The Method of the Early Church

So it is only through the ear gate that an unadulterated message of Jesus Christ can be properly understood?

I will go back to a question asked earlier which you did not answer: should we remove all visual images of Jesus Christ? Should we remove all nativity scenes? Should we obliterate all crucifixion scenes? What about art? Should our churches abstain from Christmas & Easter pageants?

If you are going to be consistent with your limited view, all of these "images" that could possibly border on "idolatrous" should be removed for they may create, through the eye gate, a distorted image of who Jesus actually was.

Let me give you another scenario. You are in a foreign country where you cannot speak the language, yet you have been given a copy of the Jesus film in that native language. Do you keep it to yourself to avoid the potential hazard of misrepresenting Jesus? Do you begin preaching in English and hope they understand (some type of post-Acts tongues experience)? or Do you do simply do nothing?

So now you are able to discern which evangelicals are pleasing and serving God and which are not?

Can God only be honored through a certain type of baptistry? Can you provide us with that blueprint? The true issue here is motive of the heart not type of baptistry, so unless you are the judge of all hearts (which you may be if you can determine when God is pleased and served), your words are simply opinion and preference.

Methods in and of themselves are not wrong. But methods that violate scriptural principles are wrong. You cannot seperate the "outward trappings" of the RCC from the doctrine and purpose behind them

There are many ritualistic trappings performed every Sunday in evangelical churches. I was reminded of this a few weeks ago when I talked with a young Muslim lady who visited our church for a few weeks to "investigate" Christianity. Our conversation reminded me of the many traditional trappings that are nothing more than outdated means of convenience. Trappings can come in many forms.

And you get to determine which are and which are not

BTW, You may want to go back and answer the two questions I raised at the end of the earlier post.

 

And yet this is the very truth you have failed repeatedly to prove.

I can honestly say it was designed to celebrate a child's commitment to Christ and subsequent decision to be baptized (after personal counseling and direction on the meaning of baptism). What you cannot say is that one's motives can be judged based upon the type of baptistry they design.

Can you honestly say that it was NOT designed to please God?

Yet even a nativity scene without the image of Christ could lead to a distorted understanding of Jesus Himself. Inconsistency shines through.

Inconsistency again. Any pageant can provide a distorted view of who Jesus is, and therefore (according to your view) should be avoided.

Once again you speak on behalf of God in regards to a position God himself has not clarified in the text. Can you point me to a specific text that states clearly that the Spirit is NOT behind drama.

Second point: what type of preaching is the Spirit behind? A particular style, length, content, etc. ? Is preaching limited to your particular style and format? Can it be performed one-on-one?

And you would miss out on a great opportunity to share Jesus with those who may not otherwise hear. God uses many means. I am just sorry you have limited yourself to one. Well actually I doubt you have limited yourself to one. You simply pick and choose what is appropriate and what is not.

LURKERS who may have a similar attitude as Bob: Please do not misunderstand my posts. Baptist Board is mere entertainment for me. There is nothing that occurs here that I take personally. And none of my posts are personal attacks. I am not sure everyone maintains this same mindset, but I do not take anything said to heart. If my words appear harsh at times, they are intended innocently. I cannot speak for Aaron or the others, but I do not believe they have malicious intent either. Who cares? It is all for fun.

 

And yet this is the very truth you have failed repeatedly to prove.</font>[/QUOTE]SBCbyGRACE, this post leaves me confused. You complain that Aaron has not proved this, yet you stated the same thing in your sixth post on page 3:

Are you asking that he prove that which you admit to be true? Or did you mean something else?

 

To quote the words of my esteemed colleague:

 

Sorry I forgot I was discussing these issues with the all-knowing judge of both human and divine hearts and motives.

God takes delight in persons coming to faith in Him and following Him in obedience. I hate to disappoint you but you are not the determiner of what is frivolous and what is not.

This fails to answer the question.

Many scholars would argue the preaching of Jesus and the preaching of the apostles are two different issues. I tend to believe both serve as proper models.

However since we have only two condensed forms of apostolic sermons, I would hesitate to suggest they serve as the exhaustive models of "preaching." If they do, toss out expository preaching as a proper model.

You still have not answered the two questions from a previous post regarding the exhaustiveness of the EC model.

[ December 31, 2002, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: SBCbyGRACE ]

 

My only point is that Aaron has failed to show how these methods violate a clear scriptural principle.

 

Your choice.

I have enjoyed the discussion.

I do think a subject worth pursuing at some point is whether the EC is an exhaustive, prescriptive model for doing ministry or whether it is more descriptive of what took place. Many of the method issues stem from this primary point.

 

Good point, perhaps you will consider formulating such a topic in the near future.