Home Library Visitor History Links Articles Study Media Social Activities

I was in a discussion on Facebook on a so-called church of Christ board called "Church of Christ - Open Discussion." Only, they really do not want an open discussion. I tried to respond to a post but I guess they booted me off the forum because they didn't like what I was saying. They also apparently lied about me, which is a strange thing to do for those who call themselves Christians. I pressed them hard, it is true, but no more than they would press me. But since I could not post my response to them there, I will post it here.

Rick Krug's statement as it appeared on the forum:

Why did you side step the question?

Where is the call for a corporate “worship” in the NT?

No language such as “worship assembly” or “worship service” exists in the New Testament.

So your questions about instruments are far premature.

As for your ad hom attacks, I will caution you that this forum does not allow them and they have been the reason you have been kicked out of other forums.

I believe Jesus was speaking of your denominational traditions when He spoke in Matthew 15:7-9.

Worship is not associated with singing in the New Testament.

New Testament worship is a life given to God’s purposes. Thus God does not care if we use instruments or not.

There is not a single “action” or set of actions in the NT ever assigned as worship.

Your issue of “authorized” is a man-made construct, but not a NT concept.

Worship doesn’t involve teaching. That is a presupposition you brought TO the text, not a teaching of the text.

The Lord’s Supper is never once assigned a specific time nor place to share it. It can and is shared anytime.

The “collection” in 1 Cor 16 is a specific and special collection that would have ceased one Paul collected the money to take to Jerusalem

The idea that congregations are to take up money as a mandate is a man-made law but not a new testament concept

Prayer occurs anytime a Christian wishes, and can certainly happen while we assemble, but prayer is speaking with God

The rest of the passages that you rip from context and string together does not serve the Bibles purposes well at all. So you see it might in fact be you who is not paying attention to the teaching of the Bible

Surely you don’t quote acts 2:42 as your proof text given that you do not meet daily.

Call never said that we do all things in religion – and I would point out that the vast difference between you and I is that you seek religion where as I seek relationship Dash through some sort of authority

You’re confusing the term, “in the name of the Lord,” as a permission theology that was unknown until about the 18th century with European rationalism.

You can’t go into have the Bible authorizes, because it is a European rationalistic reformation idea, and not a biblical concept

But your command, example, inference, paradigm is also a man-made concept that simply tries to boil the entire New Testament down to laws and regulations and ignores authorial intent and context

As you can see, I have not ignored anything, but have in fact refuted all of your man-made doctrines

So your opinions and feelings and sarcasm is wasted here on this forum

And you have not Yet addressed anything I asked but have bloviated with your own agenda, one assumes in hopes to sidestep the real issue that you cannot find it little support for the concept of a worship service

You may keep your true and false leading questions to yourself and use them on the weaker and less learned brothers to try to manipulate those into your conclusions that you have drawn

And you may also commands with the personal attacks that will get you booted from this for him as well because it is apparent that you may not have ability to not attack

Ready set go

That ended the Krug statement. Here is my response, line by line:

ELP: Rick Krug I apparently have been blocked from posting since yesterday so it looks like I have not answered a lot of your questions. But this was not my doing, I would have answered if I was allowed. But here is my response to yours:

Krug: Why did you side step the question?

ELP: I didn't

Krug: Where is the call for a corporate “worship” in the NT?

ELP: I demonstrated, from the scriptures where the worship assembly is described. You have not touched these passages or arguments. Denial is not an argument.

Krug: No language such as “worship assembly” or “worship service” exists in the New Testament.

ELP: Go back and deal with the passages and arguments I set forth and then I will have something substantive to respond to. You must be able to see that they assembled and worshiped. Notice, I wrote: "Furthermore, since worship involves teaching (Matt. 15:9) and since teaching is done, in part, through singing (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), and since this is done in the assembly (I Cor. 14:15), this is a worship assembly."

Krug: So your questions about instruments are far premature.

ELP: False, as I have demonstrated.

Krug: As for your ad hom attacks, I will caution you that this forum does not allow them and they have been the reason you have been kicked out of other forums.

ELP: If I have been kicked off of other forums, I did not know it. Which was that? Please let me know exactly which forums you know I have been kicked out of. Is this an ad hom attack? As far as the so-called "ad hominem" attacks, I am merely pointing out that no one here has answered my questions and it doesn't seem like anyone intends to. If that is ad hominem, then I am guilty, I guess. But it is true nonetheless.

Krug: I believe Jesus was speaking of your denominational traditions when He spoke in Matthew 15:7-9.

ELP: I know you are wrong.

Krug: Worship is not associated with singing in the New Testament.

ELP: There is a very clear relationship between worship and singing. Jesus said "In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9). The word translated "teaching" is the word "didasko." In Colossians 3:16 we are told to teach and admonish "one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, singing..." The word which is translated "teaching" here is the word "didasko." The teaching to be done here is done in singing. Thus, when we sing we teach and when we teach we worship.

Krug: New Testament worship is a life given to God’s purposes. Thus God does not care if we use instruments or not.

ELP: This is an assertion. There is no scripture that teaches this. God has specified what instrument we are to use and it is the heart (Col. 3:16).

Krug: There is not a single “action” or set of actions in the NT ever assigned as worship.

ELP: Teaching is described as worship specifically (Matt. 15:9). Saying it is not so does not make it true. I have laid out how that worship assembly involves the five avenues of worship (e.g. Acts 2:42).

Krug: Your issue of “authorized” is a man-made construct, but not a NT concept.

ELP: T F We must do all things religious in the name of Jesus Christ

T F The expression "in the name of" refers to authority (cf. Acts 4:7-12)

T F God has given us commands to be obeyed

T F Adding to or taking from God's word brings an imprecation

T F We must speak as the oracles of God

T F If I speak as the oracles of God I can make things up

etc,etc

Krug: Worship doesn’t involve teaching. That is a presupposition you brought TO the text, not a teaching of the text.

ELP: It is an exegesis. Matt. 15:9 - "In vain do they worship Me teaching..."

Krug: The Lord’s Supper is never once assigned a specific time nor place to share it. It can and is shared anytime.

ELP: Acts 20:7 - Upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread.

Krug: The “collection” in 1 Cor 16 is a specific and special collection that would have ceased one Paul collected the money to take to Jerusalem

ELP: Paul said as I have given order--mark that word "order"-- unto the churches of Galatia, even so do ye (I Cor. 16:1,2). Cf. I Cor. 4:17.

Krug: The idea that congregations are to take up money as a mandate is a man-made law but not a new testament concept

ELP: See above. It is a command.

Krug: Prayer occurs anytime a Christian wishes, and can certainly happen while we assemble, but prayer is speaking with God

ELP: Prayer is not limited to the assembly

Krug: The rest of the passages that you rip from context and string together does not serve the Bibles purposes well at all. So you see it might in fact be you who is not paying attention to the teaching of the Bible

ELP: There is always the danger of being wrong, but mere assertion will not prove it. Scripture and proper exegesis would help, but I have not found it here yet.

Krug: Surely you don’t quote acts 2:42 as your proof text given that you do not meet daily.

ELP: The passage was used to show the acts of worship as it existed in the early church (i.e., immediately after Pentecost) was the same as it was later in the New Testament church.

Krug: Call never said that we do all things in religion – and I would point out that the vast difference between you and I is that you seek religion where as I seek relationship Dash through some sort of authority

ELP: I don't understand your wording, but just because I want to obey my Father, does not mean I do not have a relationship with Him. See Matt. 12:28-32

Krug: You’re confusing the term, “in the name of the Lord,” as a permission theology that was unknown until about the 18th century with European rationalism.

ELP: God wants us to reason (Is. 1:18)

Krug: You can’t go into have the Bible authorizes, because it is a European rationalistic reformation idea, and not a biblical concept

ELP: I have dealt with this already. Paul made clear that we need to do all that we do in religion in the name of the Lord Jesus, which means by His authority (Acts 4:7-12; Col. 3:17). I don't have time and space to go into all that is entailed in how the Bible authorizes, but we know it is by command (e.g., Matt. 28:18-20; 26:26-30), by example (Acts 8:4; 20:7; I Cor. 11:23-34) and by implication (Acts 8:35-37).

Krug: But your command, example, inference, paradigm is also a man-made concept that simply tries to boil the entire New Testament down to laws and regulations and ignores authorial intent and context

ELP: This is mere assertion besides being unscriptural

Krug: As you can see, I have not ignored anything, but have in fact refuted all of your man-made doctrines

ELP: Sir, you have not dealt with anything I said. You have constructed straw men and attacked them, but even failed there.

Krug: So your opinions and feelings and sarcasm is wasted here on this forum

ELP: I thought sarcasm was the mode of operation here. Campbell said he used it, why am I singled out here?

Krug: And you have not Yet addressed anything I asked but have bloviated with your own agenda, one assumes in hopes to sidestep the real issue that you cannot find it little support for the concept of a worship service

ELP: Just plain false

Krug: You may keep your true and false leading questions to yourself and use them on the weaker and less learned brothers to try to manipulate those into your conclusions that you have drawn

ELP: I know the T F questions are a real pain because they force one to deal with the issue. I understand why you avoid them.

Krug: And you may also commands with the personal attacks that will get you booted from this for him as well because it is apparent that you may not have ability to not attack

ELP: I don't understand exactly what "commands with the personal attacks" means but I will push the issue to help others see. If you choose to boot me from the forum, that is up to you. I hold no malice and pray for your understanding of the issues more clearly.

Krug: Ready set go

ELP: I Pet. 3:15

Articles1 Articles2 Articles3 Articles4

You Tube Facebook