CHURCH IS FOR THE SAVED!
More controversy comes with this subject as Christian Colleges around the world are teaching their people that the church is a hospital to the lost and its main goal is to bring the unsaved in so they can hear the gospel and be saved. Certainly believers have a responsibility to preach the gospel (Mark 16:15, Prov 11:30 etc.) but the truth scripturally is that the assembling of believers on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor 16:1 etc) is for THE SAVED! This philosophy of bringing in the unsaved is completely unscriptural and has done MUCH damage to believers in our time. 1. The very word “church” means “assembly” or “called out assembly” and by definition alone, the implication is the assembly is made up of God’s people, called out of this world to honor, worship and serve the Lord. When unbelievers are constantly in the “church” it also increases the possibility of false converts as the message is many times abbreviated and watered-down. As well, some will make a profession without a clear understanding etc. The actual biblical way to evangelize is for the saved to GO OUT of the church and witness house to house, publickly (open air ministry etc) and wherever they are at in their day to day life (Acts 16:14,15, Mark 16:15 etc). Interesting that we find the concept of the believers only in the assembly (as much as possible. I am not advocating kicking out visitors, but I am advocating NOT inviting the lost in) in the Nt scriptures. 2. In 1 Cor. 14:22 we read, “If therefore the whole church be come together into one place…and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers…” IF! It was an EXCEPTION to have an unbeliever in the assembly of believers! See also verse 23 where we see this truth repeated. In verse 16 the “room of the unlearned” is mentioned and this has been evidenced even in the history of our country. In the 1800’s and possibly before in the USA (and possibly England) there were rooms or pews set aside for those that were lost or “unlearned.” Some of these were called “Enquirers rooms.” This view of bring in the lost is heresy to many that have studied denominational doctrine and not the Word of God, but this practice was basically unheard of before 1900. Things changed around the times of the revivalists and preachers like D.L. Moody and Billy Sunday as they encouraged the believers to invite in the lost. Previous to that men like Sam Jones would hold meetings with various churches working together but by and far the main attendees were the saved (or professing saved) already in the churches. But advancing to the days of Sunday and Moody brought the “bring them in” “the church is a hospital to the lost” mentality, which blurred the lines that made a distinction between saved and lost. This grace error has led to many negative effects on Christianity, the first being the fact that the responsibility has been taken off of the believer to witness. It has done nothing but encourage lazy spirituality. Why witness, why evangelize, when the “pastor” can do it? Again, God’s people should be getting out and preaching, witnessing, distributing gospel tracts etc. 2. Evangelism has become a joke. Gone is the convicting preaching that can lead sinners to Christ, now we have two replacements that are ineffective and unscriptural. One of these is to leave out or alter biblical repentance. Give a quick gospel message, get the “sinner” to pray the sinners prayer and be done, time for the next house. Another sad trend is the door-knocking that is simply inviting people to church. This is easy, can give the lazy believer a form of “being a servant” for the Lord when no service is really being done. Plus the Christian can be non-offensive because they do not have to deal with sin, false religion etc. Just invite them to church. The third item regarding soul-winning/evangelism is that now our image is important, so street preaching or open air ministry is too “publick,” too, in-your-face. How dare a “church member” desire to go to a local street corner where people can actually see you and you hold a sign or preach loudly! What nerve someone has to want that ministry! Yet another detrimental result is that now that the church has become a hospital for the lost, the men behind the pulpit do not want to offend the possible convert. So ease up on hard preaching and repentance and certainly, in no way, name sin! So now when an unbeliever or even a believer hears a faithful preacher who actually calls out sin by name, with no apology, they are quickly called a legalist or at the least, his bluntness is offensive. Lastly we see the ignorance of the saved. Since the focus is now the giving of the gospel and NOT Bible teaching that grounds and establishes the believer as he grows (Eph 4:11-15) we have pew-sitters who know nothing of the Word of God and are as babes in Christ in their Christian walk after many years. Especially since most believers in the average church only comes to the morning service on the Lord’s day. So there you have it. If you have a lost relative, neighbor, co-worker, then witness to them! Go out and preach publickly (Acts 20:20,21)! Church leaders, stop inviting in the lost, deal with your church “members” about their salvation and start teaching the word of God.
Bus Routes
THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH
"And he is the head of the body, the church:who is the beginning, the firstborn; that in all things he might have the preeminence." Col 1:18
Herein lies much controversy. And while there may be some not-so-clear verses regarding the church, the important thing is to allow the Bible to be our authority in this matter as well as all others. The doctrine of the Church is very important as normally people take an extreme on either side and this is a scriptural imbalance that takes away from both views of this teaching.
There are some that teach that all scriptures with the word "church" refer to the Body of Christ, meaning all believers past, present and future. There are those that hold to the position that every verse with the word "church" refers to a local assembly, or more specifically, an assembly of local believers in a local "church." Let us see what the Bible teaches with an unbiased viewpoint, but first let us look at th definition of the word "church" from various sources. Church-collective body of Christians who profess to believe in Christ, sometimes called the Catholic or Universal Church, a particular number of Christians united under one form of ecclesiastical government in one creed, followers of Christ in one city or province, the disciples of Christ assembled for worship in a particular place, worshippers of Jehovah before Christ, the collective body of Christians who have made a publick profession of the Christian religion and who are united under the same pastor (Websters 1828). Also according to Dictionary.com and Free Dictionary Online, some definitions are- Collective, gathered into a mass (of people), form or body, assembled into or viewed as a whole, temple of God's house, Lord's house, house consecrated to the worship of God, publick worship of God or a religious service, any division of this body professing the same creed and acknowledging the same ecclesiastical authority, a body of Christians worshipping in a particular building or constituting one congregation. Other parts of the definition of the word have been left out due to repetitiveness.
The word "church" is in the KJ Bible 80 times in 79 verses and the word "churches" is 37 times in 36 verses.
The fact is that in the majority of scripture references the word church refers to a local assembly or group of believers. It is evident and clear that the in the NT local bodies of believers were formed, where they assembled together for the purposes of worship, teaching, exhorting, giving etc. and we see this "local" church format in many passages (Acts 13:1, 14:23, 20:17, 16:1, 27, 1 Cor 1:2, 4:17, 11:18, Phil 4;15 etc.) This is just a sample of the passages that deal with the local assembly. Chronologically what we have to understand is that at first, when individuals were converted to Christ, they began meeting together for the above purposes (Acts 2:46) but the complete understanding and format of a local NT church was not comprehended. Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles and after being taught the specifics by the Lord, he gave instruction regarding the NT church.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH
Page 2
In Paul's writings we see teachings regarding requirements for elders and deacons (1 Tim 3, Titus 1), The Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11), role of women in the assembly (1 Cor 14), etc. As more were converted to Christ and as time progressed, Paul ordained elders in the local churches (Acts 14:23) and set things in order, establishing the local assemblies. He also gave instructions for Titus to do the same (Titus 1:5). The obvious teaching from scripture is that once converted, a believer should be part of a local church, a group or body of believers meeting together with scriptural leadership and following the biblical principles (Heb 10:25, Eph 4 etc.) There are some that reject this biblical teaching of the local church and my question is simply, why? Some do so out of a rebellion to any authority. Yes, a believer should not compromise truth, but it appears some would never be faithful to any local assembly, regardless of how scriptural and sound they were. This is rebellion and a clear violation of Heb. 10:25. My other concern is WHY would a believer in Christ, a saved, born again Child of God, NOT desire to meet with those of the same profession? Only in these last days do we seem to have such confusion. The doctrine of the local church IS scriptural and makes pefect sense. The accountability to one another is gravely important, church discipline is biblical and cannot be carried out if one is not part of a local assembly. Yes, some in leadership positions may overstep their bounds, but that does not change the fact that the Lord has ordained scriptural leadership and leadership includes accountability to those in that position.
Much to the dismay of some, the word "church" also refers to the spiritual body of Christ. NOT a local assembly, but the believers that are existent presently or from all time. yet other times the word means simply, a particular number of Christians. These definitions are evident from such passages as Matt 16:18. Surely the gates of hell HAVE prevailed against some local churches as they have fallen prey to sin, error and gross misconduct of "members," so this would HAVE to be defined as the spiritual body of Christ. Look also at Acts 8:3 where the word would HAVE to mean the believers in general, not any specific local body (remember also that there was no NT church at this time). In 1 Cor. 10:32 the terms used are regarding peoples (Jews, Gentiles) so it is only fair to state that the word "church" here refers to all believers everywhere at that present time, not a local assembly. 1 Cor 12:28 concerning the spiritual gifts, for one to say this is the local church would infer that every local church has brethren that have all of these gifts and this is simply not true. Col 1:18 and 1:24 as well as Eph 5:23-29, Phil 3:6, Heb 12:24 and Gal 1:18 are among many scriptures that support that at times the word means either the body of Christ or a number of believers. Many question at this time, how is a spiritual body then a "called out assembly?" The "called out assembly" definition comes from the Greek word, "ekklesia" NOT the English definition. Ekklesia is also translated "assembly" and this includes a group of unsaved, riotous people in Acts 19. Interesting that part of the definition of the word "ekklesia" is a Christian community of members on earth or saints or both. Also note 1 Cor 12, where the terms "body" and "member" are used and these are dealing with the spiritual body of Christ. The context is obviously referring to the body of Christ if we look at 1 Cor 12:13. Look also at Eph 1:22,23, 2:6, 19-22 and 3:5-15. Some use the terms Catholic and Universal Church for the Body of Christ. Since these terms can cause confusion, I believe it is best to use the scriptural phrase, body of Christ. The term 'Catholic" is confusing because of the false religious system of the Catholic church and the word, "Universal" usually but not always is used by those that do not adhere to the truth of their being a "local" church.
If one is to be honest with the scriptures they will see both a local church AND a spiritual body of Christ. And both are equally important. The local church provides accountablity and a scriptural environment for believers to meet together while the doctrine of the body of Christ, not local, teaches us the important truth of the unity of believers and our heavenly position. Many have simply been untaught or taught incorrectly regarding the doctrine of the Church. Proponents of both sides should have grace with the other, yet the importance of being part of a local assembly should not be violated as it is so clear in the scriptures and so vital to our everyday walk.
THE WOMAN'S ROLE IN THE LOCAL ASSEMBLY
"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
Now we enter into one of the doctrines of the scriptures that can lead to much emotionalism and at times sadly, much division and even contempt between those that profess to be children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. A large number of "brethren" today have been influenced by their "peers" while others have never been scripturally instructed on what the Bible teaches concerning the role of the sisters in the assembly. Even some of the more conservative believers express shock and disbelief when they learn what the book of God directs and how specific these directions are. Again, Lessons For Life Institute views the Bible as SOLE authority, not religious institutions, Bible professors, scholars, denominational leaders or well-known pastors or preachers.
First of all I would like to emphasize clearly that the female is NOT considered by the scriptures or by this Institute teacher as second-class citizens that are unimportant or less intelligent than men. In fact, I personally know of many women that are not only very smart but also very holy, being pious and maintaining a serious walk with God. This doctrine is not about ability, spirituality or IQ levels, but about "roles." and "order." My wife (of 30 years as of this writing) in explaining this to many women that misunderstand, brings up a very good illustration and she uses the workplace as an example in this illustration. (As many of you know, LFL teaches scripturally that Christian women are to be keepers at home-see lesson 21) but for this purpose and because we deal with many women that are in the workplace, the context of a job works well regarding this subject. My wife will ask the inquisitive lady, do you work, to which they normally espond to the positive. Then she asks the questions, "do you have a boss" and then, "do you do what he tells you to do?" At this time the light usually comes on and the disgruntled inquirer then realizes that this is for the purpose of order and is not the Lord (or us) being demeaning to the female sex. So in the church (and yes, in the family), the Lord has given specific detail that men are to be in leadership, not women. Some will cry out, "But my mother is a pastor" and the appropriate response to that is, "what saith the scripture?" Again, no one is demeaning females. The COMMAND is for women to NOT teach men and to NOT usurp their authority (1 Tim 2:12). And when the prerequisites are given for elders and deacons the context and wording is so clear that one can only conclude otherwise if they change the words of scripture, which is wrong and dangerous as no one has the right to alter the WORDS of God as they are in the Bible! For one to state that women CAN be in leadership they are NOT being honest with the Bible and not allowing it to be their Authority! Notice the terminology in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1. "husband of one WIFE..." Then you see instructions given to the "wife" (1 Tim 3:11). For one to switch the genders in these verses is dishonest and there is no allowance for this at all!
THE WOMAN'S ROLE IN THE ASSEMBLY
Page 2
Certainly a woman can teach other ladies, but she is not to teach men and she is not to be in leadership. In fact, 1 Tim. 2:12 concludes with the truth that the woman is to be in "silence." This is in complete agreement with 1 Cor. 14:34 which states, "Let your women keep silence in the churches..." Many will wrongly believe that this is only in the context of tongues but this is ruled out by the rest of the scripture. "...for it is not permitted unto them to SPEAK; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law." The next verse even enforces the position that a woman is not to speak AT ALL in the assembly. "And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home:for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." Strong words. Verse 37 even states that if one is spiritual they will acknowledge this truth, that women are to be silent in the assembly. How far does one take this? As far as the scriptures, is my answer. What about the giving of a testimony or a simple announcement concerning a ladies meeting etc. What saith the scripture? Silent. What about the singing of hymns then? The difference is that the assembly singing praises to the Lord is CONGREGATIONAL! One can also easily see how the violation of this command to silence has led to much error. Give the woman a testimony time and she will soon be taking the pulpit! I have personally witnessed many women giving testimonies that quickly turned into teaching etc. So stick with the scriptures, my friends, the Lord knows us better than we know ourselves and it is His commands we are to follow not our "instincts." Regarding prayer, a sister can pray as long as she does so silently and not out loud, as that would be leading men.
Thankfully the sisters can do much for the Lord:witness to the lost, pray, raise the children for Christ as she teaches them at home etc. There are many in the scriptures that were Godly and assisited their husbands and served the Lord, but out of order and for His reasons, the Lord has men in the leadership positions in the local assembly and the command in scripture is for the woman to not teach men, not usurp their authority and to be in silence.
THE BIBLICAL EVANGELIST
The EvangelistThe NT gift of evangelism is much misunderstood in these last days. An evangelist in modern terms is one who travels from assembly to assembly exhorting God’s people, at times preaching what are termed, “revival meetings.” This really has no scriptural basis at least not under the title “Evangelist.” Yes, in the scriptures we do see Paul and others travelling and exhorting, encouraging and preaching to others, but generally this was done by the Apostle Paul or those he delegated with his apostolic authority. Now we do see that others have the gift of pastor and others of teaching (some of course may have both gifts) and there would be nothing found unscriptural about one with the gift of teaching travelling and teaching believers in different local churches or assemblies. In the older days of the United States these itinerant preachers were called just that and that were also known as “exhorters.” But the “evangelist” is one who has the gift of evangelism, he is especially gifted from the Lord, specifically by the Holy Ghost, to EVANGELIZE! This may be where he lives or he may travel, as the Lord directs and guides. The majority of men who have this gift stay in their local assemblies and utilize it in their day-to-day life (at least they should); witnessing, doing open air ministry, perhaps door-knocking. The few in number that are directed by the Lord to leave their home perhaps or maintain their home but do much travel, will evangelize in surrounding counties, cities, states and perhaps different countries. Let us clarify a few points though regarding the “evangelist.” His not an office, but a gift (Eph 4:10-16) and exercising his gift is somewhat distinct from the others. Yes, all of the gifts in Eph 4 that are now in operation today (pastor, teacher, evangelist) perform to some degree many times all of the activities described (perfecting of the saints, work of the ministry, edifying of the body of Christ) but the primary activity of the biblical evangelist in his “for the work of the ministry” to GET OUT OF THE ASSEMBLY AND EVANGELIZE! Most of his work of the ministry is dedicated to those OUTSIDE of the assembly, while the majority of the “work of the ministry” of the pastor and teacher is regarding the brethren, those inside the assembly of believers (please do not misunderstand this to mean their ministry is in the church building on the Lord’s Day ONLY. Certainly much work for the ministry will be accomplished then, but those with the gifts of pastor and teacher can and should do much ministry outside of the building and at other times than just the time the believers assemble). Not to be repetitive, but there is no ordination for any believer to exercise their gift and you will see none such support from the scriptures. You DO see men with this gift being given the right hand of fellowship and being sent off on a particular journey (Gal 2:9,), but you do not see one being ordained of men to now be an evangelist, pastor etc. This purely man-made. More of this is covered in the previous sstudy of ordination. This “sending off” of one to exercise his spiritual gift would be similar to an open air preacher leaving to go on a journey to preach/witness/evangelize at particular events. Certainly prayers would be offered and possibly financial assistance for the trip etc. This leads to the concern of, “Should the evangelist be supported by his local church and should any financial assistance be ONLY through the local assembly. Again, what saith the scriptures? There is nothing to state that gifts must come through the local church and one who says otherwise is adding to the scriptures and is on dangerous ground (Prov 30:5,6). Paul in fact was a tentmaker, even though he was eligible to receive gifts and support for his work (2 Thes 3:6-9). This concept of finances HAVING to go through the local church has NO scriptural basis whatsoever. Sadly men have misunderstood “tithing” and “giving.” When Paul mentions the giving towards believers (2 Cor 8,9 etc) this has nothing to do with “support” towards the Lord’s work and even then it would not necessitate the funds going through the local assembly. This was done purely for the purpose of practicality, they received the funds , then brought them to ones in need. Do you think Paul would have been upset if a brother from another assembly had met the carrier of the financial gift and added a few dollars? It would be foolish to think so unless you have been duped by the modern catholic system of a hierarchy that unscripturally has eased into our biblical churches. Much of this is not about accountability but control. The support of an evangelist, missionary etc. can scripturally come from any honest means, be it, work by the individual being self-supported,, believing family or friends, operation of a family business (of brethren of course), etc. There is no mandate, command or hint that financial gifts must go through the local church! Now, is it mandatory for the evangelist to give his tithe to his local assembly? First of all, as we see in the “tithing” study, tithing is not for the NT church. Regarding giving, there is no NT command for an evangelist having to send any funds back to the local assembly, though he certainly has liberty to do so, as he also has liberty to give to believers in need, or to put some funds back into the ministry. People say. “You are taking too much liberty.” No, the truth is, most are adding to the Word of God! Another inquiry made concerning the “evangelist” is must he be “sent out” of a local church? We do see Paul in the scriptures NOT being sent out of a local church. The scriptures do teach that believers should be part of a local assembly (though as mentioned in the study: What Consititutes a Local Church, at times there will be exceptions) and it is obviously implied that believers will meet together in obedience to the scriptures for the purposes of exhorting and encouraging one another, learning from the teacher or teachers that are exercising their gifts, worship of the Lord during the breaking of bread and the hymn-singing, giving etc. In Acts 8 the believers went everywhere preaching the word and we see Phillip preaching in Acts 8 as well in Samaria, yet he was not ordained or sent out of a local assembly in the sense we think of today. People may point to Acts 6 and say that Phillip was “ordained” at this point and sent out of a local church but this “laying on of the hands” on Phillip and the others was for the purpose of the ministry to the widows and certainly was not an “ordination” for preaching. While Phillip may have been part of the fellowship of the assembly at Jerusalem (Acts 6) where does it state that he was “sent out” of the church, gave his tithe to the church etc. Ridiculous assumptions NOT Bible fact!
DOES AN EVANGELIST HAVE TO START CHURCHES?
Question: Should starting churches be considered the work of an evangelist? It CAN be? Certainly Paul did so but there are other evangelists in the scriptures that apparently did not start churches as part of their ministry. In Acts 8, Philip goes down to Samaria to preach, there are converts, baptisms of the converts, but no record of a local church starting, though it is possible. In vs. 26-40 we see Philip, who has the gift of evangelism, witnessing to the eunuch, who gets converted to Christ and is baptized, but there is no thought evidenced of Philip "starting" a church. In fact, he leaves the eunuch abruptly as the Spirit of God moves him elsewhere (v. 39). To have the gift of an evangelist is to have a special ability from the Lord to evangelize. Being used of the Lord to begin a work is certainly right and acceptable, but as we see here with Philip, not mandatory.
ARE BUS ROUTES SCRIPTURAL?
Bus RoutesYes, I desire to see children and young people saved. But the Bus Route is not the scriptural method to accomplish such. As we have settled in the last study, the assembling of believers is for the saved, so why bring in the lost intentionally…of any age? This mix is not what the Lord intended as we have seen already. This is one of the many reasons to NOT have a Bus Route and another is that the lost can easily influence the saved in a wrong way. I have seen the dozens and hundreds of children pile in to “church,” wearing their Batman t-shirts, some with immodest dress, others talking of their favorite movie, Tv show or rock musician. Yes, I would like to see them come to Christ, but using methodology that is unscriptural is not the way to go about it. God’s Way is BEST, friends. I have also evidenced young people from 4-17 years of age, step before the church and give shallow testimonies, many times the “Christian witness” or youth pastor putting words in the “converts” mouth and coaching as they go along. This is WICKED! We could go on but enough has been stated for the reader to see clearly that Bus routes are unscriptural, dangerous and even, damning at times. If one desires to reach young people, do a Bus Route on Saturday. There is nothing unbiblical about that as the last day of the week is NOT the chosen time for believers to meet, the first day of the week is (1 Cor 16:1, Acts 20:7).
ARE CHURCH NURSERIES SCRIPTURAL?
The Nursery The nursery is for nursing but can be utilized for correction and discipline of children as well. The problem lies with the use of a nursery being a babysitting room for one thing. It is traditional in some assemblies for the ushers to wisk the mothers with young children directly towards the nursery, so the children can be left and the mother is free to pay attention to the message. As well, then the preacher exercising his gift of teaching or preaching is not interrupted and the end result is all are happy. But is that a basis for what is correct? At one “church” we drove a few hours to attend some years ago, we were told that NO babies or infants were allowed in the service, they HAD to be in the nursery, and worse yet, no parents were allowed to be with their own child or children in the nursery. I promptly left after challenging the usher that such was nonsense and was NOT found in the scriptures. Nurseries should be for nursing and the other reasons mentioned above. Children need to be trained to be still and not fidgety period, let alone during an assembling of the Lord’s people. The proper way to utilize a nursery would be to NOT make it a babysitting careplace for children, but to have the room available for mothers to go and nurse. Once the nursing is done, it should be encouraged for the mothers to get back into the service. If the baby or infant needs attention or gets too noisy, go out again and work at the child learning to be quiet. What helps tremendously is for the parents to work at this at home, so the infant quickly understands what is expected. I realize that I am saying baby and infant, but they can pick up on things quicker than most realize and if consistent, by the age of four or so, the child can easily be silent during the meeting time. Nurseries also tend to be places where women’s gossip sessions can take place and that should be prevented as well.
MISSING "CHURCH" FOR MINISTRY
Should a Person Miss “Church” to Streetpreach?In Hebrews 10:25 the believer is commanded to not forsake the assembling of believers. “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: as ye see the day approaching.” Let us clear up a few points here before we even look at the issue of a believer being out of the assembling of believers on the Lord’s Day to do Publick Ministry or any other form of ministry. 1. The “believer” who has no intent to assemble with other Christians gives cause for doubt concerning their salvation. Nearly everyone that I have ever heard give testimony of their conversion to Christ expressed an interest in meeting with God’s people that they never had previously, simply put in modern terms, they started attending “church.” As well there was a new desire to read the Word of God etc. Certainly there may be some truly converted that may be unaware of the importance and benefits of becoming a part of a biblical fellowship, but normally when the convert is approached about this issue, they will seek to obey the scriptures. A few years ago, I was preaching publickly in York, Pennsylvania and noticed a young man, probably late 20’s or early 30’s who listened attentively. After spending a few moments with him, he gave ample evidence to me (as best I could tell) that he had been converted to Christ while in jail about a month or so before. When I opened up the scriptures to him concerning the importance of assembling with other believers, his eyes grew big and he expressed his delight in this as well as an intent to look for a “church” when he got to his new destination (he was waiting for a bus). I have dealt with tens of thousands of people concerning spiritual things over the years and am pretty discerning about the ones I am dealing with, and I believe that this person was sincere in his words and intent. Though I would not base anyone’s conversion to Christ on their desire to “attend church” of course, this man’s enthusiastic response to the scriptures concerning this issue certainly is a plus to showing a changed life, especially when mixed with his excitement over being saved. Point being, a believer generally will desire to meet with God’s people once converted and they SHOULD do so! 2. The believer SHOULD regularly meet with other believers on the first day of the week (covered in another lesson), else they are being contrary to the scriptures (Heb 10:25). (This SHOULD entail as much as possible, biblical leadership of a plurality of elders that meet the biblical requirements (1 Tim 3, Titus 1, Acts 14:23 etc.) and the subject of leadership is covered in a different lesson as well). A Christian who is forsaking the assembling of God’s people on a regular basis is OUT OF THE WILL OF GOD. And one who is casual about this issue is certainly not consecrated to Christ. 3. And here is where the matter comes up about missing a “church” service, but many will disagree because of their past teaching or their denominational stance, but the Word of God MUST be the standard for the believer. The definition for “forsake” from Heb 10:25 from the Webster’s 1828 is as follows, “to quit or leave entirely, to desert, to abandon, to depart from, to renounce, to reject, to leave, to withdraw from, to fail.” NOW THIS IS IMPORTANT! As already stated, one should NOT have a casual attitude about assembling with believers. We know that there are occasions when a believer or one’s relative may be sick as well as other cases where a Christian may not be able to make it due to situations that are unavoidable (flat tire etc.) The question comes now to ministry on the Lord’s Day or even during the specific times of the meetings. Is it wrong, unscriptural and out of order for a believer to miss “church” to preach at a prison that holds chapel services that conflict with the time that the local church holds their meetings? Is a Christian wrong if he preaches publickly during an event like the Kentucky Derby or the Indy 500 because the timing of the event is the same as when the believers meet? What about a Sunday School class or a Junior Church meeting that is held IN the “church” but that is at the same time as the believers hold their primary meeting together, the “ministries” as named above keeping them out of the general assembly. The answer is in the definition and in comparing scripture with scripture. The definition of the word makes it CLEAR that to miss a service, a day, or even a few days or a week to MINISTER would not be wrong. Look again at the definitions of the word “forsake.” Hebrews 10:25 is CLEARLY referring to one who abandons, quits, deserts or renounces the gathering of God’s people. Missing a meeting, especially for ministry, is CERTAINLY NOT renouncing “church” or “abandoning” God’s people as they meet together and anyone who uses Heb 10:25 to support such a lie is perverting the Word of God! As well, we are commanded to preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15 etc) and why would a Christian not go to a jail or a prison to preach to the lost, who obviously need the gospel and spiritual help, at a chapel service when given the opportunity, no matter what the time or day? The same goes for preaching at an event, where many times there are thousands or tens of thousands of lost people that are headed for a Christless eternity and who need the message of the gospel. Certainly the devil rejoices when God’s people do not show up at these events to preach, being content to just go to “church” or let others do the work of the Lord, but what about the Christian who is unwilling to warn the wicked and preach the gospel, just because the event is during the gathering of God’s people. Consider also when we compare scripture with scripture. Look at Deut 4:31, 1 Kings 6:13, Ps. 89:30, 119:8, Prov 2:17 6:20, 9:20, Heb 13:5 etc. Comparing the scriptures makes it even more CLEAR that the word “forsake” has nothing to do with an occasional “missing” but is a “departing from” or a “renouncing.” Am I advocating missing “church” just because you are lazy, tired or simply do not feel like going, of course not! But let us not FORSAKE the truth that a believer CAN miss a “service” to serve the Lord in any of the above capacities. It is time to ABANDON religious peer pressure and obey the Word of God and teach it HONESTLY! Think about how many MILLIONS of people in every major city, every year do not hear the gospel or get warned about their sin because pastors have concluded erringly that a believer cannot miss church to obey the Lord. How many Catholics are holding “church services” in jails, because those that are saved have been taught incorrectly that they cannot temporarily be gone from the gathering of God's people.
TITHING AND COLLECTION
TITHING AND COLLECTIONS
TITHING
Here goes much
controversy where there should be none if one is truly a Bible-believer. The problem is many have made the issue of
tithing (giving 10% of your income to the Lord, in essence, to the local
church) a mandate for fellowship and spirituality. Actually IF tithing was commanded for NT
believers, it would be a gauge of one’s spiritual condition as obedience to any
COMMAND would be. Now, some of you are
already shuddering but let us look at this issue allowing the BIBLE to be our
authority and nothing else. 1. Tithing was under the old covenant and was
specifically for Israel, physical, the Jews, it was composed of everything they
earned and grew and they gave it to the Temple/Tabernacle (See Lev. 27:30-34,
Numbers 18:26-32, 2 Chron 31:4-12,) and it was stored (2 Chron. 31:11,12) and
used as food for the priests, the stranger, the fatherless and the widow
(Deut14:29, 10-13). Again, this command
was for the JEWS under the law and actually consisted of about 23.3 percent
when the MULTIPLE tithes are combined.
2. Technically the Lord directs the
Jews in one place to eat of their tithe (Deut 12:17,18) and even to take the
tithe (corn, wine, oil etc.) and sell it if you cannot make it to the
designated place the Lord has chosen and have a feast (Deut 14:22-29)! So if a “church” is going to be consistent,
how would they feel if you put in some bushels of corn in the offering plate,
or if you could not make it to church, you stopped at Pizza Hut at had a
feast. Again, the tithe is clearly OT
and NOT for the NT church anyways, but this does prove a point. 3. The
storehouse is NOT the NT church! Anyone
who tried to state this has had too much religious education and not enough
Bible! The FOOD was stored to be used by the Levites for their provision
as well as the others we see in the passages listed above. Are you under grace or under law, pastor,
Christian, Bible College professor? Your
answer regarding tithing will tell if you are a true Bible-believer. Yes, there are many Godly men who hold to
tithing and perhaps they have never studied the issue, but the fact is that the
tithe is not for the NT believer and to state that the NT believer MUST give
10% to the local church is NOT SCRIPTURAL!
We do not give food, we do not put it into a storehouse (which is what
they have on a farm,) by the way, a church is not a storehouse (and it usually
goes to the bank anyway) and there is NO NT command or even a hint that NT
believers are to give a tithe. People
then say, “Did not Jesus speak of the tithe?”
Of course He did in Matt 23:3 (repeated in Luke11:42) and the Pharisee
boasted of giving his tithe in Luke 18:12, but we must remember to “rightly
divide the word of truth.” The NT church
was not in existence yet! This is of the utmost importance. There is NO NT command for tithing! No NT command for the local church to
tithe! And NO NT command for believers
to tithe to the local church!
CLEAR! Are you a bible-believer
or not? Do you seek to please men or the
Lord. Hebrews 7 is the only other NT
reference to tithing but there is NO command or even close to it for NT
believers! Some in desperation throw
out, “but the tithe was BEFORE the law with Abraham and Melchisedec (Gen.
14:20) but so was the rite of circumcision (Gen. 17:10-14), yet the same
“pastors” that want to preach and teach tithing for the NT church will not
promote circumcision. Some now ask,
“What about giving at all?” Yes, the
scriptures teach about biblical NT giving (2 Cor 8,9) and the collection for
the giving is to be on the first day of the week (1 Cor 16:1,2) as believers assemble. Although
the context of 1 Cor. 16 is giving to
Jerusalem believers in need, the
principle holds good today as there still exists specific needs in the
assembly. Even the context of 2 Cor. 8
and 9 are regarding believers in need and there is much there concerning the
principles and purpose of Christian giving.
There is first to be a giving to ourselves (8:5) and the giving is to be
WILLINGLY (8:12, 9:7) and is not by COMMANDMENT (8:8). Some even more desperate will try to say that
these passages are above and beyond tithing but that is an untruth,in other
words, a lie. There is NO NT command for
the believers to tithe! These passages
are NOT extras, but set forth the principles and purpose of Christian
giving! And at no charge I will state
that “faith promise giving” is not scriptural!
If one wants to practice faith promise, fine, but do not use the
scriptures to justify it! 2 Cor 9:1-8 is
the passage churches will use to teach faith promise but the very first verse makes it clear that the
context is again, giving to believers in need.
In the scriptures this called “the fellowship of ministering to the
saints” (2 Cor 8:4). Herein lies another
problem with the unscriptural elevation of one man as head of the local church
instead of a plurality of elders. If the
“pastor” has a financial need, generally the believers will sacrifice and
scrounge to give, but we have personally seen believers have very difficult
times (perhaps as a result of a loss of a job etc.) and be ignored when it comes to help, because
they are not “ordained ministers.” This
hierarchy in most of our churches also gets upset when a gift to a brother or a
missionary does not go through the local church, but again, there is absolutely
no scriptural basis for doing so IF you are a NT believer.
Collections
Most “churches” pass an offering plate to collect their
“tithe” and some will think it heresy to do otherwise. But there are drawbacks to passing a plate
and one of these is the opportunity for lost people to give to the Lord. This easily can give a false sense of
“righteousness” and “doing good” and is evident when witnessing to those that
are lost. There is no record of the
early church taking “offerings” from the heathen and this is supported by 3
John v. 7. As well, some believers end
up not giving out of a cheerful heart, but out of guilt or “necessity,” many times concerned with what others may be
thinking. Some local churches have seen
the detriment to this practice and now put a box or plate off to the side in
the local assembly, where God’s people can give of a willing heart.
CHURCH MEMBERSHIP
Church
Membership
The only thing we see in the NT church that a believer is a
member of is the body of Christ (1 Cor 12, Romans 12, 1 Cor 6, Eph 4:25 and Eph
5:30). I understand that church
membership is used for accountability purposes etc. and to prevent
“church-hopping” (that allows for no accountability), but membership is not in
the scriptures while “fellowship” is as God’s people meet together (Heb 10:25,
Phil 1:5, 1 John 1:3-7). What difference
does this make, some might ask. There
are many church “members” that are lost
and unregenerate, but there are no members of the body of Christ that are
unsaved. The responsibility of the
elders in the local church is to be as sure as possible that those in the
assembly are truly regenerated.
Certainly we may not be able to assess for sure but working towards a
converted fellowship of believers is easier to maintain when the “join the
church” mentality is dissolved. It also
does away with the same false “righteousness” that one can attain by being a
church member, similar to what was mentioned concerning the unbeliever giving
as the offering plate passes by. What
would seem to be more correct would be after an individual or a family prays
and sees the Lord’s direction to be part of a local assembly is for them to
approach the Elders concerning the matter.
This will result in scriptural accountability while at the same time,
the Elders can discern the spiritual condition of the person or family. And again there will be little or no
confusion about one having a false notion of being saved because they are a on
a church roll.
BAPTIST CHURCH CONFUSION, ORIGINS AND ORIGINAL DISTINCTIONS AND HOW THEY HAVE CHANGED
The Baptist Church
Origins, How The Distinctives Have
Changed and the Truth About
Fellowship and
Division Among Believers Concerning These Distinctions
There are four main views concerning the history of the
Baptist Church. 1. That the denomination traces itself back to
the 17th century, particularly in the USA and England. 2. The
“successionist” view that holds that Baptist churches existed in an unbroken
chain since the time of Christ. 3. The
view that it was an outgrowth of the
AnaBaptist Movement and 4. The
“perpetuity” view which holds to the belief that the Baptist faith and practice
has existed since the time of Christ.
The view of this author is that there have always been those that hold to the Biblical doctrines
that have made the Baptist churches distinct, since the time of Christ, but the
truth is that the Baptist NAME was not commonly used until the 17th
century (some may include the AnaBaptists, which would bring the date back to
the 16th century, roughly 1524).
It is imperative to recognize a
few things. The first is that there were
groups by different names, such as Lollards, Dunkards, and Waldensians, that
held to all or most of the same distinctives throughout history as the modern
Baptist churches hold to. There are some
who hold to the belief that the name “Baptist” has been around since the time
of Christ, and that is pure error. But
to state that there were believers present
who held to the major tenets of the Baptist faith since the first
century is correct. Basically, there
were believers that held to these Bible truths though most did not actually use
the name “Baptist.” Secondly, it is
imperative to understand that today there are many different factions
among Baptists, some varying greatly in
doctrine. Among these you would have
Seventh-Day Baptists (that hold to the OT Sabbath), and others that adhere to
modern translations that corrupt major Bible doctrines, women preachers etc. Now the interesting thing is how the
Baptist churches have changed in the last few hundred years and also in looking
at what the original distinctive were, when in fact, many modern Baptists have added to these distinctives and believe
one not following the modern additions, is in error and not a true Baptist. Important also is the understanding that
Baptist and Christian are certainly not synonymous by any means, though some
would like to make it so. One may be a
Baptist and not a Christian, a true
convert to Christ, while not all Christians are Baptists, though some would
foolishly like to argue that point.
The Distinctives
of the Baptists-Originally
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.
<!--[endif]--> That the
Bible is the sole authority of faith and practice. No other books or works are necessary or
authoritative.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.
<!--[endif]-->That water baptism is for BELIEVERS only, not
for the unregenerate, including infants.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.
<!--[endif]-->Separation of Church and State
Soon after were added: 4.The priesthood of all believers and 5. The
autonomy of the local church.
The problem comes when we see the
distinctive over the recent years, many being unwritten but held as both a
Baptist distinctive AND Bible truth.
Many of these include certainly are scriptural such as observance of the
Lord’s Supper and adherence to basic, yet fundamentally important doctrines
such as the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the doctrine of
eternal punishment etc. However many of
these unwritten tenets (and some ARE written
in church constitutions and doctrinal statements), are not clearly supported
by the scriptures, while others are very doubtful and even in total contrast to
biblical truth. This is where
controversy comes in. The Independent
Baptist movement, a much smaller movement, but overall more conservative in
regards to separation from those holding to different doctrine (fundamental
doctrines), practical separation including a narrower view of standards etc.
has grown over the years as a result of the trend towards liberality in the
much larger Southern Baptist Denomination.
Of course, the IBC strongly adheres to the autonomy of the local church
and has no physical head as the SB church does.
As time goes on, even among the Independent Baptist churches there are
more divisions and differences concerning doctrine, separation etc.
It is imperative as we continue this
study that the reader understand that a church (assembly of believers) that
holds to the original Baptist distinctive, may not have the name “Baptist” on
their church label, but that does not make them unscriptural or incorrect. On the flip side, it is of utmost importance
that the reader see that scripture is the FINAL AUTHORITY and if a church,
Baptist or otherwise, holds to teachings or doctrines that are contrary to the
scriptures, then they are WRONG. This is
especially important if the church maintains these added “distinctives,” written
or unwritten, are used as basis of fellowship and church discipline. While some of these distinctions may be of
great doctrinal importance, such as the fundamental doctrines mentioned
earlier, ONLY THOSE DISTINCTIONS, WRITTEN OR UNWRITTEN, THAT ARE CLEARLY
SUPPORTED BY THE SCRIPTURES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A BASIS FOR A BREAK IN
FELLOWSHIP OR CHURCH DISCIPLINE! This is
a major factor that must be heeded as some “churches” have made distinctions,
Bible doctrine, when in essence, they are matters of denomination beliefs or
even preferences of local church leadership.
To break fellowship with a brother or to initiate church discipline over
matters or beliefs NOT clearly supported by the scriptures is grave error and
simply put, very wrong! In fact, it is
actually DIVISION in a wrong way and the scriptures teach that such division is
wrong (Rom 16:17, 1 Cor 3:3, 11:18). So as we consider some of these beliefs
that have been considered “distinctive” and a basis for fellowship, remember
two things. 1. That the Bible is the Authority, not a
denominational handbook, a church constitution, not a pastor, nor a religious
institution such as a seminary or Bible college. 2.
There will be differences among believers, even among those who
sincerely believe their doctrinal position is correct about a matter. Of course, if these differences are
concerning fundamental doctrines such as the deity of Christ, salvation by
grace through faith apart from works etc. then fellowship should be broken
scripturally (Amos 3;3, Romans 16:17, 1 Tim. 6:3-5, etc.) As well, when a professing believer is living
in sin that is also a basis for disfellowshipping (1 Cor 5:9-11) as is the brother walking
disorderly (2 Thes 3:6). (The goal of
the brother walking with the Lord should be to restore the one who has fallen
or who is in error (Gal 6:1-3)). But
when the differences between believers is not of this sort or is not a doctrine
or practice it should NOT be a basis for breaking fellowship.
Methodist historian, wrote in Jarrell's
"h Perpetuity" on page 69: "I shoul
THE LORD'S SUPPER:
THE BREAKING OF BREAD AND THE FREQUENCY OF THE CELEBRATION
THE LORD’s SUPPER
The importance of
the Lord’s Supper is one of the most overlooked doctrines of the
scriptures. Many it seems have forgotten
or perhaps never fully realized the emphasis placed upon this teaching in the
Bible or the profound impact with which the early church revered the
remembrance of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ on Calvary. The first reference to the Lord’s Supper is
in Matthew 26:26-30 when the Saviour introduced this to his Apostles at the
Passover celebration. This was done
during the meal and was certainly a fitting time as Christ Himself of course,
was the FINAL Passover Lamb (Isaiah 53, John 1:29). After the partaking of the elements of the
bread and the cup and Jesus’ brief explanation of the symbolism of the New
Testament (or covenant), they proceeded to sing a hymn. That this would be a practice to be remembered
by followers of Christ after this recorded time is not evident from the
scriptures, the Apostles may not have
understood as yet that the Lord’s Supper was to be celebrated throughout the
remaining history of the NT Church. For
sure we do not know, but we do know that Christ prophetically taught about His
soon work on Calvary and that this partaking of the bread and the cup
represented His body that was given and His blood that was shed for sin. With Paul, many years later however, it is
quite clear that the Supper was to be a regular practice of NT believers and
was to be celebrated until the return of Christ (1 Cor. 11:26). This teaching was revealed to Paul from the
Lord Himself (1 Cor. 11:23) as was the gospel (Gal. 1:11,12). We can assume, though there is no certainty,
that Christ taught Paul a number of things, many believing that the time referenced
in Gal. 1:16-18 could be when these instructions took place. Throughout history, the partaking of the
Remembrance was of major importance to believers. The false religion of the Roman Catholic Church
at the Council of Basel agreed apprehensively with the Hussites, that they
could practice free preaching of the Word of God AND to taking of the Supper,
among other things. During the
Reformation, the debate over baptism and the Lord’s Supper were in the heat of
the battle because the True Church marked both of these as gulfs dividing the
Church from the world whereas the National Church used these two rites to
bridge the church and the world, doing away from the necessity of personal
conversion to Christ. Menno Simmons, of
whom the Mennonite religion is based, accounted his understanding of the
importance of both ordinances to the Spirit of God (The Pilgrim Church,
Broadbent, pg. 201). Pilgrim Marbeck in
1542 wrote a small book that included among other issues, the importance of the
Lord’s Supper. One statement Marbeck
writes is, “…we must say that three things are necessary to the economy of a
Christian assembly, namely, the preaching of the gospel, true baptism (for
believers only) and a true keeping of the Lord’s Supper.” In fact the author goes on with, “Where these
are not carried on, oir where one of them is lacking, it is not possible for a
genuine, pure Christian assembly to stand and maintain an outward testimony.” There are numerous things that should be
covered in a study of the Lord’s Supper and I would like to cover each briefly,
but thorough enough so that the reader has a good and scriptural understanding
of this important truth.
The Regularity of the
Remembrance
Many assemblies
of believers celebrate this ordinance irregularly, some weekly on every first
day of the week, others, monthly, and many just a few times a year, while the
writer has known of instances where a regular meeting of saints has went for
years with no instances of remembering the Lord’s work on Calvary in the
institution commanded by Paul. Let us
look at the FACTS concerning how often local assemblies should have the Lord’s
Supper. Fact 1 is that there is no
clear-cut scripture that commands how often.
2. The fact is however that there
are references made to “breaking bread.”
In Luke 24:35, the phrase is used reminiscent of the time the Lord Jesus
Christ just spent with those on the Emmaus Road in the meal and in Acts 2:42
and 46 and according to one view, it appears the same, that of being a meal,
this being a time of fellowship. It
seems apparent from the wording in Acts 2:42 that the Apostles practiced and
the believers were continuing in, what they had seen as a pattern from them,
again a “fellowship meal.” We see no
command for this “fellowship meal” but again, by the way this scripture is
written, this conclusion would be a safe one.
This does not in any way make this fellowship binding to NT believers as
there is no command to us. One must also
remember that this time was still technically a time of transition and the NT
“church” with it’s details of structure etc. were certainly not in the works
yet. Did this time of fellowship,
especially on the first day of the week (there may well have been times of
exhortation, fellowship, meals, instruction, worship etc. on other days), may
or may not have included the remembrance of Christ through the elements of the
bread and the cup, for sure we do not know as there is no clear scriptures
regarding so. (The reader also should
remember that at this time during the early part of Acts, the gospel focus was
on Christ, the coming Kingdom and salvation was NOT based on one’s belief and
trust in the shed blood of Christ (see Matt 16:20-23, Acts 2:36-39, 8:37 etc.) In Acts 20 we read of the account of the
meeting on the first day of the week and it states that they came together to
break bread and hear preaching. This may
refer to the “fellowship meal” as we see above or it could, by this time
chronologically be a reference to the Lord’s Supper. The second view and one that shows the
importance of comparing scripture with scripture is that the term “breaking of
bread” can refer to BOTH the meal AND the Lord’s Supper, depending on the
passage and the context. We DO know
that this calling the “breaking of bread”
at some point in time became synonymous in some circIes with the Lord’s Supper.
In the 1500’s there were three friends of
Zwingli’s who travelled preaching and it is stated of them, “…the believers met
regularly for the Lord’s Supper, which they called the breaking of bread.” (The Pilgrim Church, Broadbent, Pg. 185). Looking
at the First Corinthians 10 passage though may also shed some light that gives
more credibility to the view of the term being coined in reference to the Lord’s
Supper. Notice the following from the
Apologetics Site (www.apologeticspress.org),
“In 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, Paul addressed the subject of the
Lord’s Supper with these words: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not
the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it
not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and
one body; for we all partake of that one bread” (emp. added). Paul later
reminded the Corinthians of the night in which Jesus first instituted this
memorial feast, saying, “For I received from the Lord that which I also
delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was
betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it
and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in
remembrance of Me’” (1 Corinthians 11:23-24, emp. added). Because part of this
memorial supper that Christians are commanded to keep involves the actual
breaking of bread, the expression “to break bread” was used in reference to the
Lord’s Supper in the early church (cf. Behm, 1965, 3:730). Similar to how this
phrase was used as a synecdoche in regard to common meals, it was also used to
represent the Lord’s Supper (where consumption of both the bread and the fruit
of the vine is referred to as simply “the breaking of bread”).
Because the phrase “to break bread”
refers both to common meals and the Lord’s Supper, one must examine the context
of passages in order to understand which one is being discussed. For example,
since in Acts 2:42 “breaking bread” is listed with other religious activities
carried out by the church such as teaching, praying, and fellowshipping , one
may logically conclude that “the breaking of bread” is a reference to
the early Christians partaking of the Lord’s Supper.
But what about the use of the phrase
“to break bread” in Acts 20:7? When this
information is processed in light of the fact that Paul earlier had written to
the church at Corinth and implied that the purpose for them coming together was
to partake of the Lord’s Supper (in an orderly manner—1 Corinthians 11:20,33),
then the passage in Acts 20 makes much better sense: “to break bread” was (or
at least included) the eating of the Lord’s Supper. What’s more, Paul remained
in Troas for seven days despite being in a hurry to get to Jerusalem
before Pentecost (which was about 31 days, 10 stops, and 1,000 miles away—cf.
Acts 20:6,13-16; 21:1,3,7,8,15). Why tarry in Troas for seven days? It was not
simply to eat a common meal with the saints. Rather, Paul desired to worship
with the church in Troas “on the first day of the week,” which included
observing “communion” with them (1 Corinthians 10:16).” Now
Apologetics Press has come to this conclusion, partly based upon the use of the
Greek words whereas I would state that based upon the wordage of First
Corinthians, it is clear that AT TIMES, the breaking of bread refers to the
Lord’s Supper. Fact 4. Historically, there is much evidence that the
celebration of the Lord’s Supper was every first day of the week. It is remembered that my point in bringing up
the historical context is not to make a doctrine out of history BUT THAT
LOOKING AT THE HISTORY REVEALS HOW THE BELIEVERS AT THESE TIMES INTERPRETED AND
UNDERSTOOD THINGS REGARDING THE LORD’S SUPPER.
George Muller stated, “although we have no express command respecting
the frequency of it’s (the Lord’s Supper) observance, yet the example of the
Apostles and of the first disciples would lead us to observe the ordinance
every Lord’s Day…” (The Pilgrim Church,
Broadbent, 2009, pg. 374. The testimony of Justin Martyr is as follows
concerning early church worship, “On Sunday a meeting is held of all who live
in the cities and villages, and a section is to be read from the Memoirs of the
Apostles and the writings of the prophets, as long as time permits. When the reading is finished, the president
in a discourse, gives the admonition and exhortation to imitate these noble
things. After this we arise and offer a
common prayer. At the close of the prayer as we have before described,
bread and wine and thanks for them according to his ability and the
consecration answers “amen.” Then the
consecrated elements are distributed to each one and partaken of, and are carried
by the deacons to the houses of the absent.
The wealthy and the willing then give contributions according to their
freewill; and this collection is deposited with the president, who therewith
supplies orphans, widows, prisoners, strangers and all who are in want.”
So in summary, there is no clear-cut
COMMAND for the frequency of the Lord’s Supper in the scriptures, but
HISTORICALLY we see indications and examples that the time of remembrance was
every first day of the week. This was
based upon the understanding and interpretation of the scriptures regarding the
remembrance time. It is my belief that
the Lord’s Supper was intended to be celebrated every first day of the week, as
the believers met for exhortation, giving, hymn-singing etc. However, since there is some doubt here, this
should certainly not be a cause for break in fellowship. On the other hand, why not remember the work
of our Lord on Calvary, His sacrifice for our sin when we meet together? If there is so much evidence that the early
church and many believers since that time, believed the supper should be
remembered every first day as the “church” assembled, why not take the “safe”
position and follow that pattern? Why
not take a time every first day of
the week and set it aside for
remembering the Lord Jesus Christ’s death, a time when the focus is on
HIM and not the preacher or the program!
One thing is for sure, in these days in most Christian circles, the Lord’s
Supper is taken for granted, tacked on briefly at the end of a message, or
completely forgotten.
When Men Try To Build the Church
WHEN MEN TRY TO BUILD THE CHURCH
In the scriptures, the Lord Jesus Christ
prophetically spoke, stating regarding the future “church” (the body of
believers, not local) that HE would build the church (Matt. 16:18). In modern Christianity, beginning in my
estimation about 1920 or so and becoming very popularized with the Jack Hyles
and the Sword of the Lord methods, men have taken to “building the church” and
this movement and philosophy is both unscriptural and very dangerous. I do understand that many take the scripture
of Matthew16:18 as the local church, and the Bible does teach concerning the
local assembly of believers, but this context is regarding the church, NOT
local, the church we cannot see that is made up of believers throughout time since
the gospel of the grace of God was taught and preached. Now many will immediately argue that there is
no such element as a church, not local and that cannot be seen but this view
has been CLEARLY refuted in another study that is available for viewing on this
same site. Many stray from this view due
to the false Roman Catholic Church believing in an “invisible” church, but that
does not negate the FACT that the scriptures teach there is a church, not
local, that is unseen. Here are some of
the reasons why this philosophy of men, preachers and evangelists “building the
church,” meaning working to bring in
members and build the numbers of the local assembly is both detrimental and
unscriptural.
1. All believers are to witness and much of the
time emphasis is placed on “getting the lost to church where the pastor can
give them the gospel.” This takes
responsibility off of the believer that is part of that local assembly much of
the time when each saved person has the RESPONSIBILITY to witness to the lost
(Prov 11:30, Mark 16:15, Acts 20:20,21 etc)
2. The message almost always gets
watered down to bring in more “converts.”
This at times may even be done unintentionally, but the author has
witnessed this an abundance of times. Preaching true biblical repentance , defined
by a change of mind about sin as well as the Saviour, calls one to be willing
to change, to TURN from their sin (Prov 28:13, Luke 2:33, Acts 20:21, 1 Thes
1:9 etc). When this is left out or
repentance is wrongly defined as just a change of mind about Christ (what or
who one is trusting in for salvation) then there will be more converts, the
only thing is, they will be false converts.
3. The local assembly comes under
bondage. How? The thought is that there needs to be a
building that we can call a “church” when scripturally the “church” is the
believers that meet for the scriptural purposes outlined in the Bible (worship,
teaching, giving, personal exhortation etc).
Now this is NOT stating a building is wrong, but when the focus is on the NUMBERS, then the necessity for a building
or a bigger building is present. I know
of scriptural assemblies that meet in homes and others that meet in rented
places that fit the requirement needed for the amount of brethren that are
present at the meetings. Yes, there are
other assemblies that meet in building that they have purchased and that is certainly
not wrong in and of itself. But when the
“build-a-church” mentality is there, then the concept is to get a building as
quickly as possible and then a larger building to house all of the false
converts (in many cases) and then there
is a need to supply all of the financial responsibility that comes with the
building and buildings to follow. That
is where the bondage comes in. Get the
numbers, get the “tithe” etc. And if the
numbers drop AFTER a building is purchased (usually a loan from a bank) or an
obligation is made to purchase a larger building, then the pressure is on to
bring in MORE to the church. The author
of this site has personally witnessed more than one where this has destroyed or
nearly destroyed a local assembly of believers. In one instance, there was a local “church”
with about 80-120 “members” that had a building worth about one million dollars
due to it’s location. The seating
capacity was probably, if my memory serves me correctly, about 250 and the
building itself, though not an immense mega-church, was certainly large enough
to accommodate any needed Sunday School classes etc. and had a more than
adequate fellowship hall, kitchen etc. The
pastor decided to upgrade and commitment was made to purchase a building for a
few million dollars more, so the “church” they were in was sold but they were
able to utilize it for a few months until closing was completed on the new
building. Well, in the process, many members
left the “church” the building was sold but they now had not enough people to
pay the hefty mortgage on the new building.
They were forced to rent a relatively small storefront or something of
that sort and to my knowledge, they never followed through on purchasing the
new building. Things were a mess! This financial pressure was never intended,
my friends! Now scriptural NT giving is
covered under another study, and no one is refuting that having a local
assembly may require “some” financial need as even with a rented building or a
storefront etc. they will normally be electricity bills etc. But with this “you must own a building” or “get
a bigger building” that comes with the “build-a-church” mentality, the
believers in the local assembly many times come under financial bondage to the
mortgage company and the Utility Companies!
The other sad aspect of this is that since the focus is now on the
mortgage, finances are not freed up for believers in need, purchasing tracts,
supporting missionaries etc. That again,
will be a different study.
4. Sin is normally not as strongly
denounced from the pulpit. We can’t
scare away the potential “converts!” is
what many believe in this area. Sin is
many times preached generically and not specifically and this certainly does
not honor the Lord as this is pleasing men and not Him. How much conviction has been lost both for
the saved and the lost present because a preacher thinks it too strong to name
sin and give God’s view on it. Of course
if the “philosophy” of the local church is to faithfully preach and teach the
Word of God, then the focus of the preaching will be pleasing the Lord, NOT
man, and therefore sin can rightfully be preached!
5. The focus of the preaching,
especially the morning service, becomes evangelistic, giving a gospel message
to all the lost “visitors.” (This too
has already been covered, that truth that “church” the assembling of believers,
was designed for the saved only). This
results is that God’s people do not get taught the Word of God and therefore
many are ungrounded and immature in the faith (see Eph 4:11-14). How many scores of times has the author seen
brethren fall into false doctrine because they have not this grounding. It is
imperative that our leaders in the local assemblies recognize that one main
reason of believers assembling together is for them to get taught the Word of
God, so they become grounded and mature in their daily Christian life! How much good could be accomplished if
the elders and pastors understood this important truth, allowed Christ to build
the church and they took to their important responsibility of “perfecting” the
saints by teaching scriptural truth that would include doctrines of the Bible, doctrinal
and personal separation, the importance of prayer, roles of the family,
biblical evangelism and many more areas!
Think about it! In many and I
would say, the majority of local assemblies, in the USA at least, most
believers (and lost members) only attend the services during the morning
meeting time. If there is a time for
teaching/Sunday school/the Lord’s Supper etc. usually the numbers are less for
those times than the actual morning service.
Usually the numbers drop off about 50% for the evening service if there
is one and then that number is cut in half for the mid-week meeting if there is
one. So if there is typically 100 people
meeting for the morning meeting on the first day of the week, probably only
50-70% show up for any teaching time before that, about 50 are present for the
evening service and at the mid-week meeting only about 25 are present. That is the norm and yes, I am aware that
there are exceptions. But the results is
that from the pulpit MANY believers these days are getting little or NO Bible
teaching that will help them doctrinally or personally in their Christian
life! Mix that with the fact that MANY
believers do not do personal devotions or family devotions and is it any wonder
why American Christianity is in the shape it is in!
6. Many times games, programs and
celebrities are brought in to “bring in the converts.” This is another tragic result of the “build-a-church”
philosophy! With contests to who brings in the most visitors
with prizes ranging from Bibles, to money, to cruises to new cars, many
churches have become circuses or more related to a gambling den than a house of
God! Others bring in race-car drivers,
sports stars, movie celebrities, political figures from mayors to Presidents
and former Presidents! There are “teams”
out there and I have personally seen them in action, they are touting their physical strength “in the
name of the Lord” supposedly, ripping phone books in half and lifting enormous
amounts of weights. One of these is
called “The Power Team” and they travel from church to church being used by
church leaders to bring in numbers and boost attendance. Charles Spurgeon stated many years ago, “If you win them with candy, you have to keep
them with candy” and this is so true, brethren!
Once the game, the contest etc. is done it will not be long before these
“converts” in most cases will be gone!
Again, this is covered in another study but the fact is that the meeting
of believers was INTENDED to be for the believers, that is evident by the very definition
of the word “church!” And God’s people
should be OUT witnessing, preaching on the streets, distributing gospel tracts
etc. doing the work of the Lord and then ideally IF there are converts, THEN
you invite them into the local assembly!
7. Evangelism is corrupted! This in three ways. The first is that door-knocking, going house
to house evangelizing becomes more inviting the lost to church than actual
witnessing. Many times we have been out
with others from local churches going door to door and when one of our family
began witnessing, actually giving the gospel to the lost person at the door,
the church member was stunned! Why? Because they were taught to just give them a
church invite. Secondly, because the normal routine was to
invite the lost to the meeting time with the intention of getting saved, the
brethren are many times completely unequipped to witness or answer questions
regarding salvation or the scriptures (see 1 Peter 3:15). Thirdly, the method of open-air ministry
becomes repulsive or at least watered down (though the former is the norm)
because it gives an image that is unattractive due to it’s boldness and
confrontational aspect. I have been
rebuked personally by pastors and church leaders for holding signs up or
preaching on a streetcorner in the town “their church” was in (and I am talking
of less confrontational preaching that at an event). I have had many ask me NOT to do any form of
open air ministry in “their” city, again being concerned with an image that was
not conducive to the lost visiting their church.
8. Church Discipline is Non-existent or
close to non-existent. Practicing church
discipline as it is called, would hinder many potential converts, as it would
give them a proper and biblical view of Godliness. Imagine someone who has been poked and
prodded to “get saved” by their neighbor and at church time there is discipline
being practiced upon a member who has been living in let’s say, the sin of
adultery or perhaps drunkenness. He or
she will get the idea that they cannot continue in these things if they are
involved in them and the fear is that they will be “driven away” from the
gospel, so the “solution” is to not practice discipline within the
assembly. The problem is that this
practice IS scriptural (see 1 Cor 5:1-5, 9-13) and when it is not observed the
general view of sin is not as strong as it should be within the assembly. There are many other reasons for church
discipline but I will save that for yet another study.
9. Many times also the focus becomes on
the “pastor” and this is evident by statements such as “this is pastor
so-and-so’s church.” Yes, biblical
leadership is certainly scriptural but in many of our modern assemblies we have
lost the truth of the Priesthood of all believers, especially in the “build-a-church”
movement. It becomes an improper
emphasis on the pastor and his goals, with little or no accountability as
well.
10.
The
focus for the youth groups, SS classes etc. becomes evangelistic and the result
is again, that these young people never get grounded in the Word of God. When the opportunity could be taken to teach
the scriptural roles for each sex, biblical separation, the errors of following
the world etc. the focus becomes on getting
visitors to come to the services/classes etc.
11.
The
unsaved end up mixing with the lost to a degree and this is very detrimental to
the believers, especially with the youth groups and the younger children. How many youth have been corrupted by the
worldly teens at camp and in SS classes etc. in the name of trying win
converts. Yes, we could say that by the
time a saved young person reaches a certain age or maturity level, they should be able to handle peer pressure,
but many youth today are not trained at home as adequately as they should and
therefore are not as equipped as they should be. Depending upon the age and when they got
converted, we are also looking at a time when children are more susceptible to
wrong influences and putting them in the path of lost peers is certainly
violating scriptures regarding biblical training and entering not into the path
of the wicked.
12.
Lastly,
and there may be many more points, many are unconverted in the assembly. A decision is made, many times after
responding to an unscriptural gospel message that includes no biblical
repentance or an unclear message that leaves the hearer with no conviction and
no true understanding of conversion.
This of course can and normally does, lead to strife, gossip, sin etc.
within the “membership” of the assembly.
Brethren, I am not stating that every elder, pastor or local
assembly that has embraced or is practicing this “build-a-church” philosophy is
unsaved and unregenerate, but it clearly is wrong, unscriptural, dangerous and
has an extremely damaging and injurious effect on the local assembly, the
believers in the assembly, the lost and even the testimony the local assembly
has in the community.
SHOULD ALCOHOL BE USED IN THE LORD'S SUPPER?
SHOULD ALCOHOL BE USED IN THE LORD’S
SUPPER?
The word “wine” is never used in regards to the Lord’s Supper
and even if it was the word wine can refer to fermented or unfermented
drink. Many groups use alcohol wine
including the false religion of the Roman Catholic Church and some believers
that hold to a biblical gospel do as well.
Most people are stunned when they discover that the word wine is not
used in the biblical accounts that reference the Remembrance Supper. This study will reveal that the beverage used
when celebrating the Lord’s Supper should NEVER be fermented and will be given
in such a way that there will be no valid argument in support of utilizing a
drink with alcoholic content.
1. Again, the word “wine” is never used in the
scriptures regarding the Lord’s Supper.
All that is stated is that while Christ and His Apostles were eating, He
took the “cup” and explained the representation prophetically of His blood that
would be shed on the cross of Calvary.
In 1 Cor. 11, “wine” is not used, but again we read of the “cup.” So any assumption at all that wine, in the
sense of being alcoholic, is based on assumption and NOT fact.
2. Some that have looked into the issue,
usually in a shallow way, have concluded that fermented wine was used because
of the word, “drunken” is used. The
context is interesting here as the issue of “excess” is not being dealt
with. You do not read here of gluttony
or being “drunk” in the sense of under the influence of alcohol, the point of
the teaching here is the disorderliness that was present in what was supposed
to be a sober and proper remembrance of the death of the Lord Jesus Christ as
was revealed to Paul for NT believers. The problem was that there was great
confusion regarding the meal because some had already eaten, some were hungry,
there was no “order.” This is evident
with v. 33, “Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one
for another.” In other words, wait for each
other to have the meal together and be ORDERLY!
And “drunken” here is NOT
referring to one being drunk due to his partaking of too much fermented
beverage as some would think. The word “drunken”
is not always related to drunkenness and alcohol, but can simply have to do
with drinking, imbibing ANY drink. Which
fits completely into the context of the passage. He never accused them of being gluttonous and
he never accused them of being drunkards!
He is simply states in v. 21, “For in eating every one taketh before his
own supper (eats before the others when he should be waiting for a meal TOGETHER):
and one is hungry (one who has not eaten yet) and another is drunken (has
partaken of drink), implying others have not.
Again, there is no definite conclusion that the word “drunken” here
refers to alcohol, that is an error because many do not take the time and study
out the passage. Many have heard that
the problem here was drunkenness, but they are listening to the average
preacher that goes more by a commentary and peers than by the Word of God. The word “drunken” as well as referring to
alcohol can mean-
Past participle and nonstandard simple past tense of drink.
to take water or other liquid into the mouth and
swallow it; imbibe.
And “drink” which the word “drunk”
and “drunken” are tenses of can mean to swallow the contents of (a cup, glass, etc.). or
to take (a
liquid) into the mouth and swallow. This
according to the Online Definitions Dictionary.
As well, look at the scriptures that
reveal that the word “drunken” does not always
refer to being intoxicated. See Jeremiah 49:12 and Jeremiah 51:7. In 51:7 we see the word used both ways, the
first time it is obviously referring to the state of
intoxication, but the second is the act of simply drinking a liquid.
3. The teaching of Romans 14 alone should erase
any attempt a believer or group of
believers should have in justifying the Lord’s Supper. This for two reasons, both of which are discussed in the study on
alcohol in general for the believer and which I will for that reason, cover
them briefly here. First is the fact
that some could be tempted to go back to a lifestyle of alcohol and drunkenness
that the Lord delivered them out of. What
a tragedy if this occurred and God’s people (especially the leadership) were
responsible ! Secondly, the lost world
has the perception that those that claim to truly follow Christ, DO NOT TOUCH
ALCOHOL IN ANY SENSE! Again, I cover
this more in the previously-mentioned lesson, but based on Romans 14 alone, a
fermented juice should NEVER be used at the Lord’s Table of Remembrance!
Well brethren I hope this clears the issue up
for you. Yes, use the cup and let the
contents of the cup be simple grape juice, to both remain scriptural and to
give no cause for the unbeliever to accuse us.
WHAT IS THE COVERING OF 1 CORINTHIANS
11 AND IS AN EXTRA COVERING OTHER THAN THE HAIR MANDATED FOR SISTERS?
This issue is one of the most
controversial issues of the NT, especially among serious believers. The scripture is as follows, “But I would
have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman
is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonorouth
his head. But every woman that prayeth
or prophesyeth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even
all one as if she were shaven. For if
the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a
woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man ought not to cover his head,
forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of
the man. For the man is not of the woman;
but the woman of the man. Neither was
the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power
on her head, because of the angels.
Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman
without the man, in the Lord. For as the
woman is of the man, even so also is the man also by the woman; but all things
of God. Judge in yourselves: is it
comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it
is a shame unto him? But if a woman have
long hair, it is a glory for her: for her hair is given her for a
covering. But if any man seem to be
contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. Now in this that I declare unto you I praise
you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.” (1 Cor. 11:3-17).
There are
varying views on the covering, the most predominant in some Amish, Mennonite
and Brethren is that the covering is a separate covering, a cloth of various
sizes, shapes and colors depending on the teachings of the denomination or
local assembly. Others see the separate
covering as cultural or simply, not what the scriptures teach. It is imperative
that one allows the Word of God to be the Authority in this as well as all
matters.
1. The scripture DOES teach that a woman should
be covered, the controversy is what
the covering is.
2. The context of the entire passage is
headship, this is obvious.
3. Though prayer is mentioned (v. 13),
headship is still the main focus of the text.
4. As Paul begins the chapter dealing
with the ordinances and inserts the headship issue between verse 2 and verse
20, where he corrects error regarding the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, it
would be a safe assumption that Paul was either correcting error regarding the
headship issue or he was giving instruction
as to headship.
5. There is no indication that this
issue of the covering is referring ONLY to the meeting of believers as they
assemble. Some would argue otherwise,
but this would lead to serious problems such as the headship issue only being
during the time of the assembling (meaning at other times, the wife is NOT
under her husband’s headship). As well,
it would be implied that a woman praying (obviously in silence as per 1 Cor
14:34 and 1 Tim 2:12) is to be done only in the meeting. The entire thought of a covering being worn
ONLY then is contradictory, so the conclusion HAS to be that the covering is to
be worn at all times to symbolize that headship.
6. If a sister does not wear a covering she is NOT showing
submission to her head, so it is a
serious issue, as are all things commanded and instructed for NT believers. The
important thing that believers should
remember is that one desiring to honor the Lord in this matter, but
misunderstanding what exactly the
covering is, is certainly not grounds for disfellowshipping or treating another
differently. Many times it seems, we
have “cliques” in our Christian circles and this ought not so to be. There is a
distinction between those who sincerely desire to be obedient in this area and
those who are casual and shallow in their consecration to the Lord. It is important that we honor the Lord in how
we deal with each other regarding issues such as this. Again, the doctrine of the covering IS
important and not to be taken lightly. In
fact, according to the teaching of 1 Corinthians 11, the woman who is not
covered dishonors her head, her husband and the man who covers his head,
dishonors his head, which is Christ (v. 4-7).
7. Many erringly conclude that verse 16
is stating that how one feels about this issue or if one chooses to disobey the
instructions of the covering, that it matters not. This is how such interpret, “But if any man
seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.” Now if verse 16 is teaching that headship is non-essential then why did Paul teach
it as led by the Spirit of God! To believe
would be contrary to the passage and the importance set upon the covering. As “All scripture is given by inspiration of
God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness” it would be very incorrect and opposing to 2 Tim
3:16 for Paul to teach a truth that obviously is very important. So what is meant by verse 16? That will be explained later in the study so
as not to jump ahead.
8. It is clear that the man is to NOT be
covered and the woman is to BE covered (v. 4-13).
9. Allowing the scriptures to speak for themselves,
Paul in dealing with the covering (being mentioned directly or indirectly 7
times between verse 4 and verse 13) and in verse 14 he gets into more detail by
mentioning the hair and specifically that a man having long hair is a shame by “nature.” In other words, it is natural for a man to
have short hair. Then regarding the
female Paul continues with the truth that a woman having long hair is natural
(though the word “natural” is not used in verse 15, it is an obvious conclusion,
NOT a guess or an assumption). THEN he
goes on with even more specifics and states that “…her hair is given her for a covering.” And the teaching is that she has long hair
according to this same verse. So,
despite what some would like to believe and teach, the covering in 1 Cor. 11 IS
THE LONG HAIR AND ONLY THE LONG HAIR! I
understand the days in which we are in and the feminism movement and the fact
that many women are out of their place regarding headship, but that does not
give one the liberty to add to the scriptures or teach contrary to the Bible! Think about it, some might say, well, is it
not safer to believe in and practice the sisters wearing a second covering,
perhaps it will help them to be more submissive etc. There are a few problems with that. What if one adds water baptism as a necessity
for salvation, just to be safe. Does that make it acceptable before God? Certainly not as it is adding to the Word of
God! The intent of one changing the
scriptures or adding to them, does NOT justify that it is still error! 2.
Also keep in mind that despite the use of veils etc. in past cultures
including Jewish, that has no bearing on the commands and principles for NT
believers. 3. If one reads this passage
without any pre-determined views, the teaching is crystal clear that the hair
is the covering by the wordage in the passage.
It is when people have been influenced by others and then have a desire many times to be separate and be more
consecrated that they attempt to fit a covering distinct from the hair into the
passage. Look again at how the context
is the covering, then it goes right into the hair, almost in such a way as if
to clarify and make it clear that the hair is the covering.
10.
Now in continuing with explaining the
doctrine of the covering, the man (and he is the first one dealt with regarding
headship as Paul goes in order of authority between the man and the woman) is
to not be covered, he is NOT to have long hair!
That dishonors his head (v. 4), the Lord Jesus Christ. Again we see reinforcement to the position
that the hair is the covering as otherwise it would mean the man could never
wear a hat of any sort. The woman in
showing honor to her head, her husband, is to be “covered” by her hair, long
hair. Not just hair, but long hair, is
what the passage dictates. This also
settles the problem some sisters have who mistakenly believe in a separate
covering as to when to wear the
covering. The author was teaching a
class years ago at a Plymouth Brethren Assembly and the poor ladies were
frustrated and confused about the appropriateness of wearning their covering, since
it was more of a Sunday School class and not a regular Lord’s Day Meeting. They meant well and they desired to be
obedient to what they believed the scriptures taught, but that is just one of
the problems with teaching a second covering.
This is especially difficult to discern when the teaching one has
received is that the “covering” is only as the believers assemble. And what about ladies corporate prayer times,
is the covering necessary as there are no men around , therefore concluding
that the headcovering only need be worn when men or the husband is
present. Does this mean or imply that a
sister only needs the covering when she prays with others prays or in the local
assembly? What about when she is
alone? You see friends, when the “covering”
is made to be anything other than the
hair (and again, long hair), it presents much confusion and many questions,
that will have different answers depending on the position the Elder, pastor,
denomination, local assembly or Christian friend, takes.
11.
Is the length really important for either
sex? Yes, it sure is! If the scriptures give detail, then we should
follow that detail as much as possible, then give liberty once the biblical
prescription is obeyed. So that means
that the man is to have short hair and the woman is to have long hair, the
length determining if it truly “covers” or not.
And this is extremely important as a man who does cover his head, by
having long hair, is dishonoring his
head, who is Christ Himself! And any
sister who does not have long hair, but short, is uncovered, which is
dishonoring to her head, which is her husband!
Friends, do we not see the truth presented here? How many are “saved” yet have no clue to the
value the Lord places on headship, which yes, goes all the way back to the
length of hair one has! Many will cry “How
foolish! God does not care about my
hair!” And this from men and women,
sadly. Brethren, it DOES matter, just
read the passage! How many are walking
in rebellion because they fail to submit to this doctrine, how many claim
consecration to our Lord, yet boldly proclaim that this issue is unimportant
and one is a legalist if they try to preach or teach what the Bible says about
this matter! This leads to another very
sad result when one teaches another covering and that is the amount of women
running around with their “headcovering,” yet their hair is “short” by normal
standards. This is a tragedy and is
partially due to the subject of headship not being taught to believers. Of course there are many, probably a great
majority, that have never considered a covering at all, and they are living
their Christian life dishonoring their head, their own husband! In addition, what about the men with long
hair who have no clue they are dishonoring their Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ! This “all about the gospel”
mentality has destroyed the maturity of most Christians today and left them
untaught in many, many areas of importance!
12.
Okay, then how long is long and how short is
short? Good question and one that
deserves and needs an answer. There is
no “tape measure” scale given in the scriptures but a good guide is what is “natural.” Look at verse 14, when Paul uses the natural
realm as a guide and also verse 13 when the word “comely” is utilized. This word is defined as “proper, suitable,
becoming, whence, handsome (attractive), graceful. When applied to a person, it denotes symmetry
or due proportion.” Now friend, in all
honesty, we know what is natural and what is unnatural or unbecoming regarding
the hair. A female with a butch haircut
is NOT natural, it is not comely, by any means.
The same goes for a male with long hair.
Just a few years back in the 1960’s it was considered a sign of
rebellion for a man to have long hair and overall, women saw this as
repulsive. Of course starting with the
Beatles and other pop, rock and country “musicians” (and I use the term
loosely, it began being more acceptable for males to have a woman’s hair
length. Of course, people like to throw
out that Jesus had long hair, which of course is only due to the artists
renderings and Hellywood productions that depict him as such. It would be very difficult to allow the Lord
Jesus Christ, God in the flesh violating the principle laid down in the scriptures,
which are basically revealing that it was natural for a man to have short hair
(1 Cor 11), therefore making it unnatural for him to have long hair. As well, some bring up the biblical figure of
Samson, not realizing that his case was NOT the norm, but an exception to the
norm as he took the Nazarite vow. So,
for a man, how short is short? Certainly
I suggest praying about it but keep in mind what would be considered by normal
standards of decency, short. There is no specific length given in the
scriptures but this thinking combined with having a right heart and the leading
of the Holy Spirit will give on their answer.
One may feel they want to be sure of themselves and maintain a military
style cut, very short, like a crew cut, others may have it somewhat
longer. Yes, there may be liberty, but
if one understands the importance of showing headship to Christ, they will be
careful and desire to please the Lord in this matter. They will not look like a hippie, they will “probably”
have the area around their ears trimmed etc.
For our family, the men have some variety in their styles, my boys
preferring their hair to be more grown out, still certainly short, trimmed
around the ears and kept under control.
None of this unkempt appearance that seems to be popular with both
sexes. For the females, how long is
long? Once my wife (and many women will
testify to this) recognized their responsibility to affirm and have a
submission to the headship of their husband they decided to let it grow long,
definitely well past the shoulders. I
tend to see these ladies with their hair at least half-way down their back, my
oldest daughter has hers down to her waist.
I have seen some sisters with hair longer than this, and certainly hair
like this would be considered a proper covering. Of course again, this is an important matter
and one should pray and consider the natural concept that a woman is to have
long hair. There is no doubt that one
desiring to please the Lord in this matter would be careful to have “longer”
hair than “shorter.” There would be no
doubting of the sex of the sister from front or back in the context of her hair
and the same should be said of the brethren.
Interesting that Revelation refers to the creature having the “hair” of
a woman, reaffirming that their should be a clear distinction between the
sexes. The Lord knows full well ( and
knew, past tense) the confusion that would be occurring in our recent society
over genders and sexuality and this issue of the hair has far-reaching
consequences, both for the positive and the negative. I cannot stress enough that God’s people need
to have grace in this area. Not a compromise as this is very
important for both sexes regarding their headship and regarding submission, but
an understanding that these truths are grievously rarely taught. Let the teaching be done from the pulpit and
individually, but let the Lord work! One time I witnessed a “pastor” dealing with
a new convert (he had made a profession only moments before) who had long
hair. I am not talking questionable but
long, at least the middle of the back, perhaps longer. Before leaving for the break between the
morning and evening services, the pastor told him that he would bring scissors
to the PM meeting and would cut his hair.
Is it any wonder this new convert (or at least profession of conversion)
never came back that night! LET GOD
WORK, that the work He does do, might remain, might be permanent and not a
decision that is not from the heart out of a sincere dire to be obedient!
13.
It cannot be emphasized enough my friends,
that the issue is headship, which means SUBMISSION to that head. The man is showing his SUBMISSION to the Lord
Jesus Christ by keeping his hair short and the wife is showing her SUBMISSION
to her husband in keeping her hair long.
This has to do with obedience and the will. So for one to know
this doctrine, and not abide by it in the length of the hair, is to be
rebellious to this teaching. To add to
that, if a man knows this doctrine and fails to have short hair, he is
rebelling against God’s headship! The
same for a wife, if she is unwilling to have long hair, then she is rebellious
towards her head, her husband. It is a
sad testimony to Christianity when most have no clue in this matter.
14.
What about a sister who is unmarried? Good question again. There is nothing clear-cut in the scriptures
on this other than that the “head” of a single woman is her father. When one looks at the Old Testament there are
clear indicators of this. As well, she
should stick with the standard of the “long hair” as it certainly is in keeping
with the correct side of what is natural and comely.
15.
What about the scriptures that speak of “shorn”
or “shaven?” Interesting that these
statements are about the hair. Simply put, verses 5 and 6 are not a
command for a woman to be “shorn,” meaning to cut her hair short. The
word shorn can mean “cut off” but also “to be less.” The word shaven means “to pare close” and to “cut
off, “ similar to shorn but a “shaving,”
like the difference between cutting one’s hair shorter and cutting one’s hair “off.”
So, look again. In verse 5, what Paul is stating is that if a
woman is uncovered it is the same as if she had no hair, as if it was cut off
in contrast to being a covering, LONG HAIR.
Verse 6 follows the same thought.
If the woman is not covered (has short hair, but not cut off) she might
as well have it cut shorter, is what is meant by the phrase “let her also be
shorn.” “But if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven” is
NOT stating that she CAN take the option of having short or very short
hair! It is stating that it IS a shame
and that she needs to be covered (grow her hair long). This is not hard to understand If one studies
and then simply believes the Word of God, comparing scripture with
scripture.
16.
One thing that the author has noticed over the
years is that many of those that do hold to a second covering, wear something
that does not truly cover! There are a wide variety of “coverings” again
dependent usually upon the environment of the individual. But I have seen “doilies” that look more like
cloth coasters that are no more than a few inches in diameter. Yes, there are some that wear a cloth that
actually cover, but many do not. Again,
this view of a second covering is not backed by the scriptures. Once a scripture is corrupted, even
accidentally, it leads to inconsistincies, which is what we see numerous times
with the wrong view that the covering is not the long hair.
17.
So in conclusion, the man is to have short
hair in obedience to the scriptures, which reveals his headship and submission
to the Lord Jesus Christ. The married
woman is to have long hair in obedience to the Bible, to reveal her submission
to her head, her husband. There is no
second covering and this doctrine is very important.
ARE HOME CHURCHES SCRIPTURAL?
This is a very valid question today as the last few years, home
churches, meetings held in the homes of believers instead of a
“building” that is designated as a “church,” have become very popular
and endorsed by many well-known Bible teachers. While it is certainly
recognized that many, if not most, of these teachers are liberal and not
in strict adherence to many important doctrines of the Bible, that does
not negate the necessity of answering the question, are home churches
scriptural?
The word “church” simply means a called out assembly and refers
to both the local assembly of believers and to a “church”, the body of
Christ, not local, and not visible, but it never refers to a physical
structure or building where believers meet. (The doctrine of the
church is covered more thoroughly in another lesson). That
understanding will help as we delve into what is scriptural concerning
the meetings of believers. The real and more appropriate question would
be, “Is It Scriptural For Believers To Meet in a Home In Accordance
With The Commands For God’s People to Assemble For the Purposes We See
In the Word of God.” Long, but accurate. A more simple rendering would
be “Are Home Assemblies Scriptural?” This does away with the concept of the actual meeting place being the “church.” Let’s see.
Historically , the evidence points to believers meeting in
homes. The phrase is used, “…with the church this in their house” could
be referring to his family or the assembly that met there on the Lord’s
Day. The meaning of the word “church” would definitely lean more
towards the “assembly” or gathering of believers that met in the home,
in this case, the home of Aquilla and Priscilla. The wording here too
would imply as much as Paul also mentions the greetings from the
churches “assemblies of believers” in Asia. One does not read of
believers meeting in a public building until many centuries later. I
will not delve into a complete history here, but such is the case. From
the research that the author has done, the Roman Catholic Church was
the first “religion” since the time of Christ, to popularize buildings
for “members” to meet in. Since there is no prohibition concerning
meeting in a home, one would be incorrect and adding to the scriptures
in stating that home assemblies were wrong. The problem is that the
majority it seems, of those that make up the “Home Church” movement,
have no genuine concept of meeting together in the name of the Lord and
doing so scripturally and soberly. Many have went this route simply
out of a desire to leave the “normal” church structure, others because
they desire no accountability or authority (the biblical leadership) and
yet others who desire a form of Godliness, but deny any preaching or teaching that would call for a change of life or bring conviction.
We have established that home assemblies are not unscriptural
and more will be covered, but let those that meet biblically in a home
meeting, not disdain those that do meet in an established building or a
rented storefront etc. Remember, Satan will do all he can to bring
division, enmity and carnality and pride, arrogance and
self-righteousness are all traits that he can use to his advantage.
There are good, sound, serving, scriptural assemblies that meet
in the above settings and let us be cautious to not think otherwise.
There may be some as well, that lack understanding or discernment in
certain areas and though compromise is never an option for the genuine
consecrated Christian, we all need to accept that the Lord at times uses
those who may be at a lower level of maturity than others.
The distinction MUST be made between just meeting in a home and having a biblical
home assembly. Just getting together and calling this time “church”
does not make it so. Again the concept of meeting in a home and not a
separate building set aside for that purpose, is not in and of itself,
unscriptural. The validity of the meeting is based upon adherence to
the scriptural principles that relate to the gathering of God’s people.
Here are a few of those principles that would make up a scriptural NT
assembly, in a home or otherwise.
- Have some order. This concept is destroyed by some of the home
assemblies I have seen and heard about. Children running rampant,
snacks and drinks during the meeting, etc. The scriptures clearly tell
us, “let all things be done decently and in order.” There should also
be set meetings times, this will assist with being orderly. Otherwise,
some may develop a casual attitude about the meetings and stroll in at
their convenience. It is imperative the Elders keep this and if some
consistently neglect the starting time, then this should be brought up
to the brother privately and with grace. A good way to deal with any
disorder and to prevent potential problems is to occasionally mention
things from the pulpit and remind the congregation of the importance of
the gathering of believers. Some treat the time no different than they
do going to a birthday party, which is a tragic display of the
irreverence of our day for spiritual things.
- There must be biblical leadership. The requirements for leadership
are spelled out in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 and these should be taken very
seriously. These are not simply a guide that should be met overall, but
each pre-requisite should be met. I will not go over all of these,
most are clear and self-explanatory. Today, Christianity, especially in
the home church movement, seems to lessen the importance of these
requirements and that is a grave error. Many “home assemblies” begin
with a need being met in a specific area that may not have a scriptural
assembly and in that case, it is common for one man to get this vision
from the Lord to begin one. He should meet these requirements and if he
does not, then he should continue praying for direction and for the
Lord to bring forth a man that would meet these conditions to pursue the
beginning of an assembly.
- There should be unity among the leadership. Regarding doctrines
that are fundamentals, there can be no compromise of course. There may
be other doctrines that are distinctly important to the brethren who are
being used of the Lord to establish a new fellowship of believers,
these too should be guarded. A brother who does not adhere to these
doctrines should not be in a leadership position of any kind, including
teaching etc. as this will cause disunity and confusion. Amos 3:3
concerns this issue. For example, if the assembly is firm in allowing,
using and teaching only from the King James, there should not be any
leaders/Elders that are not in agreement. There are certainly areas of
liberty and there may even be doctrines that would not be labeled
fundamentals that one could give grace towards. Other doctrines that
may not be considered “fundamental” teachings of the scriptures, and
that are clear and regarding important issues, should be treated as
such. For example, the truth that a woman should be a keeper at home
would be a doctrine that should be understand and held by each
Elder/leader. Otherwise this inconsistency will be evident and will do
harm to the unity of the assembly, especially as the brethren and
sisters grow and are seeking answers in such particular matters. Yes,
one can be IN the assembly if they hold a different view or perhaps have
only recently understood this doctrine, but they would be limited to
having no leadership or teaching capacity. If the Lord is leading one
man to start a work, then he needs to prayfully consider the doctrines
that would prevent another from being in a leadership position and he
would have to be the one who confirmed that any potential Elders
/leaders would fit the requirements as laid out in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus
1. If two or more men are working together in establishing a new work,
then all three should filter through those that come into the assembly
afterwards in regards to the potential for leadership, assuming they
themselves meet the scriptural standards.
- Have a Doctrinal Position written out. This will assist with the
above point as well as be a help to those that may come into the
assembly, especially new believers. These days I also urge local
assemblies to include statements regarding limitations of who can be in
leadership and even in regards to who is allowed into the fellowship on a
regular basis. In other words, clear prohibitions for both categories
of those living in open sin or advocating or condoning sinful
lifestyles. The Gay (sodomite) movement has attempted to made efforts
to become involved in local assemblies, even to the point of being
Sunday School teachers etc. and the only way to prevent this is to be
sure to have mandates CLEARLY and SPECIFICALLY written out. Also I
recommend that every local assembly state their position prohibiting any
females from being subjected to military service of any sort. This too
can be a help if the situation arises where women are drafted. These
statutes should be detailed soon after a local fellowship of believers
is established at the latest. It is the encouragement of the author
that it be done at the onset of the start of the work.
- The goal of the assembly should be to follow through on the mandates
and patterns we see for a NT assembly. These would include the
Remembrance of the Lord’s Supper (breaking bread sometimes in the
scriptures refers to this, other times a meal is what is meant) (Acts
20:7), preaching, (Acts 20:7,) teaching (Eph 4:11-14), exhorting one
another (Heb. 10:25), fellowship as believers assemble (Heb. 10:25) and
giving (1 Cor 16:1,2). Though not mentioned it is probable and evident
from history, that prayer, hymn-singing and taking care of the widows
and sick were also part of the Lord’s Day service. Often a meal was
shared, but of course it is likely that during times of great
persecution, the meals were not partaken of as often. The preaching and
teaching should be a time where the leadership and those with the gifts
of teaching utilize their gifts from behind the pulpit to “reprove”,
“rebuke” and “exhort” (2 Tim 4:1,2) God’s people in their daily life,
encouraging them in holiness and obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ and
the Word of God, as well as exposing error and teaching correct Bible
doctrine (Eph 4). Sadly, this is lacking the majority of our assemblies
and as a result, many are not grounded in the Word of God and have no
stability in the walk with the Lord.
- Another part of a local assembly, any assembly, should be the preaching of the gospel to the lost outside of
the assembly. In other words, go OUT and evangelize via open-air
ministry, house to house, in the market place etc. Sadly evangelism has
been minimized, forgotten or relinquished to inviting sinners into the
meeting times to hear the gospel and this is serious error that has
greatly damaged modern-day Christianity! More on this subject on other
pages, but how great our responsibility to those that are lost. And
this responsibility is to ALL believers. Every nation, city and town
should be evangelized and all of these have market places, streetcorners
and events of varying degrees and sizes that would be perfect forums
for preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is also my recommendation
that the afternoon of the Lord’s Day is a great time for the local
assembly to go out publickly and minister the gospel. All are
together. Have the meeting, then a meal if desired, a short time of
rest and fellowship, exhorting one another and rejoicing in the Lord,
then GO OUT and serve together! As well, the brethren gifted as
“evangelists) (Eph 4) would be able to lead in these times, utilizing
the gift the Lord has given them.
- Do NOT, in ANY way be incorporated! Do not get a 5013c! More is
covered on this in a separate teaching lesson, but the “church” is NOT a
Government institution and never was intended to be so. There are many
implications and consequences to receiving this status than simply
being tax-free and to become a 501 “church” is a grave mistake that many
have made and many more, will regret in these last days, especially as
persecution arises.
I do hope that this study has been helpful and please feel free
to message me with any other information that may be helpful. This
study is not meant to be fully conclusive, but simply to be used as a
helpful guide for those in need of the information.
This is a very valid question today as the last few years, home churches, meetings held in the homes of believers instead of a “building” that is designated as a “church,” have become very popular and endorsed by many well-known Bible teachers. While it is certainly recognized that many, if not most, of these teachers are liberal and not in strict adherence to many important doctrines of the Bible, that does not negate the necessity of answering the question, are home churches scriptural?
The word “church” simply means a called out assembly and refers to both the local assembly of believers and to a “church”, the body of Christ, not local, and not visible, but it never refers to a physical structure or building where believers meet. (The doctrine of the church is covered more thoroughly in another lesson). That understanding will help as we delve into what is scriptural concerning the meetings of believers. The real and more appropriate question would be, “Is It Scriptural For Believers To Meet in a Home In Accordance With The Commands For God’s People to Assemble For the Purposes We See In the Word of God.” Long, but accurate. A more simple rendering would be “Are Home Assemblies Scriptural?” This does away with the concept of the actual meeting place being the “church.” Let’s see.
Historically , the evidence points to believers meeting in homes. The phrase is used, “…with the church this in their house” could be referring to his family or the assembly that met there on the Lord’s Day. The meaning of the word “church” would definitely lean more towards the “assembly” or gathering of believers that met in the home, in this case, the home of Aquilla and Priscilla. The wording here too would imply as much as Paul also mentions the greetings from the churches “assemblies of believers” in Asia. One does not read of believers meeting in a public building until many centuries later. I will not delve into a complete history here, but such is the case. From the research that the author has done, the Roman Catholic Church was the first “religion” since the time of Christ, to popularize buildings for “members” to meet in. Since there is no prohibition concerning meeting in a home, one would be incorrect and adding to the scriptures in stating that home assemblies were wrong. The problem is that the majority it seems, of those that make up the “Home Church” movement, have no genuine concept of meeting together in the name of the Lord and doing so scripturally and soberly. Many have went this route simply out of a desire to leave the “normal” church structure, others because they desire no accountability or authority (the biblical leadership) and yet others who desire a form of Godliness, but deny any preaching or teaching that would call for a change of life or bring conviction.
We have established that home assemblies are not unscriptural and more will be covered, but let those that meet biblically in a home meeting, not disdain those that do meet in an established building or a rented storefront etc. Remember, Satan will do all he can to bring division, enmity and carnality and pride, arrogance and self-righteousness are all traits that he can use to his advantage. There are good, sound, serving, scriptural assemblies that meet in the above settings and let us be cautious to not think otherwise. There may be some as well, that lack understanding or discernment in certain areas and though compromise is never an option for the genuine consecrated Christian, we all need to accept that the Lord at times uses those who may be at a lower level of maturity than others.
The distinction MUST be made between just meeting in a home and having a biblical home assembly. Just getting together and calling this time “church” does not make it so. Again the concept of meeting in a home and not a separate building set aside for that purpose, is not in and of itself, unscriptural. The validity of the meeting is based upon adherence to the scriptural principles that relate to the gathering of God’s people. Here are a few of those principles that would make up a scriptural NT assembly, in a home or otherwise.
- Have some order. This concept is destroyed by some of the home assemblies I have seen and heard about. Children running rampant, snacks and drinks during the meeting, etc. The scriptures clearly tell us, “let all things be done decently and in order.” There should also be set meetings times, this will assist with being orderly. Otherwise, some may develop a casual attitude about the meetings and stroll in at their convenience. It is imperative the Elders keep this and if some consistently neglect the starting time, then this should be brought up to the brother privately and with grace. A good way to deal with any disorder and to prevent potential problems is to occasionally mention things from the pulpit and remind the congregation of the importance of the gathering of believers. Some treat the time no different than they do going to a birthday party, which is a tragic display of the irreverence of our day for spiritual things.
- There must be biblical leadership. The requirements for leadership are spelled out in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 and these should be taken very seriously. These are not simply a guide that should be met overall, but each pre-requisite should be met. I will not go over all of these, most are clear and self-explanatory. Today, Christianity, especially in the home church movement, seems to lessen the importance of these requirements and that is a grave error. Many “home assemblies” begin with a need being met in a specific area that may not have a scriptural assembly and in that case, it is common for one man to get this vision from the Lord to begin one. He should meet these requirements and if he does not, then he should continue praying for direction and for the Lord to bring forth a man that would meet these conditions to pursue the beginning of an assembly.
- There should be unity among the leadership. Regarding doctrines that are fundamentals, there can be no compromise of course. There may be other doctrines that are distinctly important to the brethren who are being used of the Lord to establish a new fellowship of believers, these too should be guarded. A brother who does not adhere to these doctrines should not be in a leadership position of any kind, including teaching etc. as this will cause disunity and confusion. Amos 3:3 concerns this issue. For example, if the assembly is firm in allowing, using and teaching only from the King James, there should not be any leaders/Elders that are not in agreement. There are certainly areas of liberty and there may even be doctrines that would not be labeled fundamentals that one could give grace towards. Other doctrines that may not be considered “fundamental” teachings of the scriptures, and that are clear and regarding important issues, should be treated as such. For example, the truth that a woman should be a keeper at home would be a doctrine that should be understand and held by each Elder/leader. Otherwise this inconsistency will be evident and will do harm to the unity of the assembly, especially as the brethren and sisters grow and are seeking answers in such particular matters. Yes, one can be IN the assembly if they hold a different view or perhaps have only recently understood this doctrine, but they would be limited to having no leadership or teaching capacity. If the Lord is leading one man to start a work, then he needs to prayfully consider the doctrines that would prevent another from being in a leadership position and he would have to be the one who confirmed that any potential Elders /leaders would fit the requirements as laid out in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1. If two or more men are working together in establishing a new work, then all three should filter through those that come into the assembly afterwards in regards to the potential for leadership, assuming they themselves meet the scriptural standards.
- Have a Doctrinal Position written out. This will assist with the above point as well as be a help to those that may come into the assembly, especially new believers. These days I also urge local assemblies to include statements regarding limitations of who can be in leadership and even in regards to who is allowed into the fellowship on a regular basis. In other words, clear prohibitions for both categories of those living in open sin or advocating or condoning sinful lifestyles. The Gay (sodomite) movement has attempted to made efforts to become involved in local assemblies, even to the point of being Sunday School teachers etc. and the only way to prevent this is to be sure to have mandates CLEARLY and SPECIFICALLY written out. Also I recommend that every local assembly state their position prohibiting any females from being subjected to military service of any sort. This too can be a help if the situation arises where women are drafted. These statutes should be detailed soon after a local fellowship of believers is established at the latest. It is the encouragement of the author that it be done at the onset of the start of the work.
- The goal of the assembly should be to follow through on the mandates and patterns we see for a NT assembly. These would include the Remembrance of the Lord’s Supper (breaking bread sometimes in the scriptures refers to this, other times a meal is what is meant) (Acts 20:7), preaching, (Acts 20:7,) teaching (Eph 4:11-14), exhorting one another (Heb. 10:25), fellowship as believers assemble (Heb. 10:25) and giving (1 Cor 16:1,2). Though not mentioned it is probable and evident from history, that prayer, hymn-singing and taking care of the widows and sick were also part of the Lord’s Day service. Often a meal was shared, but of course it is likely that during times of great persecution, the meals were not partaken of as often. The preaching and teaching should be a time where the leadership and those with the gifts of teaching utilize their gifts from behind the pulpit to “reprove”, “rebuke” and “exhort” (2 Tim 4:1,2) God’s people in their daily life, encouraging them in holiness and obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ and the Word of God, as well as exposing error and teaching correct Bible doctrine (Eph 4). Sadly, this is lacking the majority of our assemblies and as a result, many are not grounded in the Word of God and have no stability in the walk with the Lord.
- Another part of a local assembly, any assembly, should be the preaching of the gospel to the lost outside of the assembly. In other words, go OUT and evangelize via open-air ministry, house to house, in the market place etc. Sadly evangelism has been minimized, forgotten or relinquished to inviting sinners into the meeting times to hear the gospel and this is serious error that has greatly damaged modern-day Christianity! More on this subject on other pages, but how great our responsibility to those that are lost. And this responsibility is to ALL believers. Every nation, city and town should be evangelized and all of these have market places, streetcorners and events of varying degrees and sizes that would be perfect forums for preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is also my recommendation that the afternoon of the Lord’s Day is a great time for the local assembly to go out publickly and minister the gospel. All are together. Have the meeting, then a meal if desired, a short time of rest and fellowship, exhorting one another and rejoicing in the Lord, then GO OUT and serve together! As well, the brethren gifted as “evangelists) (Eph 4) would be able to lead in these times, utilizing the gift the Lord has given them.
- Do NOT, in ANY way be incorporated! Do not get a 5013c! More is covered on this in a separate teaching lesson, but the “church” is NOT a Government institution and never was intended to be so. There are many implications and consequences to receiving this status than simply being tax-free and to become a 501 “church” is a grave mistake that many have made and many more, will regret in these last days, especially as persecution arises.
No comments:
Post a Comment