Why are you here?

[FSSL]

Is there any doubt left as to what Rogue's Bible study table looks like?

 

[subllibrm]

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.

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?

 

[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". 

 

[Bruh]

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

 

[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. 

 

[FSSL]

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.

See, Sullibrim... Rogue knows that the details are not there, YET, he insists that we are projecting a 2000 style of preaching on the text. No one suggests that we know the style. However, Rogue is convinced that it could not be the lecture-style.

The non-sequitor is found in Rogue's consistent statements in that when a pastor uses the lecture-style, he is nothing but a little pope.

 

[prophet]

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.

Its so simple, yet it terrifies the Nikkos.

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

 

[prophet]

Walk it backwards from this verse, and you'll maybe see why it matters so much to obey 1 Cor 14's instructions on speaking in the assembly:

1 Corinthians 14:37
If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

And, for those who would argue for the one man show modern model, the next verse is about them:

1 Corinthians 14:38
But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.


So this discussion is healthy for anyone who doesn't insist on ignoring God's plainly stated commands to the NT assemblies.

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

 

[Bob H]

"But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away"

 

[praise_yeshua]

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!

They wanted to hear what Paul had to say.

Which is pretty much how any preaching in the NT went. If they wanted to hear it..... they remained silent. IF they didn't.... the people caused a problem to the point it couldn't take place.

 

[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!

They wanted to hear what Paul had to say.

Which is pretty much how any preaching in the NT went. If they wanted to hear it..... they remained silent. IF they didn't.... the people caused a problem to the point it couldn't take place.

And you know that because you were there?  Because that's not anywhere in the text. 

Teachers speak to classes all the time.  The students are allowed to ask questions or make comments.  Teachers manage that just fine.  As a former teacher, I don't see the problem.  I don't see why there's something magical about Paul's case where it would have been disruptions he couldn't handle. 

The point is, the text never says he spoke for hours without a single question, comment, or whatever.  To say that's how it happened is to inject facts into the text where they don't exist.

 

[FSSL]

Hey stupid... If you are going to interact with me, take the ignorance mode off. I addressed it above, but your ignorance mode keeps you stoopid

 

[praise_yeshua]

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!

They wanted to hear what Paul had to say.

Which is pretty much how any preaching in the NT went. If they wanted to hear it..... they remained silent. IF they didn't.... the people caused a problem to the point it couldn't take place.

And you know that because you were there?  Because that's not anywhere in the text. 

Teachers speak to classes all the time.  The students are allowed to ask questions or make comments.  Teachers manage that just fine.  As a former teacher, I don't see the problem.  I don't see why there's something magical about Paul's case where it would have been disruptions he couldn't handle. 

The point is, the text never says he spoke for hours without a single question, comment, or whatever.  To say that's how it happened is to inject facts into the text where they don't exist.

I believe its rather evident that Paul was interrupted at times and it was record when it happened. I never said that Paul wasn't interrupted. I see where he was and where he wasn't. Its just honestly dealing with the evidence.

Personally, I wouldn't interrupt a speaker until he is at least to a point to finish his thoughts. I think its consistent with what is taught by Paul in letting people listen and judge what others say.

I'm not trying to make the case that we shouldn't ask questions. In this, I agree with you. However, It should be done.... decently.... and in order. We shouldn't become protesters in well doing.

 

[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!

They wanted to hear what Paul had to say.

Which is pretty much how any preaching in the NT went. If they wanted to hear it..... they remained silent. IF they didn't.... the people caused a problem to the point it couldn't take place.

And you know that because you were there?  Because that's not anywhere in the text. 

Teachers speak to classes all the time.  The students are allowed to ask questions or make comments.  Teachers manage that just fine.  As a former teacher, I don't see the problem.  I don't see why there's something magical about Paul's case where it would have been disruptions he couldn't handle. 

The point is, the text never says he spoke for hours without a single question, comment, or whatever.  To say that's how it happened is to inject facts into the text where they don't exist.

I believe its rather evident that Paul was interrupted at times and it was record when it happened. I never said that Paul wasn't interrupted. I see where he was and where he wasn't. Its just honestly dealing with the evidence.

Personally, I wouldn't interrupt a speaker until he is at least to a point to finish his thoughts. I think its consistent with what is taught by Paul in letting people listen and judge what others say.

I'm not trying to make the case that we shouldn't ask questions. In this, I agree with you. However, It should be done.... decently.... and in order. We shouldn't become protesters in well doing.

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.

 

[FSSL]

... then stop making the case that uninterrupted preaching is non-biblical and makes a pastor the "pope."

 

[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?  ???

 

[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. 

 

[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.

 

[Walt]

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.

The case in point was a Bible study off-campus with differing denominations of Christians; some Baptist, some charismatic.  It was annoying that everyone just nodded with a clearly wrong interpretation of Scripture, and no one pointed out that his view, while no doubt sincere, was wrong.

You seem to be prone to making unlogical leaps.  Just because I think one man should be able to preach with out silly questions stopping him, you leap to the conclusion that I support the idea that the preacher in some kind of infallible pope. I don't.

When I was in school, we didn't interrupt the lecturer... we listened.  If we had questions, we could go to his office outside of class or, if he called for questions, we could ask.

The funny thing is that I agree with the majority of your point - there is way too much of blatant acceptance of what the preacher says; people are afraid to call him on some point, or else they believe that they are not spiritual enough to ask a question.  I just think that a lecturing style preaching is fine.

 

[Walt]

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.

To me, it seems that, as Paul was "long speaking" that tends to imply that it was a lecture style, but I agree that one cannot say such dogmatically.

I won't disagree if you choose to attend a church that allows any and every comment to everything said in public.

I prefer a more orderly service.