Miraculous Elements in First-Century Conversions #3

By Bob Myhan

Some time after the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, a Gentile named Cornelius saw an angel who told him to send to Joppa for Peter, who would tell him what he “must do” to “be saved” (Acts 10:1-6; 11:13-14).

Just before the men sent by Cornelius arrived in Joppa, Peter had a vision which taught him there was no longer a distinction between Jews and Gentiles, as far as salvation was concerned (10:9-16, 26-28).

After Peter arrived in Caesarea , while he was preaching, “The Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.” (Acts 10:44-47; 11:15-16) This enabled the Gentiles to “speak with tongues and magnify God” but this was not proof that they were saved for Peter had not yet told them what they “must do.” After “the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out on” them, Peter commanded them to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

Jesus had told His apostles,

“He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.” (Matt. 10:40)

“He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16)

When one sent by Jesus issues a command, the command must be carried out for to refuse to obey one sent by Jesus is to refuse to obey the Lord. Thus, when Peter commanded them to be baptized he was telling them what it was that they “must do.”

When Peter later related these events to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem they said, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.” (Acts 11:15-18) This was the purpose of the reception of the Holy Spirit on this occasion. The angel appeared to get the preacher and the prospect together, so the latter could be told what he “must do.”

Yes, there were miraculous elements in first century conversions, but these were not directly related to the salvation experience. They had to do with the fact that the gospel was just beginning to be preached and needed to be confirmed. But now that it has been confirmed, there is no need for these miraculous elements. But people in the twenty-first century are required to do whatever people in the first century were required to do for salvation. &

Fellowship Halls? #2

By Mark Dunagan

More Arguments That Don't Add Up:

D. But It Is a ‘Good Work':

Often you will hear the following in the attempt to justify church sponsored social meals: (1) 'But churches that build kitchens, dining rooms, gyms, etc., GROW!' But a certain kind a growth means that you are on the wrong road. (Matthew 7:13) In addition, churches that teach Premillennialism, Calvinism and the direct operation of the Holy Spirit, also grow. In fact, such churches grow faster and bigger than the ones who merely opt for "fellowship" halls. (2) The Bible defines what is a "good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Nowhere in the Bible do we find church sponsored social meals, recreation or "fellowship" halls. (3) And to me here is the real "rub" of the social gospel or liberalism. According to certain people church dinners and "fellowship" halls are mandatory for church growth, evangelism and maintaining unity in the congregation. Lest anyone object that I used the word "mandatory", let me point out that congregations and or individuals, who advocated such innovations, thought they were so needful that they divided the church over them. The argument that they were just a "method" or an option doesn't fly because you don't divide the church over an "option." Advocating even a matter of moral or doctrinal indifference to the point of division is a sin. (Romans 14:15-16; 19-20; 1 Cor. 8:9-12; 10:31-33) But the problem is, the apostles didn't view such things are necessary. The social gospel casts the apostles and the first century Christians into an "unspiritual" light. Listen to the following statement: 'The Jerusalem church...had no youth minister, no family-life center, no activities director, no day-care center, no choir, no band, no orchestra, no music minister; it had no soccer field nor gymnasium; it had no marriage counselor, no senior's minister, and no chariot ministry.' (GOT, 'Full Service Churches', Irvin Hummel, 4-2-92, p. 24) You see, the social gospel or liberalism makes the first century churches look like they weren't on the cutting edge. It makes the apostles look apathetic, unspiritual and "lacking vision", for they never advocated such ideas. Liberalism is forced to condemn the Christianity practiced in the first century, for it was completely void of all the things that people claim the church can't survive, grow and minister to the needs of Christians and non-Christians without.

E. The Building Isn’t Sacred:

Points to Note: (1) You would be hard pressed to find a group of people who have spent more time and effort in trying to teach people that the "building" isn't the "church", than conservative brethren. Many of us even phrase our signs, 'The church of Christ meets here'. (2) Listen to the following: 'He accuses us of believing in the sacredness of the building, yet it is institutional churches who often hold "dedication services" when they build a new building. That sounds like they believe the building is sacred! (GOT: 'Fellowship Halls', Dick Blackford, 1-19-95, p. 17) (3) While the building isn't "holy ground" at the same time it must be recognized that since it was purchased with first day of the week funds, it can only be used for those things outlined as the work of the church in the New Testament. That is, the building can be used for edification (Heb. 10:24-25) (i.e. worship/bible study/song leading classes, etc.), evangelism (1 Tim. 3:15) (gospel meetings, preaching, etc...) and benevolence for Christians. (1 Cor. 16:1-2)

F. The Claim that We Are Inconsistent:

'A huge "theological" proposition in recent years has been whether or not it is right to eat a meal in the "church building"...This writer knows of a case where brethren were involved in building a new meeting place. As they worked each week, they had lunch in the partially completed structure. The day they moved into the facility to worship, eating on the premises became a sin.’ (The Spiritual Sword: 'The Crisis of Radical Reactionism.' Wayne Jackson. 10-93) First of all I want to point out that Wayne Jackson has written some excellent material. Unfortunately, on this issue he has found himself defending something that can't be defended. And when you place yourself in such a position, you are forced to make an argument which will come back to haunt you. Using the above argument others could just as easily contend: This writer knows a case where brethren were involved in building a meeting place. As they worked some of them listened to music on the radio. The day they moved into the facility, rock/instrumental music in the worship services became a sin! Or, what if one of the brothers had instructed another in some aspect of construction while the building was in progress? Can the church then use the building to teach classes on electrical wiring or plumbing? 'The day they moved in the facility to worship, teaching drywall classes on the premises became a sin.' Or, what if while installing and testing the baptistery for leaks, one of the members laid back and relaxed in the cool waters to get relief from the heat? 'The day they moved into the facility it became wrong for the church to provide a place to swim!' You see brethren, the issue has never been can the church have a drinking fountain, can the preacher eat his lunch in the building while studying, can the members bring a drink or snack into the building while working on a classroom room, copying off materials, cleaning the building, etc… Anyone can see that such things are vastly different from purposely designing a room for people to eat or recreate in. But in this whole discussion a REAL CONTRADICTION is often overlooked. Think about this one: If a church can build an auditorium which will function as not only the place in which to hold worship services, but will then easily convert into a gym or dining hall after services. Then why can't the same congregation build a large baptistery, which will not only be used to baptize people in, but can also be used to swim in. Hey, if people accept the argument that eating together is necessary for real spiritual growth, then why can't we equally argue that a " Church of Christ hot tub" is necessary for congregational harmony? As we close the reader should note that many who embrace "fellowship" halls and church kitchens are in opposition to church gyms. But such a position is contradictory. Calling a church dining room a "fellowship" hall doesn't make it any more Scriptural than calling a church gym, a " Family Life Center ". Biblical authority can't be cited for either. The above arguments are desperate attempts to hold on to an unscriptural practice. 'It plays well to an audience determined to have their banquet halls at ALL COST, regardless that it serves to perpetuate division.' (Dick Blackford p. 19) &