Home | About Us | Past Featured Subjects | Bulletins | Sermons & Audio | Studies In The Cross Of Christ | Classes

Click Here for the Latest Edition of the Charlottesville Beacon

Sermons Preached in Harrisonburg, VA

Moving Ahead
Outline
PowerPoint
Audio

Receiving Forgiveness (4) by Larry Rouse
Outline
PowerPoint
Audio

What is God's Forgiveness Like? (2) by Larry Rouse
Outline
PowerPoint
Audio

Instrumental Music and the Cross of Christ
 by Larry Rouse
Outline
PowerPoint
Audio

Where Are the Dead
by Larry Rouse
Outline
Audio

The Foundation of Forgiveness (1)
by Larry Rouse
Outline
PowerPoint
Audio

For Harrisonburg Schedule and Directions Click Here

Planning to Visit Us?

What to Expect
Current Class Information

Can the Church Provide Fellowship Meals?
A Reply to a Letter

by David Riggs

Following is my reply to your comments in your letter to me. Before I begin, I want to emphasize that in our replies to each other, let's try to not accuse the other of "proof texting," "blinding bias," or "blinded to the evidence," etc. Instead, let's continue to do as those who were commended by God who "searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so." (Acts 17:11). There is a vast difference in strongly refuting what another believes as error, than in attributing evil motives as to why another believes that error. In other words, refuting another's error by examining his teaching, is good, but judging his motives as to why he believes the error, is evil. (Rom. 14:4, 10-13).

Also, before I begin, I want to emphasize it is your responsibility to provide Bible authority for your belief; namely, "the church can provide fellowship meals." In other words, since I, myself, do not believe that it can be done, nor is it being practiced where I worship, I do not hold the same position to it as you do. Christian Church people have often said to us, "You people need to prove that instrumental music in worship is wrong." No, the Christian Church people need to prove that it is right. Likewise, it is your responsibility to prove your belief that church sponsored fellowship meals is Scriptural. Church practices for other things are clearly and plainly revealed; e.g., "church support of preachers" - 2 Cor. 11:8-9; Phil. 4:15-16. However, there are no clear and plain passages which teach "church sponsored fellowship meals." Definitely, Jude 12; 1 Cor. 11:20-34; and Acts 2:42-47, do not sustain it. As a matter of fact, one of them, 1 Cor. 11:20-34, condemns it rather than promotes it.

You said, "On Jude 12, you point out that the emphasis in Jude 12 is on the false teachers, not the meals. However, this does not disprove nor cast an evil light upon the meals. In fact, the meals were the occasion for these meals..." I was simply trying to point out from Jude 12 that there is no authority whatsoever for the church providing the meals. The church is not mentioned, nor does it in anyway imply that it was a meal provided by the church. The whole emphasis of the book of Jude and 2 Peter 2 is on the evils of the false teachers. The meals were occasions, not the only ones, wherein the false teachers promoted their evils. You have assumed that the meals of Jude 12 are "church furnished fellowship meals." We should never try to prove anything by mere assumption. I will discuss below whether on not we can trust the "church fathers" from which you quoted. Definitely, Jude 12 does not give "divine authority" for church sponsored fellowship meals.

You continued, "In fact, the meals were the occasion for these false teachers demonstrating their self-indulgence ('caring for themselves')--just as was the case in I Cor.11:20-34 ('another is drunk,' vs.20). And, again, Paul and Jude did not forbid the meals; they only condemned the selfishness being demonstrated by some (selfishness which, in I Cor.11, prevented them from properly partaking of the Lord's Supper)." Paul most certainly did condemn the meal of 1 Cor. 11. The meal Paul condemned in 1 Cor 11 is the misuse of the Lord's Supper. 1 Cor. 11:20-21 says, "Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. FOR in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk." (Eph. mine, D.R.) Clearly, they were misusing the Lord's Supper--making a common meal of it. It is very significant on how Paul corrected the problem. He did not say, "Keep your meals separate from the Lord's Supper" or, "properly share your food with others," but said, "Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?" and "But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home." (Vs. 22, 34). Paul plainly and forthrightly condemns the meal they were having. It would certainly be wrong to assume that the Corinthians were having a meal along with or separate from the Lord's Supper. The verses show that it was a misuse of the Lord's Supper. Absolutely, it was not a meal provided by the church.

You added, "'What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink?' is contrasted with 'Or do you despise (kataphroneo, to look down upon someone) the church of God, and shame those who have nothing.' In other words, Paul was not condemning their eating together prior to their partaking of the Lord's Supper but instead condemning their self-indulgence that only shamed and degraded their poor brethren." Where does it say they were eating a meal "prior to the Lord's Supper"? Please examine the context very carefully. The context does not indicate or demand that this was a meal separate and apart from the Lord's Supper. Certainly, Paul rebuked the ones who were looking down upon and shaming those who had nothing; however, he also corrected the problem by saying, "eat at home." (Vs. 22, 34). He did not say, "Share your meals with those who have nothing." Definitely, he did not say, "Let the church provide the meals so there will be proper sharing among all."

You continued, "They had excused themselves on the basis of their being hungry ('If anyone is hungry...'). So, Paul says, If you are hungry, eat at home--you have houses in which to fill your bellies; but the purpose of this meal is not to satisfy your hunger. Thus, Paul countered the excuse they had used to justify their selfishly eating all their food instead of sharing it with their poor brethren." You also mentioned, "And in vs.34, Paul qualifies 'eat at home' with 'If anyone is hungry' (answering their unrecorded excuse that they were 'hungry'--just as Paul elsewhere answers unrecorded statements by the Corinthians..." It is a mere assumption that Paul in verse 34 is answering an excuse which they had made. Where does it say or imply it? It makes no sense whatsoever to have Paul saying, "If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home so that when he comes to the assembly, he will properly share his meal with others." Should people eat a meal so that they can properly eat a meal?

The example you gave seems to nullify your argument rather than prove it. You said, "And in vs.34, Paul qualifies 'eat at home' with 'If anyone is hungry' (answering their unrecorded excuse that they were 'hungry'--just as Paul elsewhere answers unrecorded statements by the Corinthians, for example in I Cor.14:37: 'If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual...'--here, they had been claiming to be 'spiritual' yet were not demonstrating love in their exercise of the gifts, just as they had not been demonstrating their love in the meal in I Cor.11!)." The word "if" is "a primary particle of conditionality" (Enhanced Strong's Lexicon). The word "if" in 1 Cor. 14:37 is referring to a condition, just as in 1 Cor. 11:34. In other words, "If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet" (under that condition or instance) let him acknowledge..." Here are several examples which clearly show the conditionality of the word:

1 Cor. 15:2 - You are saved IF Keep in memory

Heb. 3:6 - Lord's house IF Hold fast

Col. 1:22-23 - Will be holy IF Continue in faith

1 John 1:7 - Cleansed by blood IF Walk in the light

2 Pet. 1:10 - Never fall IF Do these things

John 8:31 - Disciples indeed IF Continue in my word

John 8:51 - Never see death IF Keep my saying

John 12:26 - Father will honor IF Serve me

Gal. 6:9 - We shall reap IF We faint not

Thus, Paul is simply saying in 1 Cor. 11:33-34, "Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat (to eat the Lord's Supper), wait for one another (the Lord's Supper is to be partaken when we are together in one place). But if anyone is hungry (under that condition), let him eat at home (the Lord's Supper is not designed to satisfy one's hunger; at home is where one's hunger should be satisfied)." (Par. mine D.R.)

You said, "No, Luke 14:12-14 was not an agape. According to vs.1, it was a meal arranged by Pharisees--enemies of Christ--to try to trap Him (not much 'agape'--love--here!). An agape was a meal shared by a church with each other, not with outsiders." Again, you have assumed that "an agape was a meal shared by a church with each other, not with outsiders." The "love feast" of Jude 12 is not specified and, thus, could have been among a few brethren, all the brethren, a few brethren with outsiders, several brethren with outsiders, or whatever. Definitely, the false teachers described in Jude would have used any occasion, any type of love feast, to promote their evils. Here are the words of Luke 14:12-14 from the NASV:

12 And He also went on to say to the one who had invited Him, "When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return, and repayment come to you. 13 But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14 and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

If we do what Jesus commanded in the above verses, would it not be a love feast, a meal provided because of our love for Him and for our fellow man? Please notice, too, that you are using the word "agape" in an unscriptural way. The word by itself means "love" and is used hundreds of times with many applications in the Scriptures. The word by itself may have been used by the church fathers in the way you are using it, but it is not so used in the Scriptures. In other words, the word "agape" in the Scriptures does not refer to, "a meal shared by a church with each other, not with outsiders" but means, "love."

You made the argument that if I accepted the writings of men like Vine and Thayer, I should also accept those church fathers you quoted. You said, "In fact, if we cannot allow Greek writings contemporary with the NT to help us understand Greek words used in the NT, then we must get rid of all our Greek lexicons--including, Vine, Thayer, Arndt & Gingrich, Kittel, etc. since they derive their meanings based upon usage both within the Bible and outside the Bible). David, do you really disregard these authorities when they speak of extra-biblical usage of Greek words? I seriously doubt it. Then, please don't let yourself be blinded to what these authorities say about the 'agape' meal, either."

Let me say, first of all, that if you had Bible authority for your view of the "love feast," you would not need quotes from the early church fathers. In other words, if authority for "church fellowship meals" is revealed in the Scriptures, quotes from the church fathers are not needed. It seems to me that anytime anyone must rely on the church fathers to prove a doctrine, it shows a weakness in his position. Remember, too, that every false doctrine under the sun has been and can be established by the church fathers. The Catholics are very good at proving everything they believe and practice by the church fathers.

Secondly, the writings of men such as Vine and Thayer in no way compare to those of the so-called early church fathers. It is true that Vine and Thayer were only men, and should be viewed as such. However, Vine and Thayer were proven Greek scholars. One can turn to the preface of their lexicons and see their credentials. One can now log on the Internet and go into the Library of Congress and view the original copyrighted publications of the lexicons of these men. Thayer was the chairman of the committee of scholars who give us the English American Standard Version of the Greek manuscripts. The references listed in his work which show how a Greek word was used in New Testament times are not to the early church fathers, but to non-religious Greek writings. Unlike the early church fathers, Vine, Thayer, Arndt and Gingrich, do not teach doctrines or make a commentary on a text, but simply define the Greek words.

Thirdly, I want to strongly emphasize that I would not under any circumstances accept the "church fathers" that you quoted for the following reasons.

1. Those men you quoted are the Catholicism fathers who introduced into Christianity many traditions and doctrines of men. If you will examine your own quotes, you will be able to see this. For example, the very first quote you gave from Ignatius says, "It is not lawful either to baptize or to have a love feast apart from the bishop." (Smyrnaeans 8). Also, your quote from Clement emphasizes, "...Hence the importance placed of the presence of the bishop..." (XII, 4). Do you believe that you can only have a "love feast" when a bishop is present? Also, did you know that the same fathers you quoted also believed in "pouring for baptism" and "Peter was a pope"?

2. You can't prove that the so-called fathers you quoted ever existed. Since you quoted from those men, I hereby present a very simple challenge to you; namely, "Prove that those men ever existed." As a matter of fact, I will make the challenge very easy, please prove the existence of only one of the early church fathers; namely, Dionysisus, the supposed disciple of the apostles, and the father of religious history.

3. There is a mountain of forgery and falsehood in the writings of the so-called fathers. None of the manuscripts of the writings of the so-called early church fathers (A.D. 33 to 150 A.D.) reach back beyond the dark ages. In other words, we don't have a single original manuscript of the early church fathers that pre-dates the dark ages. Here are two quotes from Catholic sources which prove that the so-called church fathers are not to be trusted:

"Substituting of false documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the Middle ages." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VI, p. 136).

"Writers of the fourth century were prone to describe many practices (i.e., The Lenten Fast of Forty Days) as apostolic institutions which certainly had no claim to be so regarded." (Cath. Ency., Vol. III, p. 484).

Forgeries have been documented by the Catholic Church in the writings of following early church fathers:

Augustine (Cath. Ency., II 79; Cath. Ency., I 629; Cath. Ency., XI 623), Cyprian (Cath. Ency., VII, 268), Origen (Cath. Ency., II, 92), Constantine (Catholic Dictionary), 772; Short History of the Catholic Church 82; Cath, Ency., VII, 539), Ambrose (Cath. Ency., VII 195; I, 386-7; I, 368-9), Ignatius (Cath. Ency., I 637; VII 646-7, Chrysostom (De Montor I, 86), Thomas Aquinas (Cath. Ency., XIV, 666; Outline of Dogmatic Theology, II 564), Duns Scotus (Cath. Ency., V, 195), Dominic (Story, Devotion of Holy Rosary, 52; Cath. Ency., XIII, 184-6; Catholic Facts, 86), Bonaventure (Cath. Ency., II, 654), Hilary of Arles (Cath. Ency., VII, 349), Tertullian (Cath. Ency., VII, 195, 269), Athanaseus (Cath. Ency., II, 92).

There are many others. Remember, the Catholic Church (both the Greek Orthodox and the Roman) is the source for the early church fathers. It was the Monks in monasteries, centuries ago, who supposedly preserved the writings of the church fathers for us. The Catholic Church wanted those writings preserved because it relies on them for its doctrine. If the Catholic Church, the friend of the fathers, has documented many forgeries in the writings of the fathers, how many forgeries are there which have never been documented? Thus, we will never know exactly how many writings of the fathers are simply fabrications. Truly, "Substituting of false documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the Middle ages." (Cath. Ency., VI, 136).

4. The Word of God teaches us to not accept the teachings of men. God's word says, "Let God be true, but every man a liar." (Rom. 3:4). "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Col. 2:8). "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." (Eph. 4:14) "Let no man deceive you with vain words..." (Eph. 5:6).

5. We will not be judged by the writings of the church fathers in the last day. (John 12:48; Rev. 20:12). We are not required to listen to them or to do what they say. There is not a single good thing they can provide which is not in the Scriptures. (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

I hope these things will help.

Yours in Christ,

David J. Riggs  

 

 Other Articles
Respecting Convictions
Moral Consistency
Infant Baptism