efforts better served ...


June 13th, 2006, 10:17 pm #21

Allow me to propose a scenario as you did. There is a congregation that has formed at a rented building. They meet every Sunday morning and they too disdain titles and denomination affiliations. They also go by the name Christian and have a leader that tends to their needs. They also use instrumental music during their song service and participate in communion every Sunday.

Now, will you fellowship them?

After you decide I will tell you who they are.
If you mean charamatics, not only would I
welcome them; I am one of them.

Joined: June 8th, 2006, 6:42 pm

June 14th, 2006, 1:08 am #22

"If you mean charamatics, not only would I
welcome them; I am one of them."

Sorry you missed it. I am talking about an Aryan Nation church. You know the racist. Those that believe only whites will be in heaven. Should I let them know they have brother or sister in you?

Do you still claim them as one with you? They meet all of the criteria you used in your scenario.

Ken Sublett
Ken Sublett

June 16th, 2006, 12:11 am #23

The church that belongs to Christ always has a standard doctrine. (The B-I-B-L-E now that’s the book for me!) This doctrine will always be distinct so long as so many churches throw the Bible and it’s authority out the window. Among those standards is the biblical doctrine of Elders = Pastors (not the preacher) = Shepherds = Bishops. A doctrine not held on to by their scenario church. But, as you say it’s “their” church, so I guess they can do what they want.
I guess I am curious which attributes do you believe defines churches of Christ as denominational?

Darryl Scott
Anyone who reads and approves of the Purpose Driven Life has to believe THE major THESIS: that is, everything that happens to you good or bad was predestinated to happen.

You were hand picked from eternity past raised to the eternity past to be saved or damned. There is nothing you can do be be saved and if saved nothing you can do to be lost.

That means that if they get a gas pain that they should INFILTRATE and DIVERT a church or college the DRIVING PURPOSE must have been predestinated by God. That means that there is no lying, cheating or sealing churches (see under Smith's Spring) because it serves the DRIVING PURPOSE of God.

If your little child toddles into the highway and gets smashed then that was God's purpose. God from all eternity directed the steps leading to the child in the street, the drunk getting drunk and running over your child.

Warren cringed but Larry King FORCED him to confess that as what he believed and was teaching. Of course, if you read about the takeovers you will see that they use a very Satanic method of selecting targets, training and planting vipers and diverting the church. They sometimes get enthused by the "sanger" fella and blurt out: WE have to quite hiding and let them know that we have to goal of making this 'a theater for holy entertainment.'" At Madison that meant letting the people think that they were on a train to Atlanta but "we gonna switch their cars to Louisville cause thats where WE gonna take them."

So, WordKeeper might tell us whether HE believes that God lifts his fingers to peck the keys to make him type what HE wants typed. That IS the Warren theology and his agents have a DRIVEN PURPOSE to infiltrate and divert.

Other than that there is nothing unique or not stolen from The Willow Creek format.

Make him confess that he is an agent.


June 17th, 2006, 2:57 am #24



Technically, in Jesus' time, the first day of the week would have begun on what we call Saturday night after the sunset and ended with sunset the next night.

So, when we read that the church met on the first day of the week, it could have been any time from about 7-8 pm on Saturday night to 7-8 pm on Sunday night.

According to historians, the Lord's Supper was served in the evening. In fact, it wasn't until the second century that the Lord's supper was added to a formal A.M. worship.

In fact, if we suppose that the first century christians in Rome met on the first day of the week as it appears that they did, we have to understand that Roman slaves did not have Saturday and Sunday off. So, they probably met after the day's work was done on Saturday night (after sunset). These slaves would not have been aforded the opportunity (unless thier owners were understanding christians) to meet on Sunday morning to partake of the Lord's Supper.

The Jews could not have broken thier Sabath rest until sunset, meaning they had a full day's work to catch up from on the first day of the week. Markets would have been open, trade would have been occuring, business would have had to been conducted. First century Jewish christian could not have met until the work day was done or they could have met the night before.

This lends understanding to the I Corinthians passage in which Paul asks the Corithian Church to, "wait for one another." (I Cor 11:33).


So, a church that meets after sunset on Saturday night IS following the example of the first century church and technically, if we follow the definition of a day from the New Testament time, when we offer communion on Sunday nights after sunset, it is no longer the first day of the week.

In Christ,

Mark F.
Mark F.

Technically, you are incorrect.


Though the Jews held that the First day of the week could start at sunset on Saturday, it is common knowledge that the early church defined Sunday as the "Lord's Day". As some of the elders of these congregations actually learned directly from the Apostles, it leaves us with little argument over what the early church considered the "assembly day". Didache, Cyprian, Aristides, Justin Martyr, all discuss this very issue. There are also Roman letters and pamphlets that describe how and when the early Christians met, which again validates Sunday.

The Epistle of Barnabas (c. A.D. 120), discusses how the Lord "abolished" such things as incense, new moons, and sabbaths, because of the "new law of our Lord Jesus Christ" (ANF.I.138). Later, it is affirmed: “Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead” (I.147).

Justin Martyr (A.D. 140) declared that “on the day called Sunday” the primitive Christians met for worship. He further stated that this was the day on which Christ was raised from the dead (I.186).

The disciples at Troas “were gathered together” upon “the first day of the week” to break bread, i.e., to worship, (Acts 20:7). The specific day of meeting was no accident. Though Paul was anxious to get to Jerusalem (20:16), he waited seven days for the opportunity to assemble with the church.

The saints in Corinth were assembling, and contributing into the church treasury, “every first day of the week” (1 Cor. 16:2 – Greek text; cf. NASB).


The Hebrews actually observed fifty-nine sabbaths each year. In addition, every seventh year was a sabbatical year (Lev. 25:1-4), and each fiftieth year was sabbatical as well (Lev. 25:8-13). The land was to lie uncultivated during these times, and debts were to be cancelled (Dt. 15:2).
In a fifty-year span, the faithful Hebrew, to one degree or another – depending upon the specific requirement of the law, would observe 5,830 sabbaths.


As to the Lord's Supper - scholars and historians clearly note that NO ONE knows what time of the day the LS was given during the first two centuries. We know that the group only met once that day, but met for an extended length of time as many members journeyed from the outer countryside. We know they partook of the LS - but not whether it was after breakfast, lunch or dinner. In fact, all we really know is that they shared a "regular" meal afterwards. It wasn't until Tertullian that there is any mention of the LS before "daybreak".

Were you aware that in the first few centuries, the LS was carried to those who were unable to attend? We actually do that today with those that are house bound. Also, some held services on Sunday morning BEFORE daybreak - would this be to aid those who did have to work?


First Century Jewish Christians were admonished by Jews for NOT observing the Sabbath and for breaking the "law". In fact, many of the early church writings address this issue at some point. They were also admonished by the chruch elders if they treid to abide by such "superstitions" as resting on the Sabbath. It was under the old law and was not to be followed any longer. Ignatius, Justin Martyr and others preached on this very issue. Sunday was to be the Lord's Day. The "old world and old law" was to be put away. As such, they were to "break" the Sabbath.

(I Cor 11:33). Ummm...I don't really think this verse is about the DAY - it has to do with the time of the day they met. No day would have fit everyone's schedule...


Meeting on Saturday night is NOT what was demanded in the Bible nor was it EVER followed by any of the 1st or 2nd century churches for which we have evidences. As for the Sabbath...it concerns me that you keep referring back to it as if it was a law they were to abide by. Jesus specifically told them the old law was no longer. The Sabbath/day of rest was wiped away and was NOT to be a determination in when or how they met.


Most importantly, what day was the Church actually started on? We know that day because of the following:

The kingdom of Christ was established on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1), which always fell on “the morrow after the sabbath” (Lev. 23:15-16) - OTHERWISE KNOWN AS SUNDAY. So the church started out meeting for worship on the first day of the week (cf. Acts 2:42).


Joined: February 27th, 2006, 10:01 pm

June 19th, 2006, 9:22 pm #25


I brought up the Saturday evening communion because
I figured you or someone else would pick up on the
first century timing of days. I wasn't really making
a point about the Lord's Supper as much as the criteria
of how to determine fellowship among believers. This is
one of the toughest issues facing most churches and believers.
I have been called a "liberal" because I consider Baptists,
Methodists, etc. as fellow believers. Now that doesn't mean
that I am total agreement with any of those groups. But if
a man or woman would lay down their physical lives for the
cause of Christ and even suffer martydom because of their
faith, then that person is a brother or sister in Christ.
Does it bother me when there are some believers who go
off the deep end in some of their beliefs ? Very much so.
I will share my perspective of the scriptures and appeal
to standing in the truth; but even then as long as they
have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ;
that person is a fellow believer with me.

Tell me PPB, I have been fully immersed in water baptism
for the remission of sins. Even though I worship at a
church different than yours; do you accept me as a fellow
believer ?



June 21st, 2006, 3:31 am #26


Well - that's not a yes or no question. As you know.

Just because one is baptized does not make one a Christian. Intent, understanding, realization play a key part in baptism. Anyone can be dunked in some water. Jesus reminded us that many would hear his message and act on it - only to never truly have understood it OR some may understand but become weak and fall away, becoming lost sheep.

Could we study together, sure! Could I attend weekly services with you on a PERMANENT basis, believing that what you CONTINUE to believe and teach is in direct opposition to what the scriptures state? Of course not, I would be failing God to do so. There would be a parting of the ways as we are bound by God's command to turn away from those that are unwilling to abide by ALL of his commands and to teach his True Word. How can I do anything else and obey God?

Joined: February 27th, 2006, 10:01 pm

June 22nd, 2006, 11:03 pm #27


You mentioned that there would be a parting of the ways
because I do not abide in all of the commandments. The
Lord knows I am not perfect but, one thing that is
very important and precious to me is Bible study and
walking in the truth. Even though I am going through
some difficult financial times I have had no less than
three times where I could have profited from someones
error. One of those times was about $800. And believe
me its not wordkeepers inherent ability with not give
in to temptation but, its God's grace that helps me.
Since you are the one who mentioned my failings in
obeying God's commandments (even though we have never
met one another) I believe you are under obligation
to tell me what I am not obeying. I'd like to know
so that I can have a closer relationship with God.

Also, you said that there would be a parting of the ways.
I was wondering, was there ever a time that you were not
in a relationship with God and did God give up on you ?
Did he have a parting of the ways with you ?

And it is a yes or no answer. I don't know of any
middle ground on this issue. I am a born again
baptized believer. Do you consider me to be a
fellow christian and have full fellowship with me ?
There is not part of the way. It is all the way or

Thank you,


Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

June 23rd, 2006, 3:21 am #28

It's one thing to strive to follow Christ's commands as best as possible. No one is perfect, and not even Christ expects all to be sinless and "perfect," even if He did exhort all to be perfect: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matt. 5:48 KJV).

But it's another thing to know what Christ's commands are and still not follow them, because church tradition, or denominational creed, or a close circle of influential friends says to do something else. When there is deliberate deviation from Scripture without any attempt to follow the path designated in the New Testament, then there must be a parting between friends and acquaintances, even between relatives if necessary. Jesus demands everything from us in obedience, not just a token portion.

Joined: June 10th, 2006, 3:36 am

June 26th, 2006, 11:00 pm #29

Dr. Crump,

Kudos on the thoughts.

So, if a group truely thought that, based on the Jewish calendar, the accounts in Acts and early churh history, the Lord's Supper was to be taken after dark on Saturday by the Apostles and the early church there in Jerusalem. I mean, they have studied church history and Jewish history and have all come to the conclusion that Saturday night and Sunday morning are "The First Day of the Week." This group would be honestly striving to do God's will.

However, if they decided they wanted to meet on Saturday night because they didn't want to get up on Sunday morning and derived a reason, they would be at fault because thier hearts were not right. They would not be seeking God's will, but rather trying to mold God's will to meet their will.

So much goes back to Christ's teaching during the Sermon on the Mt. Excuse my paraphrase but, "It ain't just what you do, it's what's in your heart." It is a matter of heart!


Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

June 27th, 2006, 2:14 am #30

In another thread, I believe I discussed the business of time zones and when the first day of the week begins in the Middle East and when it begins in the West. Christians in the West follow the Gregorian calendar, not the Jewish calendar. Therefore, for Christians in the West, the first day of the week begins on Sunday at midnight, not on Saturday at sundown. Perhaps you wish to be a kind of alternative Judaizer by combining some elements of Judaism with Seventh-Day Adventist doctrine.