Why are you here?

[The Rogue Tomato]

That's all fine and good.  What I'm saying is that those who argue nobody else ever said anything when Paul preached and Eutychus fell asleep is arguing from silence.  We don't know if anyone commented or asked questions, or engaged Paul during that time.  The text doesn't say Paul preached continually without interruption, and the text doesn't say people interacted with Paul.  One cannot make a case for either based on the text. 

The fact that one cannot make a case that there was no interaction means you cannot cite this text as a model for preaching without interaction.  If that's how one wants to preach, then fine.  But it is intellectually dishonest to base one's approach on the assumption that there was no interaction during that time.

I don't disagree - but you need to realize that YOU are also arguing from silence; neither is there any indication that Paul was interrupted with questions and or comments.

I prefer a more orderly service.

No, I'm not arguing from silence.  You are, because you're putting all your eggs in that one basket, and forgetting other scriptures.  I don't need the details for that one scenario because other scriptures break the silence.

An uninterrupted sermon is not the only means to get order.  If that was the case, Paul would have corrected the Corinthians by saying "Let only the leader of the assembly speak, and everyone else sit quietly and listen."  But that's not what he said.  Clearly, NT assemblies had multiple people speaking.  The problem the Corinthians had was that they were chaotic about it, not orderly.  So Paul told them to speak one at a time, so that anyone who feels led to speak can get a chance, and let the listeners judge.  And if anyone had a revelation, then the one speaking should stop.  His solution to an orderly assembly was NOT that a leader should be the only one allowed to speak. 

No silence there.  Clear instructions.  Not some random recorded event lacking any details on what really happened. 

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Yet you want to take what you think is described in the text and project it forward 2000 years and impose it upon the assembly as the norm. I have yet to see where you have proven your premise beyond it being the conjecture you like best. And that like seems to be driven by some personal beef with the current norm.

Where do I leave my 2 cents?

You can keep it.  Your 2 cents aren't even worth 2 cents, because you don't seem to understand the difference between "here's what happened" and "here's what to do".

The we assemble and the way we hear the word preached/taught all depends on the culture..............like a lot of other things it depends on the culture. 

Now I know you can understand this language.      ;D

Yes, you're right.  And if the way you assemble suits you, I have no problem with that.  I only have a problem with people who say "This particular event is recorded, therefore that's the Biblical model we should follow."  That's a non-sequitur, and even an uninformed one, since the details of how it proceeded are not recorded. 

There's a difference between a record of something that happened, and instructions.

Then why all of the cyber ink spilled to condemn it?  ???

You're conflating different issues.  First, the scriptural issues:

1.  People try to use scripture, in particular, this example of Paul's talking to people at length, to support today's cultural model.  That is misuse of scripture. 

2.  If Paul meant for us to follow that model, he would have corrected the Corinthians by saying "Let only the leader of the assembly speak, and everyone else sit quietly and listen."  But that's not what he said.  Clearly, NT assemblies had multiple people speaking.  The problem the Corinthians had was that they were chaotic about it, not orderly.  Their problem wasn't that they failed to have a single preacher dominate the assembly with an uninterrupted sermon.  And these were instructions, in contrast to an incomplete record of an event. 


Aside from scripture, there's principle involved:

I said I have no problem if you want to use the current cultural model.  I don't even care if you duct-tape everyone's mouth in your service if the people are okay with that.  How you conduct your assembly is up to you and the people who attend.  You're misinterpreting that to mean I don't have a problem with the model.  I do.  It is deeply flawed.

1.  It smothers one of the most important purposes of an assembly -- mutual edification. 

2.  It censures the sharing of a revelation by one of the assembly.  For example, someone may have a revelation given to him that what the preacher is saying is not scriptural or even heretical.  It would benefit everyone if that person were to stand up and speak out about it.  It might even benefit the preacher if he's not already convinced he's the local pope.

3.  It censures the sharing of insights by one or more of the assembly, which sets up the preacher as the sole source of truth for the assembly.  As I said before, the Holy Spirit does not confine his teaching to students of seminary, etc.  An illiterate janitor in the assembly may very well have a better insight into a scriptural point than the preacher.  Let him speak. 

4. When a model is based on hiring someone to tell the assembly what scripture means once (or more) per week, that invites nothing but spiritual laziness on the part of the assembly.  I suspect that's at least one reason why a huge percentage of congregations are unbelievers yet continue to be comfortable to attend each week. 


I could go on, but you and others will continue to misconstrue everything I say, because you are emotionally tied to your current model and can't entertain the notion that there's something better.

Most everything you listed has been answered or at least addressed (usually in agreement that there can be/have been abuses) many times. The problem now seems more like your "I don't care" has morphed into some sort of grudge against those who have not seen the light.

You promote the home church/small assembly as best (if not the biblical mandate). I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with your insistence that the current norm has some sort of sinister motive that the leaders (popes) have foisted on the stupid lemmings in the pews. No matter how many examples have been given to show that your assumptions are not universally valid, you continue to speak down to anyone who will not bow to your position. Which, in and of itself, comes across at least as arrogant (if not more) as those whom you have accused of arrogantly misleading and abusing the people in their churches.

Your absolute confidence that you have it figured out is somewhat admirable. It would be more so if you put some effort into explaining how your model works and allow people to poke it and prod it with questions and concerns. You want mutual edification? Then edify us.

You asked, "Then why all of the cyber ink spilled to condemn it?"  I answered.  If you don't want an answer, don't ask the question. 

 

[subllibrm]

Yet you want to take what you think is described in the text and project it forward 2000 years and impose it upon the assembly as the norm. I have yet to see where you have proven your premise beyond it being the conjecture you like best. And that like seems to be driven by some personal beef with the current norm.

Where do I leave my 2 cents?

You can keep it.  Your 2 cents aren't even worth 2 cents, because you don't seem to understand the difference between "here's what happened" and "here's what to do".

The we assemble and the way we hear the word preached/taught all depends on the culture..............like a lot of other things it depends on the culture. 

Now I know you can understand this language.      ;D

Yes, you're right.  And if the way you assemble suits you, I have no problem with that.  I only have a problem with people who say "This particular event is recorded, therefore that's the Biblical model we should follow."  That's a non-sequitur, and even an uninformed one, since the details of how it proceeded are not recorded. 

There's a difference between a record of something that happened, and instructions.

Then why all of the cyber ink spilled to condemn it?  ???

You're conflating different issues.  First, the scriptural issues:

1.  People try to use scripture, in particular, this example of Paul's talking to people at length, to support today's cultural model.  That is misuse of scripture. 

2.  If Paul meant for us to follow that model, he would have corrected the Corinthians by saying "Let only the leader of the assembly speak, and everyone else sit quietly and listen."  But that's not what he said.  Clearly, NT assemblies had multiple people speaking.  The problem the Corinthians had was that they were chaotic about it, not orderly.  Their problem wasn't that they failed to have a single preacher dominate the assembly with an uninterrupted sermon.  And these were instructions, in contrast to an incomplete record of an event. 


Aside from scripture, there's principle involved:

I said I have no problem if you want to use the current cultural model.  I don't even care if you duct-tape everyone's mouth in your service if the people are okay with that.  How you conduct your assembly is up to you and the people who attend.  You're misinterpreting that to mean I don't have a problem with the model.  I do.  It is deeply flawed.

1.  It smothers one of the most important purposes of an assembly -- mutual edification. 

2.  It censures the sharing of a revelation by one of the assembly.  For example, someone may have a revelation given to him that what the preacher is saying is not scriptural or even heretical.  It would benefit everyone if that person were to stand up and speak out about it.  It might even benefit the preacher if he's not already convinced he's the local pope.

3.  It censures the sharing of insights by one or more of the assembly, which sets up the preacher as the sole source of truth for the assembly.  As I said before, the Holy Spirit does not confine his teaching to students of seminary, etc.  An illiterate janitor in the assembly may very well have a better insight into a scriptural point than the preacher.  Let him speak. 

4. When a model is based on hiring someone to tell the assembly what scripture means once (or more) per week, that invites nothing but spiritual laziness on the part of the assembly.  I suspect that's at least one reason why a huge percentage of congregations are unbelievers yet continue to be comfortable to attend each week. 


I could go on, but you and others will continue to misconstrue everything I say, because you are emotionally tied to your current model and can't entertain the notion that there's something better.

Most everything you listed has been answered or at least addressed (usually in agreement that there can be/have been abuses) many times. The problem now seems more like your "I don't care" has morphed into some sort of grudge against those who have not seen the light.

You promote the home church/small assembly as best (if not the biblical mandate). I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with your insistence that the current norm has some sort of sinister motive that the leaders (popes) have foisted on the stupid lemmings in the pews. No matter how many examples have been given to show that your assumptions are not universally valid, you continue to speak down to anyone who will not bow to your position. Which, in and of itself, comes across at least as arrogant (if not more) as those whom you have accused of arrogantly misleading and abusing the people in their churches.

Your absolute confidence that you have it figured out is somewhat admirable. It would be more so if you put some effort into explaining how your model works and allow people to poke it and prod it with questions and concerns. You want mutual edification? Then edify us.

You asked, "Then why all of the cyber ink spilled to condemn it?"  I answered.  If you don't want an answer, don't ask the question.

So you do care.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

So you do care.

Yes.  I admit it.  There's no use denying it anymore.  I've had a secret man crush on you all this time. 

 

[subllibrm]

So you do care.

Yes.  I admit it.  There's no use denying it anymore.  I've had a secret man crush on you all this time.

*blush*

Shyly and somewhat embarrassed, sub kicks the dirt with his toe.