• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

What happened to our meetings?

Jethro Bodine

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2011
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
5,948
When and why did the church stop doing this and instead adopt a one-sided sermonizing, liturgical and ceremonial tradition of meeting together?

"29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged." (1 Corinthians 14:29-31 NIV1984)


For the sake of this thread let's understand 'prophecy' in regard to it's 'forthtelling', not 'foretelling' meaning. Think of the prophets, who certainly foretold future events, but who primarily expounded on the truths of God via the power of their calling through the Holy Spirit.

Do you think it possible that a new movement back to Biblical guidelines on how to meet together could catch on and succeed?
 
When and why did the church stop doing this and instead adopt a one-sided sermonizing, liturgical and ceremonial tradition of meeting together?

"29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged." (1 Corinthians 14:29-31 NIV1984)


For the sake of this thread let's understand 'prophecy' in regard to it's 'forthtelling', not 'foretelling' meaning. Think of the prophets, who certainly foretold future events, but who primarily expounded on the truths of God via the power of their calling through the Holy Spirit.

Do you think it possible that a new movement back to Biblical guidelines on how to meet together could catch on and succeed?
Who said that there are churches where this doesn't happen? And I do not see how that passage negates "a one-sided sermonizing, liturgical and ceremonial tradition of meeting together." In fact, I cannot think of any passage in Scripture which negates such a meeting.

And on what basis should we understand 'prophecy' to mean only one thing? It seems all too convenient for the sake of your argument.
 
Who said that there are churches where this doesn't happen?
It's plainly observable that the quiet, reverential, one-sided style is the overwhelming tradition of churches today. The kind I'm speaking of is in the very small minority. Almost non-existent.


And I do not see how that passage negates "a one-sided sermonizing, liturgical and ceremonial tradition of meeting together." In fact, I cannot think of any passage in Scripture which negates such a meeting.
When you choose the present church tradition over what the Bible teaches you can not get done what Paul says must get done in a meeting. That is how it is negated in scripture. Also, Paul talks about the ineffectiveness of that kind of worship in Col. 2.


And on what basis should we understand 'prophecy' to mean only one thing? It seems all too convenient for the sake of your argument.
On the basis I'm not interested in seeing this thread get hijacked into a discussion about whether the gift of foretelling the future is still in operation in the church today. Let's start another thread to do that. There will be little debate as to whether God still gifts people to 'forthtell' his truths in the power and wisdom of the Holy Spirit.
 
I think my church combines the two fairly well between the Sunday school and liturgical worship.

Sunday school is where everyone can share what is in their heart, forthtell as it were, not to mention share food and coffee. Then we move into the liturgy where the focus is fully on worshiping God.
 
Most the Churches i have been involved in have Sunday School for all ages and then the Sunday morning worship/sermon. Sunday nite mostly geared to evangelism. Wednesday nite Bible Study. Bible study nites ( most often) the pastors would set a guide line like,the first 4 verses of John 1, the study was a discussion time.

Home bible studies were always welcome..... Problems can and do develop in home Bible studies because because someone gets the bighead thinks he knows more/better then the pastor...
 
Jethro, it does seem as if you are only "counting" the 11:00-12:00 hour on Sunday morning.

As Reba said, there are lots of other assembly times for the type of exhortation and encouragement that Paul is referring too. Why the 11:00-12:00 hour on Sunday morning has settled into being the "worship" time is probably tradition, but it doesn't negate the rest of the times the church assembles.

I "" worship there because in reality it's all worship...but I think the Body is well served by having a time where we focus completely on worshiping God in confession, song, psalm, His word and His meal.

If I could change one thing about the tradition, I would do as an Assembly of God that I visited at back when I was 13 years old. They had the "worship" hour at 9:30, broke for brunch then went to the Sunday school classes. In this manner, everything that was preached during the worship time could be discussed during Sunday school. That just seems to make so much sense to me.
 
It's plainly observable that the quiet, reverential, one-sided style is the overwhelming tradition of churches today. The kind I'm speaking of is in the very small minority. Almost non-existent.
How many churches have you been to? Any of the thousands in China? What about Africa? Europe? Australia? Canada? US?

There are millions of churches around the globe and unless you can state that you've been to many thousands of them, as a decent sampling size, you cannot make such broad generalizations.

Jethro Bodine said:
When you choose the present church tradition over what the Bible teaches you can not get done what Paul says must get done in a meeting. That is how it is negated in scripture. Also, Paul talks about the ineffectiveness of that kind of worship in Col. 2.
You are assuming, without basis, a certain interpretation of that passage. But that passage does not negate "present church tradition." It simply makes a statement about a part of a church meeting and does not mean that that is to be the whole of the meeting. Nor does it seem to me to be prescriptive of how church must be done.

Jethro Bodine said:
On the basis I'm not interested in seeing this thread get hijacked into a discussion about whether the gift of foretelling the future is still in operation in the church today. Let's start another thread to do that. There will be little debate as to whether God still gifts people to 'forthtell' his truths in the power and wisdom of the Holy Spirit.
But if that is what that passage may be referring to, or in the very least be including, then such an understanding of 'prophecy' is very relevant to the discussion and undermines your argument. Which is why I suspect you excluded such a meaning.

You simply cannot arbitrarily exclude certain meanings of a word when discussing a passage as it can completely change what is being said. Of course, that is why people typically do that--they want it to mean what they want it to mean. But we must understand the passage to mean what the author intended, therefore we must include all possible meanings of the words, among other things.
 
I think my church combines the two fairly well between the Sunday school and liturgical worship.

Sunday school is where everyone can share what is in their heart, forthtell as it were, not to mention share food and coffee. Then we move into the liturgy where the focus is fully on worshiping God.
When and why was this division, and the tradition of quiet reverence introduced into the church?
 
Most the Churches i have been involved in have Sunday School for all ages and then the Sunday morning worship/sermon. Sunday nite mostly geared to evangelism. Wednesday nite Bible Study. Bible study nites ( most often) the pastors would set a guide line like,the first 4 verses of John 1, the study was a discussion time.
Right or wrong, when and where was this division brought into the church?


Home bible studies were always welcome..... Problems can and do develop in home Bible studies because because someone gets the bighead thinks he knows more/better then the pastor...
That's why 'the others are to weigh carefully what is said'.

The biggest problem with home church, IMO, is the lack of leadership structure.
 
Jethro, it does seem as if you are only "counting" the 11:00-12:00 hour on Sunday morning.
Mostly, because that is the part that doesn't seem to line up with scripture very well and gets the most emphasis, but which gets understood as the express will of God. And why is the Biblical part (the studies and discussion) separated from this? When did that start? Who did it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How many churches have you been to? Any of the thousands in China? What about Africa? Europe? Australia? Canada? US?
I have attended, and know about, many churches here in the US.

If you're suggesting that other countries do it in the more Biblical way I'm pointing out, why do you suppose we don't do that here in North America?



There are millions of churches around the globe and unless you can state that you've been to many thousands of them, as a decent sampling size, you cannot make such broad generalizations.
I'm confident that here in North America I can. I would be interested in any churches you know of in North America that are doing what I'm pointing out so I can find one by me.


You are assuming, without basis, a certain interpretation of that passage. But that passage does not negate "present church tradition." It simply makes a statement about a part of a church meeting and does not mean that that is to be the whole of the meeting. Nor does it seem to me to be prescriptive of how church must be done.
Actually it does.



But if that is what that passage may be referring to, or in the very least be including, then such an understanding of 'prophecy' is very relevant to the discussion and undermines your argument. Which is why I suspect you excluded such a meaning.
You are wrong, that is not why I don't want to argue that aspect of prophecy. If you want to include that as yet another aspect of meeting together that the North American churches don't do, I suppose we could do that and just endure the bickering about it.


You simply cannot arbitrarily exclude certain meanings of a word when discussing a passage as it can completely change what is being said. Of course, that is why people typically do that--they want it to mean what they want it to mean. But we must understand the passage to mean what the author intended, therefore we must include all possible meanings of the words, among other things.
I guess you can explain to us, if you want, how narrowing the definition of 'prophecy' somehow affects the discussion and helps explain why the church doesn't do the other undebatable things listed in the passage, relegating them to other optional meeting times...and still largely not really doing them the way Paul suggests.
 
I have attended, and know about, many churches here in the US.
"Many" is insufficient as a sample size and your argument remains a generalization.

Jethro Bodine said:
If you're suggesting that other countries do it in the more Biblical way I'm pointing out, why do you suppose we don't do that here in North America?
Aside from your presumption regarding what the Bible says, I am suggesting that without a sufficient sample size, you have no basis for your argument.

Jethro Bodine said:
I'm confident that here in North America I can. I would be interested in any churches you know of in North America that are doing what I'm pointing out so I can find one by me.
It is not up to me to help you fix your fallacious generalization. My whole point was that error. I need not point you anywhere.

Jethro Bodine said:
Actually it does.
Actually, it doesn't. :shrug

Jethro Bodine said:
You are wrong, that is not why I don't want to argue that aspect of prophecy. If you want to include that as yet another aspect of meeting together that the North American churches don't do, I suppose we could do that and just endure the bickering about it.
Again, you are presuming a certain interpretation of Scripture and are are still generalizing. Proper exegesis demands that we look at the verse the way the author intended without arbitrarily picking meanings of words as suits our position.

Jethro Bodine said:
I guess you can explain to us, if you want, how narrowing the definition of 'prophecy' somehow affects the discussion and helps explain why the church doesn't do the other undebatable things listed in the passage, relegating them to other optional meeting times...and still largely not really doing them the way Paul suggests.
Again, there is nothing to suggest that Paul is here prescribing how "church is to be done." Paul is addressing issues at one church, where things were disorderly and the gifts of the Spirit were being misused.


I'm going to step out. Nothing good has ever come from discussions where someone suggests the Bible says we should be doing church in such-and-such a way and that currently it is mostly, or completely wrong. Such notions are entirely unprovable and go beyond what the Bible actually says.
 
"Many" is insufficient as a sample size and your argument remains a generalization.
I think you're avoiding the obvious. You know all too well there are very, very few churches that do what Paul said to do in 1 Corinthians 14. You yourself argue that it is not prescriptive in the first place. Why are you arguing against my 'many' if you don't think it's prescriptive in the first place? I would think you would agree with my generalization to defend your position. Think about it.

This is a forum. I laid a premise. Now your job is to prove it false. Start listing denominations that do what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14. Generalize if you want, just as I have by saying very, very few do what he says.


Aside from your presumption regarding what the Bible says, I am suggesting that without a sufficient sample size, you have no basis for your argument.
Generally speaking, all denominations...that is my sample group of sufficient size. Now show me I'm wrong and how, in fact, there are more than just very, very few churches abiding by what Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians.


It is not up to me to help you fix your fallacious generalization. My whole point was that error. I need not point you anywhere.
I said very, very few do what Paul teaches among all the denominations in North America. I could list all the denominations in North America if you'd like. Then people can chime in on how their particular church in those denominations is different, okay? That way we can begin to test if my premise is fallacious or not.


Again, there is nothing to suggest that Paul is here prescribing how "church is to be done." Paul is addressing issues at one church, where things were disorderly and the gifts of the Spirit were being misused.
What you're saying is the gifts of the Spirit do NOT have to be exercised in the church the way Paul says in order to build up the body. Show me where it says this in the NT.


I'm going to step out. Nothing good has ever come from discussions where someone suggests the Bible says we should be doing church in such-and-such a way and that currently it is mostly, or completely wrong. Such notions are entirely unprovable and go beyond what the Bible actually says.
I go to bat for the freedoms the church has in how/when/where it meets to worship. I stress this freedom when lawkeepers think the church has to meet on Saturdays. But there are some things that the Bible makes very clear that we are to do to build the body up when we meet.
 
This might get me into a corner, but I'll say it anyway. Just because the early church practiced a certain way, or did anything, doesn't necessarily make it the "right" thing to do. Jethro, you're leaning on a few scriptures to support your stance for small home-based churches. But, could it be that they practiced this out of necessity and because of the times? Early Christians didn't even have places of worship yet. Maybe it was because they didn't want them, but maybe they just hadn't established them yet.

Was the Church under the threat of persecution similar to what we see in certain parts of this world? Could they have met in small groups because large gatherings would have been more visible to the Romans? Nowadays, we also have mass populations of people who go to church, so it seems to me that large churches are to be expected. There certainly are models shown in the Bible of a single speaker preaching to groups rather than discussion-based studies of scripture. Which one was the Sermon on the Mount?

Is there a command to gather in worship a certain way?

Jethro, you know I have tremendous respect for you, but you've called out people on this board for distancing themselves from the Body of Christ, and rightly so, IMO. When I see people who have separated into home-based churches, right or wrong, I see people who reject what the Church is today. They're off on their own, because they defiantly create a separatist movement.

Our church has its large gathering where some might accuse us of monologues. But going to that one service doesn't make the member. It's getting involved in matters outside that service, and yes, meeting in small groups in addition to it.
 
This might get me into a corner, but I'll say it anyway. Just because the early church practiced a certain way, or did anything, doesn't necessarily make it the "right" thing to do. Jethro, you're leaning on a few scriptures to support your stance for small home-based churches.
No, not home based churches, but regular churches the way we know them today, but where the meetings are open (but kept in order, of course, just as 1 Corinthians 14 stresses). I attended a church like this many years ago. An ordained Baptist minister had this same burden for effective church meetings and ran a church modeled this way. It works. But if a person has never experienced it and thinks our present tradition is the express will of God for what a church meeting is supposed to be like then I can see how people would resist it. And worse yet, if a person goes to church for the sole reason 'that's what they're supposed to do' and is fulfilling an empty requirement to do that so God won't be displeased with them, then I can understand how someone might not be interested in what Paul talks about.


Nowadays, we also have mass populations of people who go to church, so it seems to me that large churches are to be expected. There certainly are models shown in the Bible of a single speaker preaching to groups rather than discussion-based studies of scripture. Which one was the Sermon on the Mount?
The interesting part is the interaction with the people that the Bible demonstrates.


Is there a command to gather in worship a certain way?
There are Paul's instructions on what is to be done in a meeting and in what order.


Jethro, you know I have tremendous respect for you, but you've called out people on this board for distancing themselves from the Body of Christ, and rightly so, IMO. When I see people who have separated into home-based churches, right or wrong, I see people who reject what the Church is today. They're off on their own, because they defiantly create a separatist movement.
I appreciate your respect very much and I know it is real, thank you. And please, let me assure you this has nothing to do with home church. We have such a great infrastructure of buildings and denominations and leadership already in place that could be more effective if we identified gifted leaders who can lead and control an open meeting and opened up the meetings we already have, and had people who had the courage and the knowledge to resist tradition, that home church meetings would not be necessary (trust me, I don't want to see the church do that unless absolutely necessary).


Our church has its large gathering where some might accuse us of monologues. But going to that one service doesn't make the member. It's getting involved in matters outside that service, and yes, meeting in small groups in addition to it.
Then why have the large meeting?

It's amazing to me to see people get truly blessed and fed by God, and feed other people in an open meeting, but continue to think the main traditional meeting where that rarely happens, or doesn't happen at all is the will of God for how we are to meet and will abandon the meeting that feeds in favor of the one that doesn't when the two are in conflict. And I think they do it out of fear and lack of knowledge, thinking God will be displeased if they don't go to the main meeting.

For churches that are having these fulfilling meetings outside of the main Sunday service now, all they have to do is add more prayer time and a praise and worship sing to the meeting and they have a Biblical meeting of the saints...and one that effectively builds up the saints, not just one that puts a mark on a score card of church attendance and satisfies an empty requirement to meet with the saints.


So, I hope you can see this is not about breaking away from the church. This is about making the churches we have more effective and fulfilling. Christians can't feed and minister to others effectively if they do not get fed and ministered to effectively themselves. Paul lays out inspired counsel on how to do that. I know for myself that it works...if people are willing to resist tradition and step out in faith and do what the Bible says.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, Jethro, could you give a detailed, I mean excruciatingly painful description of how your typical worship service goes down? And how many members are typically at your services? What exactly does your church do that you feel typical churches do not?

To say why I choose to attend the type of service I do, I'll admit that it is in part because it is what I've always done. But it's also because I enjoy a good sermon where I can only learn with my Bible and a pen to mark it up and where other people won't take us down rabbit trails, off topic. At that time, I embrace the relationship between the shepherd and his flock.
 

What happened was ...
1) GOD ------ in these last days, has loosed more demons into the world
2) SATAN -- is the god and ruler of this world, and the enemy of our souls
3) MAN ------ has an incredible sin nature, with all that this entails
 

What happened was ...
2) SATAN -- is the god and ruler of this world, and the enemy of our souls

We really should start a new thread on this...

Hebrews 2:7-9 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Doesn't sound like Satan is the ruler of this earth...

Also, many miss this, but the question can and was asked. How is there evil among the kingdom of God if Jesus is ruler of all?

Jesus explained it this way.

Matthew 13:24-30 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
 
Hebrews 2:7-9
Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour,
and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death,
crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Doesn't sound like Satan is the ruler of this earth...
I thought everyone believes that this is referring to plants, animals, etc.
with one reason being that "all things" do NOT refer to people,
i.e. it does NOT mean, "Thou hast put all people in subjection under man's feet."
 
Back
Top