|
I agree with Al’s statement that “the primary problem with CENI is the inherent tendency toward inconsistency with regard to application.” But we must realize that people are not always going to see things alike. (Individual disciples are not even consistent in their use of good hermeneutics to understand scripture.) This is true with Al’s proposed alternative to CENI. Al seeks unity among “disciples” and blames the “Church of Christ” (that has historically used CENI to establish authority) for division, yet those who have not used CENI (and perhaps used Al’s proposed alternative) are divided to an even greater extent. For example, there are more than thirty Baptist factions alone.
I agree with Al’s questioning whether “Fallible men have the right to assume the status of regulatory LAW over the disciples of Christ?” The answer is simple: no man does. Law comes from God, but then Al denies that the New Testament church is guided by law. Christ is King over a kingdom (the church) but according to Al it is a lawless kingdom. This attitude well explains why many divisions exist among professed Christians.
Al continued: “And just who gets to determine which examples apply?”
It is sometimes difficult to determine whether an example should be applied and practiced. Thankfully, no one person makes decisions for the universal church or even a local church. Each local church is independent and autonomous. The problem I see, and Al agrees, is that some have misinterpreted passages relating to sin and fellowship and are of the opinion that they must have nothing to do with those they feel are in error on something.
Al expresses concern for the “Building up of the Lord's spiritual Family.” I too share that concern, but I do not believe that we are "building" when we replace authority from God with a lawless system that promotes open arms with anyone and any group that claims faith. This is not building but destroying.
Al continues: “Our beliefs and practices often differ. This does not mean one is ‘right’ and the other is ‘wrong.’"
No, Al, when two people differ one or the other is wrong, and perhaps both are. In such a situation good hermeneutics have not been used to interpret the scripture. For example, if Al and I read "upon the first day of the week" (Acts 20:7) we can use good hermeneutics to determine what the text says and to whom it is applicable. We can both be right about that. But when we discuss the applicability to the church today it is no longer a matter of hermeneutics – it is a matter of whether or not we will allow GOD to settle the matter (by approved apostolic example) of WHEN (what day) to take the Lord’s Supper. The week has seven days, but since God specified the first in this example we are not left a choice. And we can be united on this. Then there is the matter of “frequency” or how often we should take the Lord’s Supper. This is where NI comes into play. We are not talking about interpretation of the scripture here – we know what it says and means. We are discussing applicability. Since every week has a first day, it is necessarily implied that the early church took the Lord's Supper EVERY first day of the week. Take for example the command of God to the Israelites to observe the Sabbath. The Jews did not squabble over whether or not to observe the command EVERY week – it was necessarily implied and they obeyed. No change agents criticized Moses for his use of NI, and no one suggested that his method of establishing authority was legalistic and should be rejected for sake of unity with those who might have wanted to observe the Sabbath on some other day, or just once a month.
Al states that part of our differences “Is because we have differing understandings about how to approach the Scriptures so as to discern God's will from them, and also how to apply those understandings to our daily lives.”
We are not talking about understanding the Scriptures or how to apply what we understand to our daily lives. We are considering how to establish authority for the organization, work, and worship of a congregation of God’s people.
In my review I noted that CENI is not a hermeneutic but is merely a common-sense way to establish authority. Al did not refute the definition I gave. He replied, “Within both 'art and science' are various methodologies and principles that aid us in our quest to more fully understand/interpret the text before us.”
Again, hermeneutics is about understanding and interpreting—CENI is about applying what we know to establish authority.
Al misrepresents those whom he thinks tend toward legalism and patternism when they, he claims, contend that “All we do in such settings (and in all of life, they add) must be ‘authorized.’" No one says that. It is about the church, Al. How could you have done a thorough study of this subject and yet unintentionally misrepresent brethren on this matter? Al evidently knows the difference in the “church” versus the “individual” as pertaining to authority because he said, “My authority for my life and worship does not come from the Scriptures… -- it is found in Jesus.”
Al continued: “Jesus told the rigid religionists of His day that they were ‘searching the Scriptures’ for the wrong reason: ‘thinking that in them you have eternal life.’ They were looking for all the rules, the laws, when LIFE stood right before them.”
Those particular “rigid religionists” were following the Old Testament for salvation instead of looking to Christ. Al’s application (above) to people who DO look to Christ (and scripture), who indicates what and how God wants things done in the church, is a huge stretch—it’s unscriptural and uncongenial.
Al continued: “Jesus said, ‘It is these that testify about ME’ -- Life is in HIM, not the Scriptures (John 5:39-40).”
Certainly life is in Jesus, but we can believe this without putting down the Scriptures. It is the Scriptures that teach us about Jesus. Furthermore, Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth” (John 14:6). The following is part of an excellent article that addresses this issue:
The Old Testament refers to the Almighty as the “God of truth” (Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 31:5; Isaiah 65:16). When Jesus said of Himself, “I am…the truth” (John 14:6, emphasis added), He was thereby making a profound claim about His own deity. He was also making it clear that all truth must ultimately be defined in terms of God and His eternal glory. After all, Jesus is “the brightness of [God’s] glory and the express image of His person” (Hebrews 1:3). He is truth incarnate—the perfect expression of God and therefore the absolute embodiment of all that is true.
Jesus also said that the written Word of God is truth. It does not merely contain nuggets of truth; it is pure, unchangeable, and inviolable truth that (according to Jesus) “cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Praying to His heavenly Father on behalf of His disciples, He said this: “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (John 17:17). Moreover, the Word of God is eternal truth “which lives and abides forever” (1 Peter 1:23).
Of course, there cannot be any discord or difference of opinion between the written Word of God (Scripture) and the incarnate Word of God (Jesus). In the first place, truth by definition cannot contradict itself. Second, Scripture is called “the word of Christ” (Colossians 3:16). It is His message, His self-expression. In other words, the truth of Christ and the truth of the Bible are of the very same character. They are in perfect agreement in every respect. Both are equally true. God has revealed Himself to humanity through Scripture and through His Son. Both perfectly embody the essence of what truth is.
How each person responds to the truth God has revealed is an issue of eternal significance. To reject and rebel against the truth of God results in darkness, folly, sin, judgment, and the never-ending wrath of God. To accept and submit to the truth of God is to see clearly, to know with certainty, and to find life everlasting.
(Adapted from The Truth War, © 2008, by John MacArthur. All rights reserved.)
https://www.gty.org/library/articles/A379/what-is-truth
Al continued: “No room for one's assumptions, or deductions, or interpretations, or (dare I say it) inferences. Yet, the 'I' of CENI is that word. CENI is a methodology whereby not only commands of God but assumptions of mere men are used to determine 'authority' to act or not act (primarily with respect to a 'worship service.' This is why some will argue to their final breath over the regulatory aspects of the Lord's Supper (number of cups, who may pass the trays, may a song be sung during the passing of the trays), how we sing and whether there may be aids or accompaniment, who may teach a class, who may say a prayer, can we have a meal in the building, are kitchens 'authorized,' and on and on and on!”
Once again, Al shows his ignorance regarding how to establish authority and his disdain for the need to have it. Does Al totally reject the commands and examples in the Bible regarding the Lord’s Supper? No, but he focuses on the “I” (necessary inference) and uses examples of division that should not have happened to disparage brethren who seek authority, study it, and understand it. He puts NI into the category of “assumptions of men,” when NI is not even applicable to the issues that he presents as examples, to try to prejudice minds.
Al continued: “On page three of his review we read, ’While Al, unlike some brethren who hate CENI, does not openly reject authority, he offers what he believes to be a better alternative to the use of CENI, which is THE means of establishing authority.’ My authority is found IN HIM, my ‘pattern’ is HIM; He is my example.”
Al, Christ has all authority, but He delegated authority to the apostles who wrote the New Testament, and now we get our authority from the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). Christ's life is a pattern and He is the example we should follow, but those who seek to follow Him seek to follow the Bible. Jesus said, “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love” (John 15:10). Al seems to have ignored or rejected this text, having denounced (seemingly) following patterns in the Bible or even looking to the Scriptures for authority.
Al continued: “Love God and love others. It is that simple. Love them and SHOW it. All the petty party particulars over which disciples of Christ fuss and fight and fragment are distractions of the devil; such does not come from God. Can we use a PowerPoint presentation to aid us in our teaching of Truth? Can we use song books to aid us in our singing? Can we use instruments of music to aid and/or accompany our singing of praises unto Him? Sure we can!! There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of such peripheral matters associated with service and worship during our journey through life. All of these, in this new era of a new covenant, fall under the umbrella of LOVE, not LAW.”
While loving God and others is a very important part of being a Christian, Al’s saying “it is that simple” seems to be his way of saying doctrine does not matter. But his problem is with fussing and fighting over matters that are authorized within a general command. The command to teach leaves us the choice of material and methods (PowerPoint, chalkboard, etc.). But once again Al throws instrumental music into the mix of approved items when it is NOT approved. God authorized singing, which is a specific command in the category of music. Instruments produce another kind of music and therefore we have no authority to introduce and use them. I believe Al fully understands this, which explains why his defense of the use of instrumental music has evolved into denying that authority from the Scriptures is even needed.
Al continued: “On page four of my printout of Robert's review he wrote, ‘Many brethren, from the Restoration days until now, have wanted to be like the denominations around them, and this appears to be what Al is seeking to accomplish. Rather than helping others to see the light ... so they can become one of US, many now seek to make US like others in virtually every way.’ Here we see the inevitable result of legalistic patternism: US versus THEM. We have it all figured out; we employed THE method for establishing 'authority.' WE are the 'one true church' on planet Earth, while all other groups are damned 'denominations.' WE must show these poor lost souls 'the light' so they can become one of US, for only WE are saved; THEY are all damned to eternal torment in a fiery hell. This is absolutely disgusting, and I oppose such heresy with all my being!! It is abominable arrogance, and it makes a farce of the Good News!!”
Really, Al? Do you not believe some professed Christians are lost? Do you no longer believe that “God is the author of eternal salvation to all those who obey him” (Heb. 5:9)? Have you totally rejected Acts 2 that reveals God's command to people who asked what to do to be saved and His revelation regarding what they did to receive the remission of sins? When I used the word “us” I was referring to people who teach the truth; thus it is understandable that you are offended and not part of this group. You clearly are determined to make those who teach the truth like those who have rejected it with their denominational doctrine that does not save – “grace only” and/or “faith only,” neither of which is found in the Bible. It is not the scope of this discussion to determine whether “we” refers to the “Church of Christ denomination” and whether any saved people are outside.
Al continued: “On page six Robert writes that I ‘reject the command of God to sing.’ No, I do not. What I reject is those who teach that if one sings with any kind of musical aid or accompaniment then that person is sinning against God and His Word. These aids and accompaniments in no way negate or replace singing.”
All are familiar with the command of God to Noah to build the ark out of “gopher wood.” This was a specific command. The use of another kind of wood would have been a rejection of God’s command. Noah did as instructed and the ark did what it was intended to do. By obeying, Noah kept God’s favor. Could Noah have used pine and argued that it would “aid” him in building the ark? Sure, but he didn’t. He understood the directive and knew he HAD to use only what God specified as the proper material. Those who understand this type of reasoning, and who are more concerned with truth and obeying God than with justifying the denominational world, will never disobey God’s command to sing by adding instruments. The fact that some do not view a “pitch pipe” as an aid, which does not replace the command to sing with another kind of music, is just evidence of the need for teaching on authority. I previously mentioned my free book on Bible authority that may be downloaded from my website: http://www.totalhealth.bz/BibleAuthority.pdf
Al continued: “Again, I would refer the reader to my article (which Robert reviewed) in which I show the fallacy of the CENI methodology to truly grasp divine intent, and in which I show a methodology which many believe does grasp His grace far better on this matter of musical accompaniment.”
I “reviewed” and refuted Al’s methodology that many believe help them justify their unscriptural use of instruments. The fact that Al did not rebut my comments and resorted to Jesus and love as his pattern and authority is evidence that Al knows his methodology is a “bag with holes” (Hag. 1:6).
Al continued: “Later in his paper, Robert says, ‘The pitch pipe is authorized under the command to sing - it is an aid to help carry out that command.’ Some would say the same with regard to a guitar or piano. He also wrote, ‘VBS is authorized under the command to evangelize and teach.’ I have no problem with VBS. I don't have a problem with Sunday School either. But, there are those in the ‘anti’ wing of our movement who, using this same CENI methodology, condemn both as ‘UNauthorized.’ As I propose in my article: there is a better way.”
Just because “some” draw errant conclusions does not mean we all should reject CENI, and Al has not come close to proving there is a “better way.”
Al continued: “Robert opines, ’An instrument built by the hands of men in no way edifies a congregation.’ Really?! You need to get out more, my friend! It may not be edifying to some brethren (in which case they shouldn't use it), but it most definitely is edifying to others. Why should their practice be judged by your preference?!”
Here is the definition of edification: “to build, to construct, to instruct and improve, especially in moral and religious knowledge; to teach.” I do get out, Al, and I’ve seen instruments play in solo, and they're becoming little short of a talent show. They do not edify in the least (according to the definition of the word) but they simply are something some people like. This is enjoyment, amusement, and pleasure, but NOT edification.
Al denies that he rejects commands of God and asserts that he rejects “the inferences, deductions, and assumptions of mere men who have elevated said conclusions to the level of divine LAW, and have then sought to bind them on their fellow believers as conditions of salvation and terms of fellowship.” I too reject what Al says he rejects, above. But following commands of God and examples of what the churches did (as revealed in the New Testament and approved by the apostles of Christ), and discerning necessary inferences, is not elevating the assumptions of mere men. And using these means to establish authority for the organization, work, and worship of a church does not put one into the business of creating divine law – but to the contrary, following it.
Al concluded: “We are free in Christ; we are no longer under law; we are under grace. Countless rules and regulations devised by disciples devoted to searching the Scriptures for ‘patterns’ have not only weighed us down, but they have fragmented our fellowship into warring factions.” “I blame to a large degree the failed CENI methodology.” “The 27 writings produced under the new covenant (what some call "the NT") is not regulatory, it is revelatory. It is not a rule book or law book; it is a revealing of the divine nature: of His love, grace, mercy; of His desire to transform us, and of the method He chose to accomplish that purpose.”
Yes, we are no longer under the Law of Moses, but this does not mean, as Al seems to suggest, that Christ’s kingdom is a lawless kingdom – that God did not give instructions (regulations) for the way He wanted things done, or that it is okay to do things our own way since “grace abounds.” Paul addressed this very point: “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid” (Rom. 6:14, 15). Note that Paul said “the law” (referring to the Law of Moses) – not just “law.” We are under a new covenant (Jer. 31:31); and while grace is certainly a positive factor, as opposed to the strict “Law of Moses,” the New Testament is the will of Christ (Heb. 8:7; 10:9, 10). It is the “perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25), and it is the writing of the apostles that Paul says “are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37).
Conclusion:
Since Al would have you ignore the teaching of God that limits what a church can do and puts responsibility on Christians to teach those who have not obeyed the gospel, I leave you with more scripture that is in direct conflict with that which Al is promoting:
John 4:24 “God is a spirit and those who worship must worship Him in spirit and in truth.”
James 1:25 “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.”
Mark 3:35 “For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.”
1 John 2:17 “And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.”
Heb 10:36 “For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.”
Col 4:12 “Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you, always labouring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God.”
Mark 7:7-9 “Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.”
The above texts present very clear teaching that Al has come to reject, and replace with the doctrines and “commandments of men.” He has made the decision to seek unity and peace with those who teach and follow error over truth rather than unity based on truth. Do the words of Jesus (above) not make it clear that it is important to establish authority, as opposed to following Al's proposal to accept anything and everything believed and practiced (tradition and commandments of men) by those who purport to believe in Christ?
Al rejects commands, examples, and necessary inferences. He rejects the New Testament as being anything more than grace. He rejects key definitions ("hermeneutics" and "edification"). And, in essence, he rejects the word of God.
Since Al condemns those who assert that those who are in denominations, rather than having obeyed the gospel and being added to Christ’s church (Acts 2:38, 41, 47), are not saved, perhaps an organized debate with a proposition and limited words and responses would be profitable.
|
