The Upper Room Example

The Upper Room Example versus the First Day of the Week Example

http://joelellis.blogspot.com/2012/04/lords-supper-first-day-and-bible.html

I would like to respond to the above linked article. I am concerned for our brother and the direction of his thinking as well as the influence such thinking has on others. It concerns the matter of how to establish biblical authority and whether you can and should consider examples of what others did with God’s approval in consideration of your own practice. I believe that commands, statements, and exampless SHOULD be part of our search for authority, and that some examples help us prove what is acceptable to the Lord.  If the total evidence is consistent with the example, then the example may help us “prove what is acceptable to the Lord”(Eph.5:10; 1 Thess.5:21; Rom.12:2).

Joel ends his article by asserting: “But unless we are prepared to bind the practice of eating the Lord’s Supper in an upper room, we need to be careful of judging those who choose to eat it (the Lords’ Supper –twb) on a day other than Sunday. –JME”

TB: Now, I deny that eating the Lord’s Supper in an upper room is equal to the example of eating the supper on the first day of the week.  There is a command to eat the supper in “one place”.(1 Cor.11:20). That is the only command about where to eat the supper.

Joel responded to this part by saying: 1) 1st Corinthians 11:20 is not a command to eat the Lord’s Supper, either together or not.

TB: Excuse me. It is an approved, Spirit-guided statement that carries the force of telling the will of God about their gathering to eat the Lord’s Supper. “When you come together in one place”. If God Had wanted them to make sure the Supper was taken only in upper rooms, then He would have said “when you come together in an upper room”. He didn’t. He left the only requirement regarding the Supper is that it be held in “one place” wherever you can arrange to meet. Therefore, the two examples of taking the Supper in an upper room was circumstantial and incidental, not a uniform practice at all.

JE: 2) There is no example in the NT of anyone eating the Lord’s Supper anywhere other than an upper room.

TB: Joel is trying to make a point about examples, but his point fell apart because the total evidence is that brethren did not meet always in upper rooms to take the supper. 1 Cor.11 shows that the only requirement was to find a place where the church could come together in one place.  That common architecture of that time made many houses with a large upper room a good candidate for a place to come together in one place, does not limit “come together in one place” to always being in an upper room even in places where that was not a good candidate for a place to come together in one place. Joel did not want to lose his argument so he pretended that 1 Cor.11:20 is not a command. It may not be in the form of a command, but it is a statement that shows that God wanted them to come together in one place and eat the Lord’s Supper.

Secondly,  Acts 2:42 shows that they met at the temple for a time as the “one place” they could share the Supper.  It specifically says they were together, continuing daily with one accord in the temple. The Supper was one of the things they did together in the temple.  It is fallacious to argue that two examples of eating in an upper room dismisses all other evidence.  We do not dismiss all other evidence that brethren took the Supper on other days besides the first day of the week.  We copy the early practice because that is ALL the evidence of when to take the Supper.  Joel, wanting to dismiss all examples as authoritative, thought that he would show how inconsistent it is to follow the example of Acts 20:7 while not following the example of the upper room.  We don’t follow THAT example of meeting in an upper room simply because it was incidental (the one place they found to meet in one place) and not a purposeful pattern that characterized all meeting places. But we see that they purposely waited for the first day of the week to come around because that was when the disciples purposefully came together to break bread.

 Two examples show that a common place where a number could meet together was in an upper room. Other examples show that they also found meeting by a river or in a school and for a while at the temple was a good place to come together in one place. Therefore, the commands and examples show us that it is wide open as long as you can find “one place” to accommodate coming together in one place.  The forced conclusion from all evidence is that it is wherever the church can come together in one place.

On the topic of when to come together in one place to take the supper, all the information points to the first day of the week ( Acts 2:42 was on the first day of the week, and Acts 20:7 makes the observation while Paul waited that it was on the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread).  The forced conclusion of all evidence was that the disciples commonly met on the first day of the week for the purpose of breaking bread, and this was the approved time to do so. It is therefore the approved time for us to do so. Since we are under obligation to “prove what IS acceptable to the Lord”, we can use this example to prove it is acceptable to the Lord to take the Supper on the first day of the week AND we can’t prove that I is acceptable to take the Supper on any other day of the week.  We can prove it is acceptable to meet in one place, not just upper rooms, anywhere we can find an adequate place. So, the issues are not equal as our brother would like us to think.

As for judging others, we do that by merely telling the truth and I intend to keep on doing that.  If they judge that they need not follow the divine pattern, I judge that I can have no fellowship with them in what they do. My practice is not questionable. I can prove my practice is acceptable to the Lord. If they choose to “eat it on a day other than Sunday” then let them “prove it is acceptable to the Lord”.  If they don’t or can’t, then I judge that I cannot have fellowship with them (Eph.5:8-11). Neither should others.

Joel further said: “Acts 2:42 does not mention the first day of the week. You are only assuming it must have been because of your conclusions from Acts 20:7.”

TB: No, Pentecost fell on the first day of the week, and that is when they were there after their baptism “continuing steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, in fellowship, in breaking of bread, and in prayers”.  We have no reason to assume a break in time has occurred.  So, here is an example of taking the Supper on the first day of the week in the temple area, not in an upper room. 

JE: No one is denying the Lord approves of believers meeting to eat the Lord’s Supper on the first day of every week.

TB: That is correct because that practice can be proven to be correct.  Since everyone is obligated to prove their own practice is correct, then we have to ask those who take the Supper on some other day to prove that it is acceptable to the Lord (Eph.5:10; 1 Thess.5:21; Rom.12:2). The upper room argument Joel made is simply bad exegesis and reasoning.  Now, the examples of upper room meetings just proves that if an upper room is a good place to “come together in one place” then use it. If there are other places to come together in one place, then use them. Examples are not binding just because they are examples, but they may show an approved pattern where the total information on that topic shows a pattern of action that we know is right and cannot be wrong as we strive to “prove all things” that we do are in harmony with the will of God. If you throw out examples from consideration, you would throw out statements as well, and that would leave you with deciding which commands written to someone else applies to you. That approach is very lacking and foolish. We speak the truth in love, and hope that at least others will see the difference between the examples that are incidental and those that show purpose and give us a pattern that we know is acceptable to the Lord. And, we wish only good things for our brother consistent with the will of God.

Terry W. Benton

ESTABLISHING SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY

ESTABLISHING

SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY

INTRODUCTION:   In talking about establishing authority for our practices in service to God, we are talking about how to apply the scriptures in the appropriate way.  It is really a discussion of how to determine from the complex variety of writings in the Bible the things that God would be pleased for us to do. How can we determine from the poetry, drama, history, wisdom, and prophecy the things that will please God in our lives? Can we understand the will of God for us? How can we determine that will appropriately?

Hermeneutics is the” science of interpreting the Bible” (or any piece of literature). The word comes from a Greek word, “hermeneuo” which means “to interpret or to explain”. (Holman Bible Dictionary, p.179, 180) The way of law, even the law of the land is to look at the legal documents pertaining to the issue, gathering from the statements, commands, and even examples (case studies where previous decisions of law seem pertinent), and drawing the necessary inferences that these sources provide. Jesus and the early apostles seemed to have used these very things in their applications of divine law.

In some circles of fellowship between people, even in churches of Christ, there is the idea that no hermeneutical principle is valid.  There is a growing desire to cast away the old idea that scriptural authority is necessary or that it can be derived from commands, statements, and examples.  The appeal some preachers are making for a “new hermeneutic” ends in never‑never‑land.

CENI is a useful abbreviation for “Commands, Examples, and Necessary Inference”. That is a simple way of looking for authority. However, it is not perfect or exhaustive of all the contextual considerations that must be made along with that formula.  There are some who are overly critical of that formula. Beware of them, because they usually never have any better formulas or offer a better approach to establishing biblical authority. The truth is that they usually do not desire to submit to biblical authority, and they resent those who think authority is essential. (Read II Peter 2 about this mentality).  It is easy to criticize an old way of interpretation by remaining vague and uncommitted as to the right way of interpretation. There is a sense of safety in vagueness because one never has to defend anything and never has to say “this is right and that is wrong”. This vagueness allows one to rub elbows with denominational churches because it doesn’t feel a need to stand for “truth” on anything since no one can really be sure they know the truth on anything (according to them).

How do we establish scriptural authority today?

I.      DETERMINE THE PERIMETERS OF THE “PATTERN” ON THE SUBJECT.

THERE ARE TWO WAYS OR SOURCES FROM WHICH TO ESTABLISH THE PATTERN:

 #1 Commands or direct statements that have a bearing.

 #2 Approved examples that have a bearing.

II.     THE “PATTERN” IS DETERMINED BY ALL THAT IS NECESSARILY INFERRED FROM YOUR SOURCES.

A.  For example: What does the Bible say about baptism?     All the pertinent information on that topic creates the pattern to be followed today. The two sources of information lead to necessary conclusions to be drawn. The totality of that information represents the pattern of sound words on that topic.

B.  The same would be true on the Lord’s supper, church organization, cooperation of churches, the work of the church, worship, music, morals, church discipline,  marriage, divorce, the family, etc.

III.    DETERMINE IF THE PATTERN GIVES GENERAL    AUTHORITY OR LIMITS BY SPECIFICATIONS.

A.   VIOLATORS OF SPECIFIC AUTHORITY:

1. Nadab and Abihu. (Lev.10) Got fire from an unauthorized place.

2.    David, the ark on a cart. The law specified how to transport the ark. (II Sam.6). He ignored the pattern.

3.    Saul, sparing King Agag and the best sheep . . . violated specific instructions. (I Sam.15)

4.    These serve as warnings that we should not do the same kind of things they did. (Rom.15:1‑4; I Cor. 10)

          B. ILLUSTRATIONS OF SPECIFIC AUTHORITY:

1.    Ark of “gopher” wood. Did not allow choice. (Gen.6)

2.    The animal and meal offerings. Again, no choice is allowed. (Lev.1‑3)

3.    Unleavened bread, fruit of the vine. (Matt.26) Choice?

4.    Buried in baptism. (Rom.6; Col.2:12) Choice?

5.    Sing, make melody in heart. (Eph.5:19) Choice?

          C. ILLUSTRATIONS OF GENERAL AUTHORITY:

1.    Abraham – “get out of your country” (Gen.12:1). Walk, ride a horse, ride a camel, ride a wagon. He has general authority to go however he sees fit.

2.    Noah – “make yourself an ark” (Gen.6:14). Use an ax, a hammer, a saw, rope, chisels, etc. He has general authority to use whatever tools he sees fit.

3.    Assemble: find a suitable place and time, rent a place, or buy a place. . . whatever it takes to assemble with the saints. (Heb.10:25)

4.    Sing: learn a song from memory and pass it along, acquire some songs from a song writer, purchase a collection of songs in a book. . . .whatever it takes to sing is authorized.

5.    Teach: designate teachers, times to assemble, learn and teach, acquire teaching tools such as power point, whiteboards, overhead projectors, etc. . . whatever it takes to teach is authorized unless the pattern restricts by specification.

D. DETERMINE WHAT IS AUTHORIZED AND WHAT IS EXPEDIENT IN CARRYING OUT THE WILL OF GOD AS EXPRESSED IN THE PATTERN.

IV.    ARE ALL COMMANDS AND EXAMPLES RELEVANT TOWARD DETERMINING A PATTERN?

A.  using Common sense helps one determine that “INCIDENTALS” are irrelevant TO a pattern.

1.    We find an example of someone learning God’s will while riding in a chariot (Acts 8). Does that imply that we must ride in a chariot to learn the truth? Was that only incidental, unnecessary to the chief purpose of the story?

2.    Was meeting in an “upper room” just incidental? (Acts 20:7f) . . . or is there a “pattern” that suggests a binding purpose?

B. DOES AN EXAMPLE NECESSARILY LEGISLATE A NEW PRACTICE OR REGULATE A CULTURAL PRACTICE . . . CUSTOM?        

1.    Foot washing was cultural custom regulated by divine law but not LEGISLATED regardless of culture.  Feet were commonly dirty due to the nature of shoes and travel and roads.  Clean feet were not the objects of this service. (Jn. 13)

2.    Kissing as a form of greeting.  Did God impose a new way of greeting, or did He legislate that in your customary greeting make sure it is “holy”? (Rom.16:16)

C. IS A PRACTICE LIMITED FROM THE PATTERN BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF A TEMPORARY SYSTEM and had temporary objectives?

1.    Rules concerning spiritual gifts. (I Cor.12‑14) They cannot be copied today. Perhaps principles of order apply, but the gifts specifically discussed cannot be regulated when we do not have them to regulate.

2.    Pray “Thy Kingdom Come”.  After the kingdom came, (Col.1:13) it is more appropriate to pray that it increase, grow, expand, and be realized in more hearts; however, praying for the kingdom to come had a limited context.

D. IS A PRACTICE LIMITED BECAUSE IT WAS PERSONALLY ADDRESSED TO SOMEONE SPECIFIC?

1.    “Bring the books and the parchments” (2 Tim.. 4:13) Can we bring Paul the books?

2.    “Greet Priscilla and Aquila” (Rom. 16:13) Can we obey “greet Priscilla and Aquila”   today?

Conclusion:  There is a common sense way to determine authority from the scriptures just as we would determine what is lawful or “constitutional” under the laws of the land; however, it is not always simple for every subject matter.  We must be willing to search and handle the scriptures appropriately, carefully, and prayerfully.  Those who really want to know the truth can find the “pattern of sound words” pertaining to all issues that pertain to life, godliness, and service to God. -   Terry W. Benton

QUESTIONS:

1.    Can the Bible be understood?  Give scripture to prove it.

2.    What two sources are used to reach necessary conclusions?

3.    Is there a pattern of sound words on the subject of baptism, for example?

4.    How is that pattern determined?

                        Biblical example:

5.    Is there a pattern of sound words on the work of the church?  

                        Biblical example:

6.    Is there a pattern of sound words on church-to-church contributions?

                        Biblical example:

7.    Does one have to have at least general authority for what he does? Why?

8.    Does specific authority limit in any way? How?

9.    What is a New Testament example of something specified?

                        10. What is a simple, but useful, formula to remember in trying to gather proper information to determine a “pattern”?

In What Way “Liberal” or “Conservative”?

In What Way “Liberal” or “Conservative”?

The terms “liberal” and “conservative” have been convenient terms in politics and religion to describe someone as regards their relation to the US Constitution (politics) or the Bible (religion).  A person is taking liberties with the constitution or the Bible and so the term is used to show objection. When a person is described as “conservative”, it means that they are trying to stay close to the Constitution or to Bible authority. Being careful with the authority of the Constitution or the Bible is trying to be conservative or careful with the source of authority and handle it respectfully.  These labels may be useful in some contexts, but generally need further explanation. Sometimes they are too conveniently used to dismiss people without a fair hearing. Therefore, we should explain what we mean rather than just use these as labels.

CHANGES IN CHURCHES OF CHRIST HAVE CREATED A NEED TO FINE TUNE THE DESCRIPTIVE USE OF THE TERMS "LIBERAL" AND "CONSERVATIVE".

There are many different areas in which a person or church may be either “liberal” or “conservative”.  The following areas will help us determine the area of thought or practice in which a certain person or church may be found to be “liberal” or “conservative”.

A. AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE

1.  The liberal view of the Bible is that it is either: 

a.            subject to error (fallible),

b.            insufficient to guide us completely,

c.             an inspiring document but not the authoritatively inspired revelation of God.                                                    

2. Notice how loose or liberal this view has to be with such passages as 2 Tim..3:16-17; 2 Jn..9; Matt.28:18 20; 2  Pet.1:19f

The view that is most conservative with the issue of authority is the view that the Bible is complete, giving us God’s full will, and is authoritative for all issues of faith and practice.

 B. APPEAL USED TO DRAW PEOPLE

1.            The liberal view is to view the cross of Christ as an insufficient appeal or incentive in reaching out to the lost and drawing him to God.  Entertainment, recreational facilities and events are used to cover the painful gospel "hook" with a more appealing kind of bait. They will get the hook after they come for the bait.

2.            This view will often study a variety of marketing techniques to out do the denominational competitors. This attitude takes a liberal view of such passages as I Cor.1 3. Follow this line of reasoning:

a.            If the eloquence of a speaker should not be the attraction, and

b.            If nothing should be the attraction but the message of the cross, then,

c.             Entertainment, facilities, music, gymnasiums, etc., should not be allowed to be the basis of appeal to people.  Nothing but the cross, the story of man’s deepest needs addressed in Jesus and Him crucified, should be the appeal of the church of Christ.

 

         C. WORK OF THE CHURCH

  

1.            The liberal view of the work of the church is that it should include in its scope of work: 1) secular education, 2) recreation, 3) social services such as Kindergarten, Mother’s Day Out, and 4) even medical services.

2.            It takes a liberal view of such passages as (1 Tim..3:15; 5:16; Eph.4:12; Acts 6:1-4.)

3.            The conservative view looks at these passages and sees that the main work of the church is to hold up the gospel. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth.  Thus, this is the main work, and the above verses will show that it will take care of benevolent needs among the members when that need arises, but the soul needs take precident over the body, and the church engages work together accordingly.

         D.  FINANCING THE WORK

1.            The liberal view is that the church may use rental, car washes, raffles, etc. to raise money for its work. They don’t feel a need to limit themselves to a particular pattern. ( I Cor.16:1 3; I Cor.9:7 9) They reason that the Bible doesn't say NOT to do these things.

2.            The conservative view is that the Bible tells how and when to raise funds and the pattern of sound words sets the limits within which to operate.

 

  E. UNIT OF ACTION

1.            The liberal view is that several congregations may team up in area wide, state wide, and national projects. Those holding this view think they see authority for it in uniting and giving toward the emergency situations described in the New Testament where several churches sent aid to a church in physical need. Therefore, it is concluded, churches can create a "need" of any kind and appeal to brethren everywhere for financial support. In doing this, the “united” churches take a liberal view of the local church as God's independent unit of action. (Phil.4:14 18; Acts 20:28; 1 Pet.5:1f)

2.            The conservative view is that the local church is sufficient as God’s unit of action in evangelism and in benevolence. That sufficiency is always within its own ability until circumstances beyond their control puts them in emergency need of help.

        F. ORGANIZATION

1.            The liberal view is that organization between churches can be had by assigning boards, inter-congregational committees to control and direct certain aspects of church work bigger than a local church can handle. This view was seen in the Christian Missionary Society of the 19th century and later in the various evangelistic and benevolent organizations of the 20th century such as the Herald of Truth broadcast and benevolent institutions like Potter's Home and Childhaven, etc.  These organizations tied several churches into a supportive role for the human institution.

2.            The conservative view is to limit ourselves to the Bible pattern of churches organizing only on a local scale (Phil.1:1), each church working independently, but concurrently at the same kind of work with the same mission.

         G.  MORAL PURITY

1.            The liberal view allows for immoral behavior to go unmarked, unreproved, and tolerated under an umbrella of grace and love.  There is danger in accepting a liberal view of such things as adulterous marriages, because eventually, by the same rationale, homosexuality and many other vices will sooner or later be reasoned under that same umbrella of “grace”, etc. This view deals very loosely with such passages as I Cor.5; 2 Thess.3; Tit.3:10 11; Rom.16:17f; Matt.5:32; 19:9; etc.

2.            The conservative view is to mourn over sin and seek to encourage repentance as such issues arise among the members.  Teaching on moral issues is to be encouraged, not discouraged.

H. WORSHIP: DESIGNED BY GOD?  OR,  BY MAN?  (JN.4:24; I COR.11, 14)

1.            The liberal view is that what we do in assembly to worship God can be designed by human wisdom and desire. 

2.            The conservative view of scripture is that worship has always been regulated by God from the worship of Cain and Abel (Gen.4) through the Mosaic Tabernacle period (Lev.10) and on into the New Testament.  Therefore, we must conduct our worship in the way that fits the pattern of sound words. Doctrines of men can corrupt and make our worship “in vain”. (Matt15:8-9; Col.2.)

TWO SOURCES FOR AUTHORITY

 A.        THE BIBLE                                                                                                              

1.            The revelation of God’s mind and will (1 Cor.2; Eph.3:1-4)

2.            The COMPLETE guide (Eph.3:1-4; 2 Tim.3:16-17; Jn.16:13)

3.            God’s religion abides within the boundaries of this revelation (2 Jn.. 9-10).

 B.        HUMAN DESIRE

1.            There is a religion to support every human desire (thus hundreds of different denominations today)

2.            This serves MAN’S interests, but not God’s interests

3.            This creates conflict of interest (supporting and maintaining a human division is a sinful work of the flesh – Gal.5:19f).

WE MUST GET BACK TO THE BIBLE FOR AUTHORITY OR ADMIT THERE IS NO AUTHORITY HIGHER THAN HUMAN DESIRE.

 CONCLUSION:  There is a religion to support every human desire. When everyone does what is right in his own eyes and believes that God accepts that, then SIN becomes pure imagination, and Jesus came and died in vain.  He died because man was "wrong" about something (thus committing “sin”) and we should not deceive ourselves into thinking we are right. (1 Jn..1:7 9.  The gospel we preach must be distinguishable from the many fads and fashions of modern denominational gimmickry.  It must be the same pattern of sound words employed by the early Christians or it is not the same gospel. (Gal.1:6 10)

This article demonstrates that churches have lost their sense of direction and need to get back to biblical authority for everything, learning how to properly use the Bible, and how to use it in establishing authority for what we do as a local church and the individuals of His greater universal body or church. Has this generation “lost the book”?  Or, will you do all within your power to make sure ours is the generation that will step up to the challenge of holding up the book of God as a light that every man, woman, and child so desperately needs? Will YOU “hold fast the pattern of sound words”?

Terry W. Benton