The Crossing, a non-denominational church in Tampa with a weekly attendance of roughly 3,500 people, is one of many congregations now incorporating electronic dance music (EDM) into its regular worship repertoire. Itâs not a full-on rave, and youâll see more âtraditionalâ instruments like drums, electric guitars, and keyboards. But infused with more familiar modern worship stylings are characteristics of the EDM aesthetic: layers of computer-programmed electronic backing tracks, quarter-note bass thumps, and cycles of musical âbuildsâ and âdrops,â much of it set to a tempo around 130 beats per minute.
EDM, once the underpinning of the all-night rave scene, has now become one of the most popular mainstream musical styles, and it is influencing both studio-recorded Christian worship music and live congregational performances....
John UK wrote: ... rather cautious with your words.
John, the law of the Lord is perfect, we are not. It is a mercy that with all our spiritual sickness, and imperfections God ever chooses to be gracious, and favours His own work in our hand at any time Regards
Thanks Rodney for sharing all that. Yes, it is important to properly interview people wanting baptism to ensure that 1. they know what it is for, and 2. to ensure that they are ripe candidates for baptism (they are born again). In your case scenario, you discerned correctly, or you might have set them back, spiritually. I have met folks who say they have been baptised several times, saying, "nothing happened." Oh boy!
It's also interesting that you require new members to be correctly baptised by immersion, if they have only been sprinkled or poured. I don't know where I stand on that one. I suppose it depends on whether or not they were converted before sprinkling. Certainly repentance must come before baptism, and baptism must be by immersion - that is what the word means.
I've never baptised anyone yet - just getting ready for it.
I agree with your assessment, Bro. John. I see no prerequisite for the baptizer to be an elder. John the Baptist was a man of God, but he was certainly not an elder nor a clergyman. (He wasn't recognized by the religious establishment.) In the past, I've been asked by a couple people if I would baptize them. In both instances, I declined - not because I am not an elder (I'm not), but because I was unconvinced that either of them were truly saved. (Time has convinced me that I made the right decision in both cases.) I did wonder at the time if either of them later tried to join a church, would that church recognize the baptism, or would they require them to be re-baptized.
If a believer wants to join the church I am a member of we require them to be re-baptized if either of the following applies: 1. They were not immersed 2. They were previously baptized IN ORDER TO BE saved rather than BECAUSE THEY WERE saved. (The Church of Christ has a strong presence in our area, and they equate baptism with salvation.) I know of no requirement concerning WHO did the baptism.
B. McCausland wrote: In Christian ethics, when it comes to practice of our faith, for a true man of God, theory is or should be as good as reality, John. Take care
Well in that case, if you consider Frank (or anyone else) to be a "true spiritual leader" because he has given out some tracts and seen people converted, and these converts have asked him to baptise them and give them the bread and wine, then he can go ahead and do it.
I'm reading between the lines, because you are being rather cautious with your words.
B. McCausland wrote: In Biblical terms, true spiritual leaders care, teach, nurture and provide for the edification and upcoming issues of those entrusted in his hand which includes instruction, guidance, discipline and custom, of which obedience in baptism is part This is Gospel ethics, John
Sure, but some day we have to put all that theory into practice. And you never answered the practical question. Have a crack at it.
In Biblical terms, true spiritual leaders care, teach, nurture and provide for the edification and upcoming issues of those entrusted in his hand which includes instruction, guidance, discipline and custom, of which obedience in baptism is part This is Gospel ethics, John
Unprofitable Servant wrote: The ordinances, as they are called, are given to the NT church, there is no qualifications given as to whom can administer them, just qualifications as to whom can receive them and how they are to be administered. Not sure what point you are trying to make.
Good morning brother, it's not a bad answer. No qualifications, yep. The simple answer is: the priesthood.
I ask, because the CPRC, having an instituted church in NI which serves the Lord's Supper, has a mission church in SI which regularly meets on the Lord's Day, but no Lord's Supper because there is no appointed elder yet, despite being led by a reverend brother. Puzzles me.
Let us suppose someone like Frank, just for an example, gives out tracts locally, and several people respond to his tract (based on Acts 2:38), and are gloriously saved and immediately become members of Christ's universal church. They then ask Frank to teach them further and half a dozen begin to meet in his house. This then is a meeting of saints - a church.
After a while, due to studying the NT, these six all desire baptism in water and wish to remember the Lord in his death (communion).
The question is: Can Frank baptise them and give them the bread and wine?
John UK wrote: 1... of necessity must encompass all the examples of the NT, or there were false baptisms in the NT performed by men who hadn't ought to have been doing that. 2. For example, Philip was no head of any church, not even a spiritual overseer: Acts 8
1. Please, we are not deducting any thing remote to what you infer above
All baptisms were performed by male leaders in the NT church Saying that, we do not claim that baptism has to be implemented by a particular person to be valid. What we were talking about is a matter of order/headship in a regular setting, not a rule or regulation
2. Philip was not a nobody either. He was one of the seven (Acts 6) living at Caesarea " .. and the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy .. ... Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea."
John UK wrote: Today's quiz Who is authorized by Jesus Christ to administer the ordinances?
The ordinances, as they are called, are given to the NT church, there is no qualifications given as to whom can administer them, just qualifications as to whom can receive them and how they are to be administered. Not sure what point you are trying to make.
B. McCausland wrote: So in all matters of church order as with baptism we expect to honour our 'heads', say those that rule over us as circumstances allow feasibly.
Sister B, whatever the answer is, it of necessity must encompass all the examples of the NT, or there were false baptisms in the NT performed by men who hadn't ought to have been doing that. For example, Philip was no head of any church, not even a spiritual overseer:
Acts 8:38 (KJV) 38) And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
B. McCausland wrote: US Good to hear you enjoy substantial preaching However, not wishing to enter into polemic, and respecting your personal take about church order, this consideration should be worth while thinking about, 1. The abuses corrected in the Epistles are of generic value Say the directives given in Corinthians about incest, believers engaging the courts, immorality, disorder, head covering, Lord's supper, partidist spirit, marriage, etc.. are universal to NT practice See "I praise you .. that ye remember ... and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you .. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God ... .. so ordain I in all churches" (ICo.11:2&16, 7:17) Saying that these only apply to that circumstantial church setting, is totally dangerous 2. ICo14:1 defines prophesy "he that prophesies speaks unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort" Regards
Sister BMcCausland, thank you for your thoughts in this and your previoius post.
John, we believe in the universal priesthood of all believers
As pertaining to the office of a priest, Christ "took" the bread and the cup and gave/ passed them to those with him, inviting them to partake of the same
Comparing the Lord's supper with its antecedent, the Passover, where the head of a household took normally the charge of leading the feast, so in a church setting we should expect mature leaders to take the charge as the shepherds/heads of the flock. Say, in any decent/regular setting it would be inappropriate for a child, a novice, or for a woman to take it, as the order of headship is vigen in worship So in all matters of church order as with baptism we expect to honour our 'heads', say those that rule over us as circumstances allow feasibly. 1Cor11:3
This take harmonises with the spirit of these verses in Hebrews 13
"Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
Obey them that have the rule over you, and *submit* yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints."
John UK wrote: Today's quiz Who is authorized by Jesus Christ to administer the ordinances?
John, a little of humour here. See, any of the early seventeenth century Puritans being alive today would frown at the sound of the word 'administer' in this context, as a unwanted relic from "the dung hill of popery"
In the NT sense, ordinances are performed, participated of, rather than administered, they would object
In Jeremiah 23 & Ezekiel 34, the Lord is rebuking the pastors (shepherds/feeders) of that day for their neglect of the flock. I believe that when the apostles spoke of pastors, they weren't reinventing the word. So, yes, we can gain insight from the OT.
Nehemiah 8 seems to describe the typical church service today as anything else I have read. (Well... not the duration or the continual standing )
This was not temple worship. It was surely the closest thing we see in the OT to synagogue worship.
(Nehemiah 8:4) And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and...
(Nehemiah 8:8) So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.
John UK wrote: 1. 1Co14:29 "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge" This would have been unheard of in the OT age, when prophets were infallible and were to be obeyed implicitly.
2. These words in the NT, minister, pastor, elder, prophet - I have a sneaky feeling they have been all misunderstood, probably because of tradition or what we are brought up with or the films we watch.
1. This verse makes perfect sense against the definition of prophesying of 1Cor.14:1 Let's be aware that there were true and false prophets in OT, this is nothing new of today E.g. see Is.30:10 or Jer. 14:14 and many other.
2. If we think thoroughly we find the office of 'minister, pastor, elder, prophet' in the OT. Say Moses, Joshua, Samuel and the priests ministered /served in the tabernacle, God spoke of pastors in Jeremiah 6 times, and of shepeherds in Ezekiel, 5 times, the children of Israel had elders, and God had his spoke men called prophets, Moses being the type of Christ "The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet like unto me ... Deu.18:15
We make our selves a disservice by believing these are totally new NT offices. In reality we often suffer misconceptions due to artificial disconnection between the OT and NT.
B. McCausland wrote: ..... The passage of Joel describes what we know as the Gospel age, which in Scripture is called 'the last days' Hence, the hyperbolic language about moon, sun, fire, etc.. is figurative speech
So, we are in that age right now, and the prophecy has come to pass, and is coming to pass in our day, and will come to pass until the very last day.
I suppose the difficulty with many is the simple word "prophet". We conjure up in our mind what a "prophet" is (say, like Elijah, Ezekiel etc.) and say that the day of the prophets ended at the close of the revealed canon of scripture.
But then we would have to grapple with the instruction to the church to weigh what the prophets in the church were saying to them.
1Cor 14:29 (KJV) 29) Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
This would have been unheard of in the OT age, when prophets were infallible and were to be obeyed implicitly.
These words in the NT, minister, pastor, elder, prophet - I have a sneaky feeling they have been all misunderstood, probably because of tradition or what we are brought up with or the films we watch.