New Testament Church Proliferation Digest

Spreading the Gospel via House Churches


NT Church Proliferation Digest Thursday, November 7 2002 Volume 02 : Number 200


Re: [NTCP] Luke 10 and planting house churches [NTCP] Re: Luke 10 and planting house churches
Re: [NTCP] Preaching, where and how?
Re: [NTCP] Practical NTCP Principles re house churches
Re: [NTCP] Practical NTCP Principles re house churches
Re: [NTCP] Preaching, where and how?


Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 08:32:31 EST

From: DenverWH *

Subject: Re: [NTCP] Luke 10 and planting house churches

Brother Bruce,

Thanks for your encouragement on this post!

You said: "Is not such a prayer impossible to pray if one is not willing,


to be sent into the harvest ?"

Maybe it works the other way around also. What I mean is that as I pray this

prayer (relentlessly - Lk. 18), I find that my willingness to be sent into

the harvest is growing. In the last couple of weeks, I have entered into an

agreement with a brother here in Denver to do two things:

1. We will pray together (either in person or on the phone) every day the

prayer that Jesus commanded in Luke 10:2b. "Lord of the Harvest, we beseech

you today to send forth into Denver harvest workers (apostolic church

planters) with a burning passion for this city". (We have begun calling this

the "10:2b Prayer". One creative person did the play on words: "We intend

to be (10:2b) like the widow lady in Luke 18") I've been amazed at how my

own heart is becoming more passionate about the harvest and at the church

planters the Lord is already sending forth. We are keeping a journal (like

George Muller) to record the Lord's answers to this prayer.

2. We will seek to "infect" every Christian we meet with the vision of the

"10:2b Prayer" for Denver. (Believing that a prayer movement must precede a

church planting movement.) Again, we have been amazed at the responsiveness

of the people and groups that we have shared this with. Almost everyone has

said that they would start praying that way for Denver.

Bruce, thank you for your comments on #3 (going 2 by 2). Very helpful. I've

copied them and put them in my notes.

John White


<><><> --- <><><>


Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 09:22:08 -0500

From: Marti Grahl <nestmom *>

Subject: [NTCP] Re: Luke 10 and planting house churches

At 08:32 AM 11/6/02 -0500, you wrote:

>We are keeping a journal (like George Muller) to record the Lord's answers

>to this prayer.


>2. We will seek to "infect" every Christian we meet with the vision of

>the "10:2b Prayer" for Denver. (Believing that a prayer movement must

>precede a church planting movement.) Again, we have been amazed at the

>responsiveness of the people and groups that we have shared this

>with. Almost everyone has said that they would start praying that way for


John, can you be more specific here? What sort of answers are you seeing?

What Christians are you meeting... new acquaintances, or folks that you've

known before? Are you seeing any response beyond them saying that they'd

pray? Just curious about more concrete anecdotal evidence ;-)


Wife to Chris, and mom to Emilee, Rachel, Katie, and Becky

Smithsburg, MD

<><><> --- <><><>


Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 18:38:46 +0000

From: "Bruce Woodford" <bwood4d *>

Subject: Re: [NTCP] Preaching, where and how?

Brother Michael,

Be assured, I cannot usually be as "prolific" as I have been this past week!

My work, tree cutting, does not usually allow me so much time! This past

week I've been off work every day with the worst cold/flu I can remember.

That is the reason I've had time to write here as much as I have!

It is good that we have you on this list as one who has far more training

and familiarity with the Biblical languages than the most (or any of) us

have! As for myself, I have enough difficulty with English! I once tried to

learn the Greek alphabet, but have not even retained that!! So I am

dependent on such tools as Strong's Concordance, A Greek Interlinear, the

Septuagint, Zodhiates' "Word Study Old and New Testaments" and other such

helps to actually identify any Greek word or expression in the text. But

even such a primitive approach can still aid one in finding out how any

original word was consistently used in the text of scripture.

Re. the words "preaching" and "talked" in Acts 20:7,9 &11 you wrote to David


"We are focusing on verbs (i.e. DIELEGETO; HOMILESAS), which tend to morph

more according to environment. And influence how the nouns clustered around

them should be rendered. I repeat for your edification (note all CAPS

please): "Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came

together to break bread, PAUL ... SPOKE TO THEM and continued HIS MESSAGE

until midnight .... and as PAUL CONTINUED SPEAKING .... Now when HE HAD ...

TALKED a long while, even till daybreak, he departed" (Act. 20:7-11). Now

tell me according to *the passage at hand* (not some meaning imposed from

the outside of the narrative flow), with whom was Paul having a dialogue

("PAUL spoke;" "HIS message;" "PAUL continued speaking;" "HE talked")? With

himself?!?! (Actually a possible rendering of DIELEGETO and its various

inflected forms, but definitely an "unnatural rendering" *IN THIS CONTEXT*.

As is yours and brother Bruce's suggestion.) Bottom line: Paul talked,

Eutychus slept/fell. It wasn't a group sleep/falling. Neither was it a

group discussion-- at least you cannot arrive at that conclusion by allowing

the above verses to make their own case. Unnatural rendering


First, if as you say," these verbs (DIELEGETO and HOMILESAS) tend to morph

more according to environment, and influence how the nouns clustered around

them should be rendered."... how is it that both these verbs are used

consistently throughout scripture as conversations among a number of people

(as I have demonstrated) without any "morphing" into a monologue lecture

(except, as you claim, in this one solitary instance in Acts 20)???? Your

"tendency to morph" concept of these two verbs seems to lack any actual

substance in inspired scripture!

Also, your holding out on "monologue lecturing" in this *one single case*

in all the new covenant scriptures seems to me to be based *solely* on the

translators' choice of *English* words in this text, *not* upon the Greek

text!!! The identical words and identical form of the words is used in both

of the following texts. They have just been translated differently in the

KJV!!! The only reason that Acts 20:7 may seem to allow for a monologue

lecture is the translators' choice of the English pronoun "unto" which is

not even in the Greek text!!!

Acts 17:2 reasoned <1256> (5711) with them <846>

Acts 20:7 preached <1256> (5711) unto them <846>,

Nor is the possessive pronoun "his" in the text either and the word

translated "speech" is a very general term which can mean "communication" of

almost any kind! So it is very clear that Acts 20:7 should have been

translated just like Acts 17:2! "When the disciples came together to break

bread Paul *reasoned with them" ready to depart on the morrow; and continued

the communication until midnight"

So too, verse 9 could very accurately be rendered "...and as Paul was long

*reasoning/disputing*, Eutychus sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the

third loft, and was taken up dead."

Just because one man was not involved in discussion with the apostle does

not mean that the others also were silent!!! But brother, Michael, it seems

to me that you expect us to accept that from possibly 6 p.m. until midnight

and then from midnight until daybreak (about 6 a.m.) Paul was the sole

speaker, and that no one else opened their mouths to question, reason,

converse with him at all!!!

(1)You steadfastly ignore the consistent and unanimous usage of both words

(DIALEGOMAI, and HOMILEO) in scripture and claim that they are both used in

a unique way in this one passage!

(2) Your theory seems to be based on the use of the English possessive

pronoun "his" which has no parallel in the Greek text, and

(3) You seem to ignore the fact that had a "monologue preach" actually have

been in view, the Greek word KERUSSO would have fit the bill perfectly! The

fact that Luke, inspired by the Holy Spirit, chose the word "DIELEGETO" is,

I believe, fatal to your theory. Brother, in light of all the facts, it

appears that the idea of a twelve hour "monologue preach" in Acts 20:7-11

is indeed a most "unnatural rendering"!

Next, when Link challenged your assumption that the synagogue and the church

were the same fellowship, you wrote:

"He uses the two words (SUNAGOGE; EKKLESIA) ... in the same book. About the

same fellowship. If that is not so, then please justify your contention

that there are *two contexts* in James' letter: one for the non-Christian

synagogue, then another for the (purportedly?) house church. And where is

the line between them drawn in the epistle? Chapter 2? Chapter 3? Or just

when we get to chapter 5. Please tell me? Mine is primarily a textual

argument-- with cultural elements brought in as suppliment. That is what I

would like to see in response if at all possible."

Brother Michael, the context of the Book of James is *neither* a synagogue

gathering or a house church gathering! It is written to scattered Jewish

believers (not churches/synagogues!) The vast majority of James'

instructions have to do with individual behaviour of believers where ever

they are. There are no "church meeting/house church gathering" instructions

at all (unless it is possible that a synagogue could simply be a house!)

The "synagogue context", is indicated *only where it arises" in James

2:1-13. It is really a secondary issue to that of fulfilling the royal law

of liberty, not violating it in "your synagogue" by partiality shown to the


Actually, James 2:3 makes me seriously wonder if a synagogue other than one

in a home could even be in view! Is it customary to have footstools in

synagogues? If so, would anyone be able to call a synagogue footstool, "my

footstool"?? But if the synagogue was in someone's home, the man of the

house could very well use such an expression.

You wrote: "The strongest arguments in favor of Jam. 2:2 being a "Christian

synagogue" are NT word usage (SUNAGOGE), recipient context (Diaspora Jews,

1:1), and book context (synagogue [2:2], teachers [3:1], then elders of the

church [5:14], Jewish tone throughout). In other words, solid exegesis. If

someone disagrees, that is where he/she needs to attack."

Brother, until you specify that the "Christian synagogue" you have in view

is simply a home of one of the Jewish believers, I do disagree. But I do not

attack, just challenge what seems to me to be very biased thinking. Both

sides of a questions can indeed be biased!

You have offered only one argument for your case (NT word usage).

Yes, it is true that "synagogue" is Jewish.

Yes, it is true the epistle is written to Jews.

But Jews have no "monopoly" on the words "teachers" or "elders"! Many

Gentiles have been teachers who had no contact with Jews and all Gentiles

get old, just as do Jews! So while the teachers would be Jewish and the

elders of the church made iup of Jewish believers would also be Jewish,

these do not at all strengthen any argument for 1st or 2nd century Jewish

synagogue buildings other than homes!

So it is my contention that Jews of the dispersion would certainly visit and

participate in synagogues they found in the centers where they settled. OR,

as Christians, they would probably pattern their house meetings around those

of the synagogue and might even call the home in which they gathered for

Christian worship, a "synagogue". This in no way requires that we believe

that Christians (Jews or Gentiles) constructed special consecrated buildings

(synagogues or temples) until after the beginning of the 3rd century A.D.

Even the most Jewish bias on James' Epistle does not demand otherwise!!!

Regarding "the prayers" of Acts 2:42, you "see" a Jewishness about this in

specific times for temple prayers. OK, I can see that *if this expression

had stood alone*.

However,what Jewishness do you see in "the apostles' doctrine"?

What Jewishness do you see in "the fellowship"?

What Jewishness do you see in "the breaking of bread"? If I remember

correctly, "breaking of bread" is only found once in the O.T.! (Lam.4:4)

As I mentioned yesterday, the definite article is primarily associated with

the apostles'! Only then does it apply to *their* doctrine, fellowship,

breaking of bread, and prayers! Yes, it is true the apostles were Jewish!

No, they did not yet understand that Gentiles would be heirs with them with

no walls between in the Body of Christ! But please explain, in the light of

the definite article primarily modifying the word "apostles'", how do you

see a unique "Jewishness" in the doctrine, the fellowship, and the breaking

of bread??

Thank you brother for clarifying for me, a newcomer to the list, your

identity! I appreciate the care that you are taking regarding temptation.

Because of my own struggles in that area, and for our boys, we use a

Christian proxy server called "Characterlink". For a very reasonable monthly

fee you can subscribe and all of your access to internet web sites is

through their database. No site is made available which has not been checked

and verified free of pornography, immodest dress, or any number of other

attributes which the user determines are unacceptable. I highly recommend

it. See

Your brother in Christ,


<><><> --- <><><>


Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 20:44:45 +0000

From: "Bruce Woodford" <bwood4d *>

Subject: Re: [NTCP] Practical NTCP Principles re house churches

Dear Michael and all NTCP readers,

I wholeheartedly agree with Michael that we have much in common and that,

even in my disagreements with my brother, I am NOT antagonistic to him. Over

the years, I have come to know, love and deeply appreciate many believers

who have disagreed with me, challenged me, and given me the opportunity to

see a question or an issue from a whole different perspective. I've often

said, "I've never learned anything from anyone who agreed with me, but have

learned much from those who cared enough to challenge, question and (many

times) refute what I formerly believed!" As a result, I have had to

acknowledge I was wrong and have embraced a different "position" than what I

held to formerly. It is always a humbling experience, but I have learned

that being willing to be wrong is the only way to be right. The Lord Jesus

put it much better than I ever could in John 7:17; "He that is willing to do

his will shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I

speak of myself." As I understand it, willingness to practice the truth

(whatever, one may discover, the actual truth to be) is the one

pre-requisite to being sure that one will "know of the doctrine".

Conversely, as the Lord Jesus so aptly illustrated in Mark 11:27-33,

unwillingness to practice the truth disqualifies one from ever finding it!

As Michael has pointed out, we must at times get "theological", but if our

theology is not practical "where the rubber meets the road", if it is not

expressed in our own behaviour, we do NOT believe what we teach! One can

profess to hold to a high and lofty creed, but one does not believe ANY

STATEMENT of his creed which he does not live! So ultimately we need to

realize our responsibility to demonstrate in our own lives the reality of

all that we claim to believe or teach.

Re. our discussion of principles to guide a church or church planting

ministry, I suggested that we should be able to base every such practice or

policy on both a scriptural mandate and scriptural modelling, both being

stated in the very words of scripture.

To this, Michael responded: " if we could somehow just get Jesus or the

Apostles to agree with your two steps, brother, it might be easier for me to

apply them! In other words, there are some internal problems with your

"house church principles".

First of all Bruce, do you mean by "the very words of scripture which are

addressed to new covenant believers" *only* the books Matthew through

Revelation? I should hope not, but if you do then we have a real problem,

don't we? Jesus and the early believers ONLY had the books Genesis through

Malachi (in a different order sometimes) with which to teach the GRACE of

God. Plus *some* post-Pentecost Christians received an occasional apostolic

letter or two. Our current situation is different, I know. We have a

completed canon, but my point builds on that. We have a completed canon

for "new covenant believers" which includes the *Hebrew portion* of our

*one* Bible. My observation is that there are *tons* of "instruction[s],

... command[s], ... [and] exhortation[s]," not to mention examples, that

were written in the so-called OT "for our

admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come" (1 Cor. 10:11). Might

we not be free, or even *obligated*, to "incorporate [such] practice[s] or

to follow [such] polic[ies]" when doing church? Where appropriate, that


Brother, Michael, finding out to whom particular instructions are addressed

in any literature (not just scripture) is crucial to accurate understanding

of literature. If the younger sister of a girl engaged to be married reads

love letters from her sister's fiance, is she justified to conclude that all

of his promises and plans are made with herself in view? Not at all! So too,

God has a specific relationship with the nation of Israel and as He

fulfills His promises to the nation, He has given specific instructions

which apply to them alone. 7th day Sabbath keeping has nothing to do with

me, a Gentile Christian. Nor am I under any obligation to practice

circumcision, or to observe the passover. Israel, under the Old Covenant

(given at Sinai) had specific instructions regarding the building and

maintenance of a Tabernacle, and also the consecration of a specific

priestly class (Levites) which were to be supported by the tithes of all

Israelites. During the time that the Old Covenant was in force Ezra, I

believe, at one event used a "pulpit of wood" from which to read the word of

God. Now I could go on and on, but let these few examples suffice....Many

Christian congregations today claim to be "New Testament Churches" when in

reality they are just Old Covenant country clubs! Their building mentality,

their distinct priestly class, their tithes and offerings to support their

priestly class and their temple buildings complete with pulpits are all

drawn from instructions included in "somebody else's mail"!!! In contrast

to God's covenants with Noah and Abraham, which are in force to this day,

the Old Covenant (made at Sinai) has decayed, waxed old and vanished away.

Hebrews 8:13 These things are self evident because the token of every

covenant which God makes lasts as long as the covenant it signifies. The

rainbow still signifies God's covenant with Noah. Circumcision still

signifies God's covenant with Abraham and his seed (Arabs and Jews will

always practice circumcision and ought to!) But the token of the covenant

made at Sinai, THE SPRINKLING OF BLOOD, has ceased, and so has the covenant

that it signified! But the new covenant, the token of which is the cup, is a

radically new covenant with radically new provisions and regulations for the

functioning of it's covenant community as the Body of Christ!

When the Lord Jesus gave His disciples their assignment which would take

them unto the end of the age, He did NOT tell them to "make disciples of all

nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of

the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe DIVINE COMMANDS IN ALL THE


Rather, their responsibilty was to teach disciples to observe all that HE

had commanded them! There is a big difference!

You are right that for much of the first century, the scriptures which the

believers had were the books from Genesis to Malachi. But those scriptures

did not provide the "charter for the church"! The curriculum for building

and planting new covenant churches is found in the commands of the Lord

Jesus recorded in the gospels and the commands which He later gave by the

Holy Spirit to the apostles. (I Cor.14:37) I find it very interesting that

the 50 commands that the Lord Jesus gave during his earthly ministry have to

with *relationships*! About half have to do with our relationship to God,

and half with our relationships with each other! Indeed, the new covenant

is all about *right relationships*! It is these "commands of the Lord" which

comprised the "apostles' doctrine"! Would you not agree?

Does that mean that the Old Covenant scriptures have no value to Christians

today? Absolutely not! They testify of Christ! Luke 24:27. So if we want to

learn of Him, we need to read them! We are also to learn from the examples

of Old Covenant saints I Cor.10:11. Indeed, we cannot understand the new

covenant apart from an understanding of the old! In my reading of the

scriptures (over a hundred times through) I have always purposed to read the

old as well as the new and seek to encourage others in the same habit. There

are few subjects I have enjoyed more than that of theTabernacle in the

wilderness. My wife and I constructed 5'x9' model of that tremendous

"portrait of Christ" some years ago and have often enjoyed teaching on it

and lending the model to others for the same purpose. I only refer to these

personal matters to assure you that I do not despise or dispense with any

portion of the inspired Word of God!

Brother, there is much in your post relative to "drawing inferences" which

is worthy of a response but which I have not yet addressed. This post is

already too long! So I'll stop for now and continue answering the rest of

your post tommorrow, in the will of the Lord.

Your brother because of Calvary,


P.S. Would anybody (maybe a list reader who has not yet become an active

participant) like to start a new thread, something like, "What is a new

testament church, anyway?" ??? Any takers?....


<><><> --- <><><>


Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 11:02:44 +0000

From: "Bruce Woodford" <bwood4d *>

Subject: Re: [NTCP] Practical NTCP Principles re house churches

Brother Michael,

In response to my suggestion that we test every church practice and policy

to see if it is found by both mandate and model in the very words of

scripture, you suggested that both Jesus and the apostles relied not only on

explicit scritpural statements but also on "inference" of truths not

explicitly stated. You ask, "Why can't we do the same?"

The two examples which you cite are as follows:

1) " 'But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what

was spoken to you by God, saying, "I am the God of Abraham, the God of

Isaac, and the God of Jacob"? God is not the God of the dead, but of the

living' " (Mat. 22:31).

Jesus, limiting himself to the Torah alone (the Sadducees ONLY accepted as

binding the writings of Moses), argued persuasively *by inference* for the

resurrection of the dead. Can you find me one place in the entire Torah

(i.e. Pentateuch) where its "very words" state this fundamental truth? Yes,

there are oblique references to a carnate afterlife here and there in the

Law, plus something suggestive in Samuel, something which teases in Isaiah,

Ezekiel, Hosea. Job. Psalms. But not until the book of Daniel do we get

"the very words of scripture" teaching us unequivocally that ..."... many of

those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting

life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt" (Dan. 12:2).

It was spelled out explicitly in Daniel, all have to agree. And perhaps

with the aid of these other books from Jesus' Bible (the OT), another less

astute than he could have figured out that God raises the dead, but rather

than going to the express statements the Lord argued on the Sadducee's own

turf ... by inference, from suggestive but not explicit statements in the

Torah. And he succeded in winning points with the surrounding crowds -- who

were, by the way, used to hearing such inferential reasoning from their

scriptures-- while (temporarily) silencing at least one branch of his

opponents (Mat. 22:33. 34)."

Michael, before responding, let me make a couple of observations: You noted

that the Lord Jesus quoted scripture and then made a statement nowhere found

in scripture. Had you noticed that the statement just before His scripture

quotation is also found nowhere in O.T.scripture? "For in the resurrection

they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of


Would you suggest that this statement, too, is drawn from inference?

I would suggest that neither of the statements not found in scripture are

drawn from inference, but rather are examples of divine revelation coming

directly from the lips of the Son of God! They are not inference but

inspiration! The Lord Jesus had prefaced all of these remarks with this

statement: "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures *nor the power (DUNAMIS

[dynamite, miraculous power] ) of God".

It was NOT His skillful use of "inference" that so impressed the crowd and

silenced His opponents! It was the power of the inspiration of God spoken

with divine authority! No wonder the people often said that He spoke with

authority and not as the scribes! When the Sadducees were silenced, I don't

think they could have explained,to each other or to anyone else, exactly

why! They did not even know what had "hit" them!!

Your second example is as follows:

2) "Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say,

'And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is

Christ" (Gal. 3:16). Where was it written "in the very words of [Paul's]

scripture" (i.e.the OT) that "the promised seed of Abraham is Christ"?

That's an inference,correct? Yet it became revelation to us and we are now

able to follow Paul's MIDRASHIC reasoning. And build on that platform.

"Time out!" Could I suggest that, "NO, that is NOT CORRECT!" You need not

even take my word for it! Paul, himself, in the very same book will answer

the question in his own words, inspired by the Spirit of God:

- -Regarding his "apostleship", he states in 1:1: "Paul, an apostle, (not of

men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him

from the dead;)"

- -Regarding his "apprenticeship", he states in 1:16,17: "I conferred not with

flesh and blood: neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles

before me, but I went into Arabia and returned again to Damascus."

- -Regarding his *apprehension" of divine truth in the Gospel of Christ, he

states in 1:11,12: "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was

preached of me is not after man (by inference???). For I neither received it

of man, neither was I taught it, but *by revelation of Jesus Christ*."

Again, in 2:2 Paul emphasizes the same truth: "And I went up *by

revelation*, and communicated unto them (not by inference!) the gospel which

I preach among the Gentiles,"

So, brother, my point is simply this: Whenever the Lord Jesus Christ, or the

apostles spoke and taught truths not gleaned from specific O.T. texts, they

were speaking by divine revelation by inspiration of the Spirit of God and

not at all "by inference! You have already rightly reminded us that this is

indeed the source of ALL scripture! II Tim.3:16

So I maintain that while Genesis to Malachi is an infinitely valuable

collection of portraits of Christ and is certainly written for our

admonition, yet we dare not take any pattern from it for a new covenant

church, but are rather to follow the apostles' doctrine! What was the

apostles' doctrine? It was teaching the observance of all the things the

Lord Jesus had commanded them! It was not teaching them to observe all that

Moses or the prophets commanded the children of Israel! Thus the apostles'

doctrine is comprised of approximately 50 commands of the Lord Jesus in the

Gospel plus the commands that He gave to them by revelation after He

ascended. To insure that such post-ascension commands were given equal force

and value with those given before, we learn that a test of any one's true

spirituality is that he/she acknowledges that such commandments truly are

"the commandments of the Lord"! (I Corinthians 14:37) (Isn't it

interesting that there are many such commands in I Cor.11-14 which you have

never been taught in an Old Covenant country club!) Most of this section of

scripture (except the "love chapter" chapter 13) is totally ignored! Oh

that we might be reminded, "IF ye love me, keep MY commandments." John 14:15

"By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and

keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that ye keep His

commandments; and His commandments are not grievous." I John 5:2,3

Michael, you expressed your difficulty with my suggestions about testing

every new covenant church practice and policy to see if it had both mandate

and modelling in the very words of scripture *addressed to new covenant

believers*. You wrote as follows:

2)I remain at odds with a self-defeating argument which proposes that

we*only* find "instruction[s], ... command[s], ... exhortation[s],

...model[s], example[s], or illustration[s]" from "the very words of

scripture" when this practice is neither "instruct[ed to us], ... command[ed

to us],... exhortation[ed to us], ... model[ed for us], example[ed for us],

or illustration[ed for us]" anywhere in "the very words of scripture".

Neither in the Greek portion ... nor in the Hebrew/Aramaic portion."

Brother, there are doubtless many other scriptures that teach the same

truths. But it was the following 3 scriptures that the Lord has deeply

impressed on my heart. It is from these that I have learned that every

scriptural doctrine is stated simply in the words of scripture. Many

doctrines which I once held dear and taught to others have not passed this

test and have had to be rejected. I'll not try to force the scriptures, but

I ask, within these 3 scripture passages, do you see any commands or

instructions, any exhortations, any examples or illustrations?

Psalm 12:6,7 "The words of the Lord are pure words: AS silver tried in a

furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them , O Lord, thou

shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Proverbs 30:5,6 "Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that

put their trust in Him, Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee,

and thou be found a liar."

I Corinthians 2:12,13 "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world,

but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are

freely given to us of God, which things we also speak, not in words which

man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing

spiritual things with spiritual."

So brother Michael (and other brothers and sisters) my desire would be to

commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you

up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are

sanctified. Acts 20:32

And may we all follow the example of the Jews at Berea who received the word

with all readiness of mind and searched the scriptures daily whether those

things were so. Acts 17:11

Your brother because of Calvary,


<><><> --- <><><>


Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:09:26 -0500

From: David Anderson <david *>

Subject: Re: [NTCP] Preaching, where and how?

7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break

bread, Paul TALKED WITH THEM, intending to depart on the morrow; and he

prolonged his speech until midnight. ----- RSV

7 And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to

break bread, Paul DISCOURSED with them, intending to depart on the

morrow; and prolonged his speech until midnight. ----- ASV

"Talked to" in verse 7 and "talked with" in verse 11 ----- NASV

This narrative is from the "Acts of the Apostles" which is why Paul's

activity is highlighted. His "speech," which is this case is dialogue

according to MODERN commentaries and some translations, would not

preclude the "speech" of others.

Cheers to Jesus the Christ,

David Anderson

End of New Testament Church Planting Digest V2 #200

< Previous Digest Next Digest >

house church eldership servanthood lord's day lord's supper world missions