[ZNPaaneah]

The doctrine of the "Sufficiency of Scripture" implies that it has everything we need for life and godliness. (SteVee)

But having everything we need for life and godliness (a point that I constantly insist stands against Lee's "wait for the dispensing" teaching) is quite different from "spelling out" for us everything that we need. (OBW)

OBW -- Why can't a verse that says we have all that we need for life and godliness be the essential basis and meaning for the "doctrine of sufficiency of Scripture"?

I believe that 1 Corinthians 11 - 14 provides enough breadth, context, and detail to describe what the New Testament church was as an example to future generations. (Stevee)

Actually, I think that these chapters provide a broad enough framework as to be very inexact.
• They are written into a truly dysfunctional situation yet there is little direction beyond recognition of the variety of "gifts" that are in the body and that all are needful (don't cut off the toes as unnecessary).
• The meeting is open, but not altogether. Oversight is required. And restraint.
• I'll get to the "all can" in a minute.
But there is nothing in what is provided that defines how. Just gives some principles that were needed in Corinth because of their three-ring circus of competing groups and probably a lot of "show offs." A meeting with a single table and one piece of crisp unleavened bread and a single glass of wine around which a meeting begins according to a particular structure of song topics (in order), with a breaking of the bread in a particular way by two or more persons, then the passing of the elements around the room is a fully acceptable way to do it. But it is not found in 1 Corinthians or anywhere else. Neither is the typical LRC way of doing other meetings. They are not necessarily "wrong." But they are not simply "right" and especially not the "preferred" or even "only" way to do them.

The point of the Lord's table is not the form in which it is done. It is that when it is done, you remember. The Lord. His death. Those are the things specified. The rest is preferences and everyone's are not the same. (OBW)


SteVee -- I do have the same feeling, except I feel it is the entire book, I would not limit it to 11-14.

OBW -- a "broad enough framework" is not contrary to what SteVee shared about having "enough breadth" to be an example for all future churches, despite the wide variation.

We can debate whether the "how" is provided. I don't disagree that it is not provided in chapter 14, but if you look at the entire book with that in mind it is there.

1 Corinthians 14:26-40 describes a church meeting where "all" disciples are free to speak forth what the Lord has been making real to them in their life in an orderly manner. (Stevee)

First, the content of those who are described as participating as "prophets" is not defined as "what the Lord has been making real in their lives." Second, there is first a restraint to "2 or three" within which the remainder of that part of the passage refers. It does not start by saying that there should be 2 or 3 prophets, then just toss it aside and declare that "all can prophesy" meaning the entire congregation. That is a gross misunderstanding of the meaning and structure of the passage.

The passage as a whole has put a limit on certain things. It has limited the exhibition of tongues to a very little and only if someone is present to interpret it (which means someone who can understand that tongue is present). Then it gets to "prophets" and says "2 or 3." Now what is that supposed to mean if you think that the "all can prophesy" reaches beyond them to all present? It has made a mockery of Paul's opening words on that subject.

Now I am not saying that there cannot also be a third part of the meeting that in the Pentecostal circles used to be called as "testimony meeting." But that would be something other than the 2 or three who "prophesy." (OBW)

SteVee -- the problem with "all are free to speak" is in the practice. This is really where OBW can make a strong case concerning the "how". For example, if you are going to use this as the model for all true churches would you then say that if all are not free to speak it is not a true church? Also, how would you define "free to speak"? Would it be in a large meeting, what if you are free to speak in smaller meetings?

OBW -- when it says "all can prophesy" I don't understand that to mean that all 100 attendees can prophesy, but rather all members of the body of Christ can (have the ability or potential to) prophesy. As a result when 2 or 3 can prophesy it doesn't mean to imply that there is an office of "prophet" who will stand up and speak every week. Rather it means that any of those attendees, at some time or other, as the Lord leads, can prophesy.