Why are you here?

[prophet]

There is no indication here that he was delivering a sermon at all.  He was talking with them until midnight, and the text gives no indication that people weren't responding. 

One guy fell asleep.  Is that evidence it was a sermon because your uninterrupted sermons put people to sleep? 

Ask Tomato!

At Mars Hill, everyone had an opportunity to ask questions. They were all interjecting and poor Paul could hardly get a word out with all of the questions!

You're talking about a place opened to debate, that anyone could participate in.

Paul waited his turn.

What he said triggered a bunch of discussion.

What was your point again?


Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

 

[prophet]

How about when Paul was preaching to the assembly (the church), and the young men fell asleep and fell out of the window?  I believe he was speaking to (encouraging) the believers.

By the way, I've given a number of keynote speeches.  The format doesn't account for people interrupting with comments or questions, but sometimes people did, and I responded to them politely and tried to answer.  And there was always a question/answer session afterward. 

"Speaking to the people" doesn't mean there's no interaction.  Maybe you should try it.  Even if you're not going to let anyone speak during your sermon, try opening it up for discussion and Q&A afterward.  You might learn something. 

You might even find that some uneducated Christian in the "laity" has a better insight into a particular scripture than you do.  The Holy Spirit is a better teacher than seminary, or professors, or dozens of other sources of learning.  And the Spirit teaches men of all walks of life.

Now Mater....you know that it is ridiculous to think that in our modern times, one could have open discussions...

This would mean I can't control what is said.

What if someone disagrees with me?

Terrible things could result.

I could be exposed as wrong some of the time, lose my god status, and have to work daily.

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

 

[FSSL]

You're talking about a place opened to debate, that anyone could participate in.
Paul waited his turn.
What he said triggered a bunch of discussion.
What was your point again?

I guess my version left out the times that he was interrupted.

Besides... Pastors I hang with discuss their sermons after and through the week. What Tomato is against is a lecture-style presentation.

He is the one restricting the freedom of pastors.

There is time for a lecture-style presentation AND interactive teaching. Tomato has no allowance for the lecture.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[prophet]

You're talking about a place opened to debate, that anyone could participate in.
Paul waited his turn.
What he said triggered a bunch of discussion.
What was your point again?

I guess my version left out the times that he was interrupted.

Besides... Pastors I hang with discuss their sermons after and through the week. What Tomato is against is a lecture-style presentation.

He is the one restricting the freedom of pastors.

There is time for a lecture-style presentation AND interactive teaching. Tomato has no allowance for the lecture.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't think anyone is advocating for interrupting, just for discussion.

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

You're talking about a place opened to debate, that anyone could participate in.
Paul waited his turn.
What he said triggered a bunch of discussion.
What was your point again?

I guess my version left out the times that he was interrupted.

Besides... Pastors I hang with discuss their sermons after and through the week. What Tomato is against is a lecture-style presentation.

He is the one restricting the freedom of pastors.

There is time for a lecture-style presentation AND interactive teaching. Tomato has no allowance for the lecture.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't think anyone is advocating for interrupting, just for discussion.

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

Just for the sake of discussion, where do you find an illustration of a round table discussion in the book of Acts? You do find a few sermons being preached.
I'm not against discussion or interaction, just don't think Mater's paradigm is THE Biblical model.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

There is no indication here that he was delivering a sermon at all.  He was talking with them until midnight, and the text gives no indication that people weren't responding. 

One guy fell asleep.  Is that evidence it was a sermon because your uninterrupted sermons put people to sleep? 

Ask Tomato!

At Mars Hill, everyone had an opportunity to ask questions. They were all interjecting and poor Paul could hardly get a word out with all of the questions!

You're talking about a place opened to debate, that anyone could participate in.

Paul waited his turn.

What he said triggered a bunch of discussion.

What was your point again?


Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

His point is simple.  "The Rogue Tomato exposed me for the lying hypocrite that I am, and now I'm going to twist everything he says to try to make him look foolish."

 

[Walt]

How about when Paul was preaching to the assembly (the church), and the young men fell asleep and fell out of the window?  I believe he was speaking to (encouraging) the believers.

7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

There is no indication here that he was delivering a sermon at all.  He was talking with them until midnight, and the text gives no indication that people weren't responding. 

One guy fell asleep.  Is that evidence it was a sermon because your uninterrupted sermons put people to sleep? 

  indeed...

Well, it was a Sunday, and the church was meeting, and Paul spoke to them.  "Spoke to" seems to imply that Paul was speaking and the others were listening, not interrupting with questions.  It would be "speak with" if it was a multi-way conversation.

 

[prophet]

How about when Paul was preaching to the assembly (the church), and the young men fell asleep and fell out of the window?  I believe he was speaking to (encouraging) the believers.

7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

There is no indication here that he was delivering a sermon at all.  He was talking with them until midnight, and the text gives no indication that people weren't responding. 

One guy fell asleep.  Is that evidence it was a sermon because your uninterrupted sermons put people to sleep? 

  indeed...

Well, it was a Sunday, and the church was meeting, and Paul spoke to them.  "Spoke to" seems to imply that Paul was speaking and the others were listening, not interrupting with questions.  It would be "speak with" if it was a multi-way conversation.

Since Paul spelled out, in 1Cor. 14, how this ought to proceed, I'm not sure why looking at stories that don't go into that much detail should be considered as evidence to overturn.

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

 

[Walt]

How about when Paul was preaching to the assembly (the church), and the young men fell asleep and fell out of the window?  I believe he was speaking to (encouraging) the believers.

By the way, I've given a number of keynote speeches.  The format doesn't account for people interrupting with comments or questions, but sometimes people did, and I responded to them politely and tried to answer.  And there was always a question/answer session afterward. 

"Speaking to the people" doesn't mean there's no interaction.  Maybe you should try it.  Even if you're not going to let anyone speak during your sermon, try opening it up for discussion and Q&A afterward.  You might learn something. 

You might even find that some uneducated Christian in the "laity" has a better insight into a particular scripture than you do.  The Holy Spirit is a better teacher than seminary, or professors, or dozens of other sources of learning.  And the Spirit teaches men of all walks of life.

I wholeheartedly concur - in a Bible study environment.  Perhaps all "preaching" should just be Bible study.  My favorite way was when the Sunday School was actually a Bible study, with questions solicited and welcome, but the AM & PM services were preaching.  People could ask questions via email or in person, but it was considered disruptive to interrupt the speaker.

It depends on the forum and what the expectations are.

 

[Walt]

How about when Paul was preaching to the assembly (the church), and the young men fell asleep and fell out of the window?  I believe he was speaking to (encouraging) the believers.

7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

There is no indication here that he was delivering a sermon at all.  He was talking with them until midnight, and the text gives no indication that people weren't responding. 

One guy fell asleep.  Is that evidence it was a sermon because your uninterrupted sermons put people to sleep? 

  indeed...

Well, it was a Sunday, and the church was meeting, and Paul spoke to them.  "Spoke to" seems to imply that Paul was speaking and the others were listening, not interrupting with questions.  It would be "speak with" if it was a multi-way conversation.

Since Paul spelled out, in 1Cor. 14, how this ought to proceed, I'm not sure why looking at stories that don't go into that much detail should be considered as evidence to overturn.

True, but even I Cor 14 doesn't seem to cover this area of the topic -- as I recall (and I'm just going by memory and may forget things):
- women were not to speak
- only 2 or 3 (at the most) were to speak; the "others" (church attenders or preachers; I've heard both given) were to "judge" what was said.  I assume that this refers to church members, and that they should ensure that the speaker is being Biblical

What is doesn't speak to is whether it is a round-robin discussion (doesn't quite seem to fit), or if people can throw out questions at random -- the latter seems a bit chaotic.  If a speaker says something I disagree with, I normally write an email to give him time to consider my points -- usually, if I go person-to-person, the speaker will often get defensive or thinks he must answer right away.

Am I missing something in I Cor 14 that mandates either a lecture or discussion style?

 

[prophet]

How about when Paul was preaching to the assembly (the church), and the young men fell asleep and fell out of the window?  I believe he was speaking to (encouraging) the believers.

7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

There is no indication here that he was delivering a sermon at all.  He was talking with them until midnight, and the text gives no indication that people weren't responding. 

One guy fell asleep.  Is that evidence it was a sermon because your uninterrupted sermons put people to sleep? 

  indeed...

Well, it was a Sunday, and the church was meeting, and Paul spoke to them.  "Spoke to" seems to imply that Paul was speaking and the others were listening, not interrupting with questions.  It would be "speak with" if it was a multi-way conversation.

Since Paul spelled out, in 1Cor. 14, how this ought to proceed, I'm not sure why looking at stories that don't go into that much detail should be considered as evidence to overturn.

True, but even I Cor 14 doesn't seem to cover this area of the topic -- as I recall (and I'm just going by memory and may forget things):
- women were not to speak
- only 2 or 3 (at the most) were to speak; the "others" (church attenders or preachers; I've heard both given) were to "judge" what was said.  I assume that this refers to church members, and that they should ensure that the speaker is being Biblical

What is doesn't speak to is whether it is a round-robin discussion (doesn't quite seem to fit), or if people can throw out questions at random -- the latter seems a bit chaotic.  If a speaker says something I disagree with, I normally write an email to give him time to consider my points -- usually, if I go person-to-person, the speaker will often get defensive or thinks he must answer right away.

Am I missing something in I Cor 14 that mandates either a lecture or discussion style?

What does "others judge" mean to you?

For specificity's sake, let's say that other prophets means "other speakers", who aren't scheduled that day, but in some area have a teaching responsibility, or a recognized God-endued teaching gift (like the ones we are to covet).

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

How about when Paul was preaching to the assembly (the church), and the young men fell asleep and fell out of the window?  I believe he was speaking to (encouraging) the believers.

7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

There is no indication here that he was delivering a sermon at all.  He was talking with them until midnight, and the text gives no indication that people weren't responding. 

One guy fell asleep.  Is that evidence it was a sermon because your uninterrupted sermons put people to sleep? 

  indeed...

Well, it was a Sunday, and the church was meeting, and Paul spoke to them.  "Spoke to" seems to imply that Paul was speaking and the others were listening, not interrupting with questions.  It would be "speak with" if it was a multi-way conversation.

You're taking a modern day Sunday service approach and imposing it upon a scripture just because Paul spoke to the people on a Sunday? 

Once again, there's nothing in the text to indicate he spoke for hours and nobody asked questions or spoke back.  You seem to want to take something you experience today and project it onto something that happened 2,000 years ago in order to justify what you do today.

 

[Frag]

Preach the word....


No mention of group discussions. 


Most of the people who questioned Jesus as he preached and ministered were Pharisees "willing to justify themselves." 


Kinda like Diced Tomato does in every thread.....

 

[FSSL]

It appears that Rogue was there when Paul spoke.

There is nothing in the text to say that they interrupted, yet Rogue cannot have that as a possibility.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

How about when Paul was preaching to the assembly (the church), and the young men fell asleep and fell out of the window?  I believe he was speaking to (encouraging) the believers.

7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

There is no indication here that he was delivering a sermon at all.  He was talking with them until midnight, and the text gives no indication that people weren't responding. 

One guy fell asleep.  Is that evidence it was a sermon because your uninterrupted sermons put people to sleep? 

  indeed...

Well, it was a Sunday, and the church was meeting, and Paul spoke to them.  "Spoke to" seems to imply that Paul was speaking and the others were listening, not interrupting with questions.  It would be "speak with" if it was a multi-way conversation.

Since Paul spelled out, in 1Cor. 14, how this ought to proceed, I'm not sure why looking at stories that don't go into that much detail should be considered as evidence to overturn.

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

That's what people who want to be popes do.  They take text that basically says, "This is what happened", make assumptions about it that aren't explicitly said anywhere in the text, and then use that as justification for what they already do. 

Then they take explicit INSTRUCTIONS on what to do, and ignore them. 

 

[FSSL]

That's what people who want to be popes do.  They take text that basically says, "This is what happened", make assumptions about it that aren't explicitly said anywhere in the text, and then use that as justification for what they already do. 

Then they take explicit INSTRUCTIONS on what to do, and ignore them.

which is exactly what you are doing as well.

 

[FSSL]

That's what people who want to be popes do.  They take text that basically says, "This is what happened", make assumptions about it that aren't explicitly said anywhere in the text, and then use that as justification for what they already do. 

Then they take explicit INSTRUCTIONS on what to do, and ignore them.

which is exactly what you are doing as well.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Preach the word....

What you are promoting is a model where one person shall preach, sermonize or pontificate (see etymology of "pontificate"). 

You don't want there to be any room for mutual edification.  You want to be a pope.  And, fortunately for you, there are lots of people who want a local pope. 

 

[FSSL]

That's quite a pontification, Rogue

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

There is a time and place for Bible study, when everyone is encouraged to participate, but there is also a time and place for preaching, which is not open to everyone's interruption on minor points or wacky ideas.... case in point - the Scripture (1 or 2 Corinthians) that begins "for we know that if this earthly tabernacle were destroyed..." - clearly, and in context, it is talking about our bodies; our flesh. I was in a Bible study where someone went on and on about how we would be living in tents in heaven, using this passage.

This is probably the most revealing comment you've made.  Someone presented a wacky idea.  So, what?  What are you afraid of?  Are you afraid the rest of the people there will buy into that wacky idea?  So you need a single "expert" to make sure that doesn't happen?  The presence of Jesus and the Holy Spirit among the rest of the assembly isn't enough?  You need to make sure there's one papal authority who knows the truth, and make sure EVERYONE else shuts up so nothing but the truth from the papal authority is spoken? 

I've seen people say crazy things in an assembly where people can speak; just as crazy as saying we'll all live in tents in heaven.  Our answer wasn't to have a single papal authority speak.  Someone always said, "Well, let's look at what the Bible says about that."  And then that's what we did.  Was the crazy person always convinced he had the wrong idea?  I don't know, but I believe in the power and authority of God to handle that, not a single spokesperson. 

If your assembly is so lacking in the Holy Spirit that it's in constant danger of believing in crazy ideas, then maybe you should be focusing your attention on what kind of assembly you have, not on who has the authority to speak.