:22ff).

What basic change would occur? First, the OLD was geared toward the senses of man with its physical sounds, smells and activities. Second, by contrast, the NEW would be inward and simple (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:10, 1 Corinthians 2:13). For example, during the transition phase, physical circumcision was being taught in places (Acts 15:1), but it actually had been replaced by a circumcision not made with hands (Colossians 2:11-13). And even Temple–the habitation for God and where sacrifices are made–gave way to the true temple, the body of the Christian which also is a house for God and a place where sacrifices are offered (1 Corinthians 6:19,20; Romans 12:1; 1 Peter 2:4,5). Both circumcision and the Temple were no longer needed because they had been REPLACED by the better and spiritual.

Unfortunately, church history shows how Christianity lost its newness and became more and more OLD in character. A priesthood developed that put a man between the worshiper and God, special days and seasons were instituted, infant membership became a practice, and garments and robes, etc., were worn by those officiating the service. And today, many churches still have lingering “shades” of the OLD. For example, while the church must have a place to meet (Hebrews 10:25), over the centuries the meetinghouse evolved into a temple-like structure. It became a sacred place. In its “Sanctuary,” God could be met in a special way. Certain parts of the building became “off-limits” because one could “desecrate the building” there. Such a place was termed “the house of God” and was treated with great respect. Instead of the word “Temple” the word “Church” was used to describe these holy edifices. People want to be married “in a Church” and also buried in the “Churchyard.” Clearly, idea of a Temple has been resurrected rather than discarded. Buildings do not need to be discarded (Hebrews 10:25; Acts 20:7), but TEMPLE-attitudes about them do.

Churches of Christ have not been immune to the same folly. While attempting to restore or get back to the original shape of Christianity, what can or cannot be done in the building still seems to be an issue. While denying that there is any such thing as a “sanctified building,” attitudes toward what may be done “in there” proves otherwise. Can the building be used as a “polling place”? Can a school use the auditorium for a band concert? Can the meetinghouse have classrooms and a “gym” attached to it? Do we call the assembly room an “auditorium” but treat it as a “Sanctuary”? Is there a pattern for building a meetinghouse as to what goes in and what stays out like for the Temple? Is it OK to put in a kitchen? What about a restroom? The point of all this is to show that the Temple has been replaced by what it pointed to–Christians. Our focus should be on what is done in THIS HUMAN TEMPLE and not in a physical building. (2 Corinthians 7:1.)

This should be a part of our RESTORATION efforts!

Some Really Hard Questions

Posted by John on under Articles

The atheist asks us:

1. Why does God allow innocent children to suffer from birth defects, illnesses, etc.?
2. Why doesn’t God at least prevent damaging tornadoes, hurricanes, etc., from killing babies?
3. Why did He allow Hitler to rise up and why did He not stop the horrors of the Holocaust immediately!?
4. Why doesn’t He heal those who have devoted their lives to Him when they ask for help?
5. Why does one have to have some serious malady like cancer to “feel that God is close”?
6. Why are we here? Why did He create fallible beings anyway?
7. If He wants us to believe in Him, why doesn’t He make Himself a little more obvious?
8. Why are “answers-to-prayer” closer to just the “turn-of-natural-events” than some intervention by a God?
9. Why should those who follow God experience death? Why doesn’t He just “take them” like He did with Enoch?
10. Why would God send anyone to a burning Hell if He “loves the world” as it says in John 3:16?

Christians have difficulty answering these questions. (And many of us are at a loss in trying.)

We ask the atheist to explain:

1. What ever happened to the body of Jesus? It’s been 2,000 years now and we need an answer!
2. Why didn’t the Romans stop that pesky Christianity in its tracks by bringing out the body of Jesus for all to see? It would have been an easy task. The Jews would have been eager to help them. [It is documented that this strategy was employed. Some Jews took “a body” and dragged it through the streets of Jerusalem and declared it was the body of Jesus (see the book Toldoth Jeschu … the Jewish account of Jesus).]
3. How could the disciples have stolen and hidden the body of Jesus without such being detected? (Dead bodies stink.)
   Further, how could they have “preached” the resurrection and given their lives for such if they knew the truth of the matter? What would they have gained?

Skeptics have difficulty answering these questions (and many are at a loss to try).

Our questions versus theirs:

The questions the atheist asks us are far more philosophical and complex than what we ask. Ours are grounded in an examination of real historical facts. The atheist’s questions are more like “what is the meaning of life?”, and ours are more like “what happened to the car keys?” A simple retracing of history will provide a probable solution to our questions but not theirs. What they ask us to explain can go on endlessly. What we ask them to explain has a stopping place … a body of evidence for an event.

Practical application:

Often in discussions with the unbelievers, the talk never gets to the resurrection but stays on one of those cosmic, hard to answer issues that they raise. Let’s confront the unbeliever with our questions rather than spending time on his/hers! Then we will get to the real crux of the matter. Then either belief or unbelief will be confessed and we can go on from there.

Conclusion:

Our confidence in Christ does not depend upon our ability to answer the tough questions on suffering, etc., but upon the evidence for the resurrection! That was the driving force behind first century preaching and teaching (in Acts). For them, the resurrection proved Christianity true (1 Corinthians 15:14,32). Let’s restore the resurrection to its original status in evidence and presentation of the gospel!

Does Your Temple Have a Mercy Seat?

Posted by John on under Articles

In a previous article (Issues Resolved by Looking at Contrasts of Old and New Covenants) it was pointed out that many things in the Old Covenant pointed to and were replaced by BETTER and the more-meaningful things of the New Covenant (Hebrews 9). This is because the NEW Covenant is indeed NEW! The article dealt with the idea that we no longer have a physical edifice (Temple) in which to worship God but its replacement … OUR VERY BODY as the House for God (1 Corinthians 6:19; Acts 2:38).

By again comparing the old and new Temples an interesting parallel shows up. The OLD Temple (which was but a permanent Tabernacle) contained a physical “mercy seat” in the heart of the structure (Exodus 26:24). How does this parallel with the NEW Temple of the Christian age?

Jesus clearly taught that the MAIN AIM is to be like God (Matthew 5:48). God is the Father of mercy (2 Corinthians 1:3). Hence, His people should be full of mercy as God is (James 3:17). They should love mercy and delight in giving it (Micah 6:8; 7:18; Romans 12:8). As mercy is a trait that defines God (2 Samuel 24:14; Daniel 9:9; Exodus 34:68; 2 Chronicles 30:9), it should also define Christians (Luke 6:36; Matthew 5:48; James 5:11). Hence, NEW TEMPLE should have a “mercy seat” in its very heart (Matthew 5:48; Luke 6:36; Hebrews 8:10; Ephesians 6:6).

Mercy is a “weighty” matter but it IS POSSIBLE to relegate it to a “minor” matter (Matthew 23:23). It is “weighty” because to be merciful one lines up with the character of God. Hence, mercy is more weighty than ritual (Matthew 9:13; 23:23).

Those who have received mercy should freely give mercy (Matthew 18:23-35) and they will reap happiness themselves (Matthew 5:7). Mercy causes compassionate acts (Romans 12:8; Matthew 9:36; 14:14, etc.). It makes one ready to pardon (Nehemiah 9:17) and slow to anger (Psalm 103:8). Kindness is mercy expressed (Psalm 117:2). Mercy will save one when their faith is weak (Matthew 14:25).

Applications:

1. Because of our history and current writings in the local newspaper, churches of Christ are known for judgement and truth rather than for the grace and truth that characterized Jesus (John 1:14, 17). But when mercy becomes a ” weighty” item in our life, it will be expressed and people will take notice and not be repelled.
2. Being a people of mercy does not mean we are flippant about truth nor that we stop attempting to do what we know is pleasing God. It is not an “open-door” to do what we want and like (1 Thessalonians 2:4). It is being patient and longsuffering with those who may not see something as clearly as we do (Romans 14). In spite of all our debating, it is doubtful that we ever vacated the building of others on the following Sunday.
3. What can “go on” inside the physical church building has always plagued us. If we were living in the OLD COVENANT, it should rightly concern us as it did Jesus (Mark 11:15 ff). Yet, the new and better Temple, with its heart of mercy, replaced the old physical Temple with its physical mercy seat. Concern over a physical building is OLD COVENANT thinking. Instead, we should be concerned if our spiritual “mercy seat” is present or not.

A Closer Look at “The Silence of Scripture”

Posted by John on under Articles

In approaching the New Testament as a historical document, it is important to treat it as any other type of writing. This means that statements are collected and examined in light of the context of the times. In doing this for religious materials, usually a coherent picture emerges that characterizes the teachings/practices of a movement.

If there is no mention of a teaching or practice, then this “raw silence” by itself proves nothing. For  example, the “silence” of the New Testament on the topic of Purgatory is used to both prove and condemn it. It “cuts both ways.” In another case, infant baptism has been both affirmed and denied based on the mere non-mention of the practice in the New Testament. Any historian/lawyer will testify that a case cannot be made on just mere silence without any positive testimony to accompany it.

Only “silence-in-context” is significant. That is, if all the statements point toward a specific conclusion, this will shed light on what is not stated. For example, when all the New Testament information is collected on baptism together with early Christian testimony (e.g., Didache, late 1^st century), it points toward the conclusion that immersion was normative. As such, the silence of the New Testament on other modes (e.g., sprinkling, pouring) is “explained.” Here what is SAID allows for an accurate understanding of the silence.

Churches have used “raw silence” to both allow and forbid things. For example, the Catholic doctrine of “Mary as Intercessor” is a case-in-point. To the Catholic, no one can prove that it is expressly forbidden (here: “silence allows”). Protestants counter by saying such a doctrine was not present because there is no record of it in the New Testament (here: “silence forbids”). In the Churches of Christ, the use of Sunday School, individual communion cups, baptistries, orphan homes, fellowship rooms, youth ministers, songbooks, instrumental music and a host of other things have been allowed/forbidden based on the argument from the mere non-mention of these in the New Testament. (See further reading #4.)

The Solution again is to collect/examine all the statements from the record an see if a coherent picture emerges then let this “explain” the silence. This is the correct way. This is “silence-in-context.” For example, the New Testament picture presents the Holy Spirit an intercessor for us in prayer (Romans 8:26). This explains why there is no mention of Mary in this role. Even though it is claimed that she does not keep the Holy Spirit from its work, Mary is an addition that modifies the design explicitly stated. God’s express design should be respected and not changed (Hebrews 8:5; Deuteronomy 4:2; 1 Corinthians 4:6).

With regard to the communion cup, all the statements show that the focus is not on the vessel but the contents (1 Corinthians 11:25, etc.). This is specific and is further confirmed by the testimony of early church writers. So, whether one drinking container or many are used, the contents are still taken. The container does not modify the expressed design of communion in any way. Hence, there is no significance to the mention/silence of any container.

In Summary, failure to use “silence-in-context” has been the cause of much division. It is very important that STATEMENTS be gathered FIRST to see if a coherent picture or design emerges, then the non-mention of something can be accurately explained.

Further study:

Life on Mars!!

Posted by John on January 1, 2002 under Articles

Recent information shows that water is on Mars. Since water is a main ingredient of life on earth, it is proof-positive in the minds of many that life is on Mars. And having life on Mars worries many Bible believers because they feel that only the earth is where God put living things. But look at this closer:

1. Water is the main stuff of life here. How do we know water has the same importance there on Mars? Alien life may be literally “alien” to the composition of earth-life. The whole “proof-of-life” argument assumes that the recipe for life “out there” is the same as it is for earth and is a sure case of “jumping-to-the-conclusion.”
2. What if the water was analyzed and tiny, microscopic life-forms were found? It is possible that those “bugs” could be ours and not be “from Mars.” Recent studies have shown that the earth itself sends out a lot of space dust, etc. Over a span of time, spores, etc., might have reached Mars. In fact, studies on the recently much publicized “meteorites-from-Mars-containing-life” have shown that the life is probably some of “our bugs” returning from a space trip. So, finding microscopic life-forms on Mars could just as well prove that such forms that live on earth can live on Mars. This is not quite what the “Life on Mars!!” statement had in mind.
3. Does Genesis really teach that life only exists on earth or does it show us that on earth a being was created that bore the image of God …man? Is the focus of Genesis “out there” or here? Would the finding of true Martian life militate in any way against one message of Genesis that the cosmos was made as a gift and aid to man?

This article was written because (1) some have believed Media hype that it is a proven-fact that life is on Mars, and (2) some are nervous about how this finding affects our confidence in Genesis.

The article was purposely written without documentation or chemistry jargon. A more detailed discussion is available if there are any questions.

Just the Facts on the Origin of Life

Posted by John on under Articles

The common picture given in school biology classes for the origin of life on earth is that a chemical “soup” developed in the ocean. From that mixture, the complex chemicals of the first cell emerged … then the cell … then cellular reproduction.

The issue of origin of life in the ocean is a chemistry problem. Chemistry is the study of how tiny bits of stuff come about and react with each other. One of the primary complex chemicals of any cell is a protein. It is made of tiny units of amino acids strung together like beads. It may take as many as 250 of these amino acids to be useful for a living thing to use in its life. So, how protein comes about and reacts is a number one concern in testing the “soup-to-life” idea.

Fact #1 — Much research has been done in attempting to join amino acids in water to make the very beginning of a protein. Such efforts have taken place over a span of more than 30 years and have failed. This information is easily documented in the chemical literature but is not included in high school textbooks.

Fact #2 — Every amino acid has two versions. There is a “right-handed” and “left-handed” version of the same amino acid. The significance of this is shown below.

Research has shown that atmospheric gases containing ammonia, water vapor and natural gas can form a few amino acids when an electric discharge (like lightning) is passed through a mixture of the gases. A Nobel Prize was awarded for this work. This is how it is explained that the ocean was an amino-acid soup.

All experiments in producing the acids from gases have produced a 50-50 mixture of the right and left versions of each amino-acid. Researchers believe that the ocean, therefore, contained a soup of both kinds of amino acids. All the proteins studied in living systems show that living things use just the “left” kind of amino acid in their protein.

As yet, no one has come up with any non-problematic mechanism for linking-up 250 (or even three) amino acids of just one type from a 50-50 mix of both types.

Fact #3 — Amino acids can easily decompose in water and can react with minerals in the ocean water. This could diminish the availability of any particular amino acid for a given “position” on the protein. The position of the amino acid is critical for a protein to function. For example, sickle-cell anemia is caused by the misplacement of just one amino acid on a protein chain.

CONCLUSIONS FROM THE FACTS

1. The naturalistic explanation for the origin of life in the ocean has serious defects and is therefore highly improbable.
2. Belief in a Creator has not been challenged or refuted by any proposed “ocean model” but, instead, has been solidified.

Another Look at the Frequency of the Lord’s Supper

Posted by John on under Articles

When data from the New Testament is assembled concerning the gospel and the apostolic preaching of it, there is a clear correspondence between its content and the practice of taking communion on the first day of the week.

Jesus connected His death and resurrection and also the “third day” when he talked to his disciples (Matthew 16:15, 17:23, 20:19, 27:63; Mark 9:31, 10:34; Luke 9:22, 13:32,33, 18:33; John 2:19). This was also the message of the Law and Prophets (Luke 24:25-27, 44-46). Angels spoke of this connection (Luke 24:7). It is also something that stood out as a part of Jesus’ teaching and was CLEARLY remembered by His disciples (Luke 24:19-24). The THIRD DAY is the first day of the week (Luke 24:1,13, 21). A pattern of teaching is evident from this data.

Our justification and forgiveness is based on the death of Christ (Matthew 26:28) and is inseparably tied to the resurrection event (Romans 4:25, 5:10; 1 Corinthians 15:14). Note that His death and resurrection are remembered as a unit. This pattern of thought is also seen in the meaning of baptism (Romans 6: 3ff; 1 Peter 3:21). Peter in his discourse to Cornelius followed this pattern of instruction by connecting all items: death, resurrection, and third day (Acts 10:39,40). It is clear, therefore, that remembering one item makes one remember the other two.

Therefore, Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 summarized the gospel content as “… for I delivered unto you first (some versions say of first importance) of all that which also I received that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that He was buried and that He hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures… .” Notice how these comprise a symbiotic unit of thought.

Jesus gave instruction as to just how He wanted to be remembered. It is the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23-29). And not only does this have us remember His death but also His resurrection (verse 26). Hence, the frequency of taking the Lord’s Supper is determined by the essentials of the gospel (see above) because it is reflective of them. What is tied together in reality is logically tied together in memorial. The death of Christ is shown by the bread and cup and the resurrection by the first day of the week. The practice is a symbiotic unit as well as the doctrine. And such was the actual practice of the early church under Apostolic approval (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:20 + churches of Galatia, 1 Corinthians 16:1). Even after the Apostles, it remained to be an identifying practice of post-apostolic Christianity (Ferguson, Early Christians Speak, Sweet Publishing Company).

When the facts of scripture and church history are examined, it should be clearly evident that the practice of taking the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week stands on solid ground. What other practice preserves the unity (death – resurrection – third day) of thought? What other practice can one affirm has “apostolic approval” but this one? If the gospel is central, then why not let our communion practice show it as was done in the early church and for centuries later?

God Has Spoken His Mind on That!

Posted by John on under Articles

When God speaks His mind on a topic we should hear (1 Samuel 3:9). We should also submit and not rebel (Hebrews 3:15). Neither should we add to or take from His words ( Deuteronomy 4:2; Acts 15:24ff, Revelation 22:18).

When God speaks His mind, He often is very precise or specific about something (Hebrews 8:5, for example). One can build a case for or against something based on the preciseness of God’s word on a topic. (For examples, see Hebrews 7:14; Galatians 3:16ff.)

Has God spoken as to what the gospel really is? Is it “going to church”? Is it baptism? Is it singing? What about taking communion every Sunday? No, the gospel is a triad of facts with eternal significance. It is the death of Christ for our sins … His burial … His resurrection on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). It is what God did for us, not what we do or submit to. To make the gospel personal, one must give an appropriate response directed by the precise Words of God, but the “response” itself is not the gospel.

What was Jesus’ real objective in coming to earth? Was it to teach us how to worship correctly? Was it to setup the best religious organization possible? Was it to teach us to “do good” to all? Has God spoken His mind on this topic? Yes. Jesus came to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15). To make Jesus into a zealot for social reform is to veer away from the clear Word of God as per His mission.

Why was Jesus raised from the grave? It clearly declared He was indeed God’s Son (Romans 1:4). But God is even more specific. He was raised for our justification (Romans 6:25). The truth of the cross depends on the fact of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:17ff). The focus is on justification of sinners and not on miraculous “show.” To neglect to preach the resurrection is to rip significant evidence from establishing the truth of the gospel, because it validates the gospel! Early evangelists continually put the resurrection before the hearers (Book of Acts). When is the last time you have heard the resurrection examined and solidified from a class or pulpit? Is it not time that the resurrection be treated as God has specified instead of just a “great miracle” tacked-on after the cross?

God has spoken His mind on the content of the gospel and the mission of Jesus. Are we going to abide in His specifics or change or subtract from them? Most people (especially those in college) will not be truly converted to the cross without evidence of its truth. Restoring the actual preaching of the gospel could have a great impact on our community.