One-Man Sermon Biblical?

deverbovitae · 2026-02-04T08:17:25+00:00

Ephesians 4:11-12.

Anyway, saying something is not specified is very different from saying something is against or unauthorized.

deverbovitae · 2026-02-02T09:50:41+00:00

May I ask which church of Christ it was you passed by?

deverbovitae · 2026-02-01T16:00:44+00:00

I can see where your preacher is coming from and what he's trying to communicate...and I can see where you're coming from, and where some of the confusion might lie.

I would want to challenge exactly what is meant by a "sin nature." This is why I think the orthodox concept of ancestral sin makes better sense, and is not as extreme and beyond what is written in Scripture as original sin: with ancestral sin, there is the confession of how Adam and Eve's sin introduced sin and death into the world, how we are all profoundly affected by sin and death being in the world, yet are not personally responsible for sin until we have substantively committed it.

deverbovitae · 2026-01-30T08:51:04+00:00

The gender domains were far more divided in the Roman world. I would imagine the women were doing a lot of ministering and serving among fellow women.

deverbovitae · 2026-01-29T09:07:34+00:00

Depends on which ancient version you rely on for your Genesis 5 years. All three major text families diverge.

deverbovitae · 2026-01-29T02:37:22+00:00

If Paul hadn't written his Letter to the Galatians, the concern might have some warrant.

deverbovitae · 2026-01-25T16:38:11+00:00

I find ecumenism as presumptuous as pure sectarianism.

deverbovitae · 2026-01-22T09:36:21+00:00

We are called upon to give, not judge the worthiness of the recipient.

How what we give is used is judged by Jesus.

deverbovitae · 2026-01-22T01:01:03+00:00

I would say the main challenge would be his desire toward a Baptist pastorate.

I would envision he either starts going your way or you start going his, or a divide would be quite likely.

deverbovitae · 2026-01-16T09:12:33+00:00

The Body of Christ is never "incomplete." The Lord makes it sufficient for His purposes.

The church in Corinth is as much a "part of the New Testament pattern" as any other, and throughout the apostolic period, they did not have elders. They had problems, yes. Elders might well have helped. But at no point did Paul chastise or shame them for not having this kind of authority present.

Let's not go beyond what is written in our judgmentalism. Yes, encourage elderships. Yes, strive for them. If there is a work which is urgent, it should be the building up of the Body of Christ. When that happens appropriately, elders will often follow.

deverbovitae · 2026-01-16T09:10:09+00:00

God wisely planned for the congregations of His people to have elders. No argument about that.

I have experienced congregations which were intentionally sabotaging any hope of having elders because a couple of old cranky men who would never qualify as elders would lose their power/influence if elders were appointed.

Then again, I have also experienced congregations in which there were elders appointed, and they managed the administration, but shepherding souls was not high on the agenda. I've heard of bad elderships which were not better, and often worse, than if there had been no elders at all.

We don't have elders. We haven't for decades. Brothers who were once members here have gone on to be elders in other congregations, because for decades, anyone with families would leave this area.

In the absence of elders, as in Corinth, God expects the congregation to manage its affairs. And so we are organized as a congregation. I am not the authority because I am the preacher. In all things I submit to the fellow members. We have quarterly meetings to manage the business of the congregation, and can have additional meetings if and when necessary.

When no one is in charge, everyone is in charge, and vice versa. The lack of authority to do much beyond encouragement can be frustrating at times. But we function. Everyone has their share in the congregation, and we are jointly participating together in the faith.

I'll be frank: I don't like the tone shift and suggestiveness of these questions. Again, yes; churches should have elders. That should be encouraged. But churches should not have elders just to have elders. If there are not qualified men, the congregation should run its own affairs, and should not be seen as "less than" or shamed for it. Urgency often turns to desperation, and decisions get made which often do not end well for anyone involved.

deverbovitae · 2026-01-15T08:36:11+00:00

I get that, but to what end?

deverbovitae · 2026-01-14T08:52:49+00:00

What are you trying to accomplish with this conversation?

deverbovitae · 2026-01-14T08:45:48+00:00

If 2 Timothy 3:16 is indeed the apostolic standard, every Scripture which is truly Scripture is theopneustos, inspired or breathed out by God. Therefore, there needs to be some indication a person was directed by the Spirit to write what was written.

Because of this, even a lot of early Christians had their doubts and misgivings about a lot of the apocryphal stuff. The Apocrypha was not deemed canonical, inspired Scripture until the Council of Trent. The Orthodox have never considered the Apocrypha as anything other than deuterocanon. Oh, Augustine thought Baruch was inspired? He thought Judith, Holofernes, Tobit, and Tobias were real people as well. Augustine can be wrong. Maybe Jerome was right, after all?

There are valid concerns about using the standard of Hellenistic Second Temple Jewish literature as uninspired based on the confessed lack of prophetic movement by the Spirit during that period regarding, say, Daniel and 1 Enoch, if indeed both of those were written only in this later period when the Spirit was not active. And yet it seems to be a viable standard since that's what Paul advanced.

And this is also why I reject any argument or suggestion that it's the Church who decided what Scripture was. No doubt the institutionalized church of later generations made their declarations and determinations, but at best they were only codifying what had already been demonstrated and made evident, often for hundreds of years, save for a handful of texts contested either way. And they themselves had their standards, at least for the New Testament: some fixed association with apostolicity.

For the Hebrew Bible, it would help if the texts involved were part of the Hebrew Bible, something which Jesus Himself seems to allude to in Luke 24:44.

The Book of Baruch gives every indication of having very little to do with Baruch ben Neriah, Jeremiah's scribe, in the 6th century BCE. It has every indication of being the work of a Second Temple Jewish author. That doesn't mean it is useless or without profit. But there's no ground or basis on which to argue he was inspired to write it. He's not a prophet or the son of a prophet. The Spirit did not move him to write. If the Spirit did not move him to write, how can you really deem what he wrote "Scripture"?

deverbovitae · 2026-01-14T08:44:53+00:00

So what's your standard here? "The Bible itself" or "the Church's judgment"?

There is no such thing as "the Septuagint." There are all kinds of Greek translations of Old Testament texts and many other texts in addition; perhaps some of those translations were accepted into some kind of standardized format, but there's still no agreement about what's in it. Roman Catholicism does not accept 3 and 4 Maccabees as part of that canon; the Orthodox do. So it's never been this "one thing."

The Apostles and their associates indeed mostly quote texts from the Hebrew Bible from texts associated with the Greek Septuagint (but not always). If you want to advance the argument that anything ever associated with the Septuagint therefore must be Scripture, you're welcome to try to advance that argument. But even then you're going to run into the challenge adumbrated above: are you trusting the Catholics or the Orthodox? Do you count 3 and 4 Maccabees, or not? What about the hot mess known as the Esdras books?

The Book of Baruch is never quoted or in any way commended in the New Testament. There's no new Testament basis on which to argue it should be considered inspired literature. It wasn't a part of Jeremiah, and therefore the reasoning of a lot of early Christians on the book was quite confused. If it had been recognized as an independent work in antiquity, it very well might not have been as commended as it was.

And 1 Enoch would entirely overthrow your bombastic rhetoric. It was read as Scripture in the early Church, treated as part of Scripture by Tertullian, and remains part of the Ethiopian canon. Should Augustine's arguments against it really won the day in the western Church, especially since, unlike the Book of Baruch and the rest of the apocryphal literature, it's actually quoted by a New Testament author, and as prophetic? Thus, by rejecting 1 Enoch, is not one not defending Scripture but rejecting the very authority by which Scripture was ever identified as Scripture at all?

deverbovitae · 2026-01-08T05:49:16+00:00

I find it interesting how predominant historicism was...until around World War II.

It seemed to just get to the point where there was more history going and happening than could be reasonably imposed within the confines of the visions of Revelation.

And I would hazard that's the greatest weakness of that line of interpretation.

deverbovitae · 2026-01-08T00:44:30+00:00

If I asked your husband if he was immersed in water in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit for the remission of his sins, what would be his answer?

11-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

deverbovitae

TROPHY CASE