overall view of the NT

[warrenwhis]

Hi everyone I would like to address the fact that many CoC folks languish in arguments about doctrine and worship. Most of us have studied the NT extensively and upon reflection it is easily recognized that the NT was not written for or intended to be a book of rules. If it were meant to be such a guideline wouldn't it have been written entirely different? If it was intended to be a guide for worship services, wouldn't it have been written as such? In reality, where are the church buildings? Where are the local, employed preachers? Where is a complete description of a Sunday worship service? Instead, people have taken ocassional references to acts, e.g. singing and created the "five acts of worship". There was assembling noted, which Paul criticized for coming together to take advantage of meals being served. Note that there was only one reference to giving and it had a specific need that was addressed. A factional, denomination was created over centuries by taking tidbits and arguing over doctrine to prove one's viewpoint and discrediting others. Most of the NT was written by someone that cannot be documented as one of the 12 apostles (the names suggest they were, but have proven to be just people with the same name). If it was to be a law book of rules, wouldn't all the apostles have been involved? If it was established on AD33 why did Paul write so much of it at such a later date?

[agricola]

Anyone who has ever raised kids can recognize that the NT isn't a book of rules of any sort, but some sort of exhortation to 'be good'.
Ever told your kid to 'be good' or 'clean up your room', only to find that (best will in the world on the kid's part) that just didn't happen? You can't just say 'clean up your room' and expect a white glove inspection result, unless you ALSO (or FIRST) explain and SHOW exactly what 'clean' looks like and how to do it.

Rules are the way goals are reached and how you recognize when you have reached one. 'Clean' means pick up all your toys and put them in the toybox, and take all your clothes off the floor and put them in the hamper, then straighten up your bed sheets and blanket until it is all smooth....THOSE are 'rules'.

Nowhere in the NT are there 'rules' about 'worship'. The closest you get are the parables, which are mostly all about INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR and not about two songs and a prayer.

[KLP]

Technically there are multiple references to giving/collection/support and the sending of money. Early church in Acts had collective treasury and distributions. Philippian letter references Paul receiving support at times, and then not, and then having it restored...indicates a passage of time. Workman is worthy of hire line of argument and muzzling the ox. So collective money and distribution is not a single event in the NT.

But that does not distract from the argument that the NT is not a Blueprint set of rules and regs.

[GuitarHero]

The God of the Old Testament never showed any tendency toward being unable to enumerate a list of commandments that he wanted kept. Nor was he ever evasive or vague. The book of Leviticus should be exhibit A in any argument about the New Testament being a rule book or mandatory pattern. If God desired a certain tabernacle, he described what he wanted down to the very type of wood to use. It stands to reason if there was only one way, and if God is unwaveringly good, then he would've done the courtesy of mapping it all out for us in a way that would be understandable to all, rather than communicating cryptically through the mail of his followers a century or so later and hoping (a.) that the letters survived and (b.) that we'd be able to figure the shit out.

[bnot]

The God of the Old Testament never showed any tendency toward being unable to enumerate a list of commandments that he wanted kept. Nor was he ever evasive or vague. The book of Leviticus should be exhibit A in any argument about the New Testament being a rule book or mandatory pattern. If God desired a certain tabernacle, he described what he wanted down to the very type of wood to use. It stands to reason if there was only one way, and if God is unwaveringly good, then he would've done the courtesy of mapping it all out for us in a way that would be understandable to all, rather than communicating cryptically through the mail of his followers a century or so later and hoping (a.) that the letters survived and (b.) that we'd be able to figure the shit out.

Well said. Leviticus is a very specific set of rules, spelled out to the last detail.

[Lev]

The God of the Old Testament never showed any tendency toward being unable to enumerate a list of commandments that he wanted kept. Nor was he ever evasive or vague. The book of Leviticus should be exhibit A in any argument about the New Testament being a rule book or mandatory pattern. If God desired a certain tabernacle, he described what he wanted down to the very type of wood to use. It stands to reason if there was only one way, and if God is unwaveringly good, then he would've done the courtesy of mapping it all out for us in a way that would be understandable to all, rather than communicating cryptically through the mail of his followers a century or so later and hoping (a.) that the letters survived and (b.) that we'd be able to figure the shit out.

Well said. Leviticus is a very specific set of rules, spelled out to the last detail.

Good points. It's also worth noting that the NT writers, when they wanted to, were capable of very detailed instructions. For example, the part about the widows' support in 1 Timothy 5, the qualifications of elders and deacons, and the instructions for sick people in James 5 (elders anoint with oil, etc.). There are specific instructions in the NT. Whether those were intended for Christians to follow in perpetuity is certainly up for discussion, but my point is that there is precedent in both the Old and New Testaments for very specifically detailed instruction when the writer felt it necessary to give.

Lev

[Opie]

You are so right, the NT was never intended to serve as any kind of "blueprint" or rule book. To read and treat the NT as if it were some kind of a legalistic rule book is to totally and completely mis-use it.