House Church Talk - Re: separation

[Claire Bennett]

For a person to be tossed from an institutional church - so what?  There's
one on each corner to vie for the tithes and talents of the tossee.  And a
body gone from a seat is no loss, unless that body was a major contributor
in some manner.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <House Church Talk -request at housechurch.org>
To: <House Church Talk  at housechurch.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 9:00 AM
Subject: House Church Talk  Digest, Vol 3, Issue 75


> Send House Church Talk  mailing list submissions to
> House Church Talk  at housechurch.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://housechurch.org/mailman/listinfo/House Church Talk 
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> House Church Talk -request at housechurch.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> House Church Talk -owner at housechurch.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of House Church Talk  digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. RE: Inductive and deductive methods of logic (Bruce Woodford)
>    2. Re: Passion --> in remembrance of Me (David Anderson)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:19:08 -0500
> From: "Bruce Woodford" <bwood4d at hotmail.com>
> Subject: RE: House Church Talk -  Inductive and deductive methods of logic
> To: House Church Talk  at housechurch.org
> Message-ID: <BAY10-F615rmTh6m7Lr0001f2d3 at hotmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> Dear brother David,
>
> Thank you for your appeal for a clear understanding of how we use the
terms
> "deductive" and "inductive" relative to the study of scripture.
>
> I can only say how I have understood the terms and maybe I need
correction!
> So here is how I have understood them:
>
> Webster's New World Dictionary defines the verb "deduce" in this way: "to
> infer by logical reasoning:  reason out or conclude from known facts or
> general principles."
>
> It also defines the word "infer" in this way: "to conclude or decide from
> something known or assumed; derive by reasoning; draw as a conclusion."
>
> So I have understood "deductive Bible study" as that which starts with
> certain facts which are stated in scripture and by deduction arrives at
> conclusions not stated in scripture.  In this way faulty conclusions are
> often arrived at and taught as scriptural doctrines!
>
> Where did the process go wrong? (1) By failing to take into account OTHER
> facts of scripture bearing on the subject, (2) By ASSUMING certain things
to
> be true which, in fact,  were not true at all.
>
> Here is a prime example:  Scripture states two facts:
> (1) The fact of justification by faith in Romans 5:1.
> (2) Scripture also states the fact that we are NOT justified by the works
of
> the law but by the faith of Jesus Christ. Galatians 2:16.
>
> Now, well meaning folks have taken those two facts of scripture , and made
> two assumptions:
> (1) They believe that all works are works of the law.   (This is a false
> assumption!)
> (2) They  also believe that justification must be based on EITHER faith OR
> works.   (This is also a false assumption because scripture clearly
teaches
> that justification is based on much more than either of these options
> suggest!)
>
> When folks believe that justification must be based on faith OR works and
> scripture clearly states that we are not justified by the works of the
law,
> they feel very justified (by logical reasoning) to conclude unequivocally
> that THE SCRIPTURES TEACH  that justification is BY FAITH ALONE!
>
> Thus, by deductive reasoning, they have arrived at a faulty conclusion!
>
> I have thus understood that the practice of such a "deductive approach" to
> scripture leads people to say, "Scripture SAYS this (i.e. Romans 5:1 and
> Gal.2:16) but what scripture ACTUALLY MEANS is this :  "WE ARE JUSTIFIED
BY
> FAITH ALONE."
>
>
> My understanding of "inductive Bible study" as that which seeks to get
into
> one's understanding as many facts of scripture regarding the subject of
> consideration as possible, observe those facts and not go beyond them.
i.e.
> simply let scripture SAY WHAT IT SAYS,  and thus judge or evaluate what
MEN
> SAY by what SCRIPTURE SAYS.
>
> Webster's New World Dictionary defines the word "induce" in this way: "To
> draw a general rule or conclusion from particular facts."
> For example: Re. the subject of justification, scripture clearly states
that
> justification is "by Christ", "by His blood", "by faith","by grace", "by
the
> Spirit" and "by works".  So from these particular facts of scripture I
draw
> the conclusion that  "justification is by faith alone" is not a scriptural
> doctrine!
>
>
> But I can see that  the dictionary definitions of "deducing" and
"inducing"
> can be very easily confused and even  made to mean identical things!
i.e.
> "Induce" (to draw a conclusion from particular facts)   and "deduce" (to
> reason out or conclude from known facts)  can mean the very same thing!!!!
>
> So "inductive" and "deductive" may not be very good terms to use as they
can
> easily mean the very same thing, or they can mean different things to
> different people!
>
> So I prefer to let such scriptural statements as Psalm 12:6; Proverbs
> 30:5,6;  I Cor.2:13 and Acts 17:11 guide my approach to scripture!
>
> So brother David, have I brought any clarity to this subject or "muddied
the
> waters" more than ever??
>
> Your brother in Christ,
> Bruce
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Add photos to your e-mail with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE*
>

>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 08:34:40 -0500
> From: David Anderson <david at housechurch.org>
> Subject: Re: House Church Talk -  Passion --> in remembrance of Me
> To: "House Church Talk" <House Church Talk  at housechurch.org>
> Message-ID: <E1B2Vme-0001gN-00 at grouse.mail.pas.earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
>
> The pain of separation would indeed be great, brother Dan.
>
> To be excluded from a real meal meant that you might well have gone
> hungry. And to have been excluded each week - or each day, sometimes as
> it was in Acts - until you repented is a far cry from the system where
> the Lord's supper is "dispensed" only once a year.
>
> What a contrast between then and now!
>
> So good to hear from you.
>
>    David Anderson
>
> >David,
> >
> >When you wrote about how the sacraments were cut off from the
> >"excommunicated," it got me to thinking. The real discipline exercised in
> >the early church towards serious offenders was to deny them the privilege
of
> >eating with the family of God.
> >
> >While the threat of separation from God in the afterlife existed, the
> >immediate loss was the fellowship of the brothers and sisters and the
piece
> >of heaven on earth they shared together!
> >
> >This loss was serious enough to bring one individual in 2 Corinthians
unto
> >true godly sorrow and repentance, which of course was the goal of the
> >discipline!
> >
> >To be deprived of the presence of Jesus that is experienced in His Body
> >would truly be painful.
> >
> >Dan B.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> House Church Talk  mailing list
> House Church Talk  at housechurch.org
> https://housechurch.org/mailman/listinfo/House Church Talk 
>
>
> End of House Church Talk  Digest, Vol 3, Issue 75
> **************************************
>