Thank you for your kind words. I'm working on a book on this topic. If you'd like to be updated on its publication, you can join the email list at tomwadsworth.com/contact.
What you describe has been the practice of the Plymouth Brethren since they were established in the 1830s. I grew up going to the "reading meeting" every Wednesday evening. When I was a boy it was a privilege to be asked to do the reading aloud of the passage under discussion. A number of brothers (not all) would have a dialogue about the passage. This went on for the better part of an hour. We did have preaching meetings and pray meetings too. The meeting that we considered to be a "worship" meeting was the Lord's Supper because it it was the meeting of remembrance of Him. It was the only meeting that was occupied exclusively with the Lord and nothing else. It was not a testimony meeting or a preaching meeting. Those things had their place but not at that time that was exclusively for His remembrance. It is so today in our local gathering. We begin each Lord's Day with the Lord's supper. We all then have a fellowship lunch together. This is followed by a reading meeting. I so look forward to Lord's Days. 😊
The hymns we used to sing together were in simpler chords and we could sing in harmony with one another...... Most of the new songs are real high and in some chord that's not harmonizable with one another.....
But that makes these modern songs so great for emotional manipulation and idolization of the “worship team” as rock stars and encourages the congregation to pay them with the first fruits of their salary for the privilege of being manipulated and getting the sing along rock concert experience. It’s a vital part of how churches make a killing by making people feel inadequate and dependent on the pastor/message/uplifting in order to have a relationship with God. Without all of that we’d all be equal under God and give our money to the poor instead of to rich pastors and the “worship team”. We’d have to be responsible for ourselves instead feeling it’s OK to rely on and depend on someone else for intimacy with God. Plus we’d have to be more spiritually active in our families and communities. It’s so much easier just to pay a pastor to do it all for us and get to live in ignorance and inferiority. Sarcasm aside, I agree that easy to sing songs in small venues such as a living room encourage a more egalitarian atmosphere, less pressure to “perform”, and more focus on the meaning of and reason for the lyrics than the quality of the voice.
Thank you for this excellent teaching. Worshiping "in spirit and in truth," as Jesus said in John 4:24, is about an authentic, heartfelt connection with God that goes beyond location or ceremony. For those who feel alone in their pursuit of true worship and edification, remember that Jesus meets you personally, right where you are. Spiritual growth and deep worship can happen powerfully in solitude through prayer, reflection, and study, without the need for a crowd. If you can't find others who share your commitment to sincere worship, take heart-God honors your devotion and will strengthen you. Even when fellowship seems out of reach, you are never alone; your faith and pursuit of truth connect you with God, who sees and values your dedication.
@flowers1-2-1 You are welcome. God is in control and we can't conjure up true fellowship. We can pray for it, and He always answers. It took me a long time to get it. It’s His will be done and it will be done, so be joyful in His grace to us.
Thank you for your kind words. I'm working on a book on this topic. If you'd like to be updated on its publication, you can join the email list at tomwadsworth.com/contact.
Thank you for your support. I'm working on a book on this topic. If you'd like to be updated on its publication, you can join the email list at tomwadsworth.com/contact.
I like most of what you've been saying, as it speaks to questions I have had for a few years. And I too have concerns with many worship music services and the spoonfeeding sermons. But I tend to disagree that we are not to do "worship" because we need not have sacrifices. Have fairly recently presented a Bible study on Psalm 21, God tells us that the sacrifices he wants are a broken and contrite spirit. So I think we are to worship in our services and present the sacrifice of our heart (not necessarily our "praise" music and one-way sermons).
The NT distinguishes between literal sacrifices (e.g., the blood of bulls and goats), which are offered by Jews and pagans, and spiritual sacrifices offered by Christians, which would include the continual offering of a "sacrifice of praise" (Heb 13:15) and the offering of our bodies as a living sacrifice (Rom 12:1). Further, the Greek words for "worship" are never applied to what Christians do in assembly. They actually don't even mean "worship" in the sense that we use the term.
@@tomwadsworth I get that, find it interesting and agree. Yet I can't let go of that idea that we are to worship, offering our sacrifices of a broken and contrite heart, praises, and our bodies as a living sacrifice, and possibly other such aspects. Further, we are to be "a royal priesthood, a chosen generation", which also implies the need to continue with sacrificial worship services. Thus just as the sanctuary services had morning and evening sacrifices, perhaps I as a priest am to offer my worship sacrifices to Jesus, the High Priest, myself each morning and evening (so that I may continue to abide in Him). Perhaps leaving Sabbath assemblies to be a time of all the individual royal priests to assembly to edify each other and to glorify God together. I certainly agree that we should not be "offering" Jesus "blood and body" as offerings in our assemblies as Jesus was offered "once for all", but rather that we should "thus do in REMEMBRANCE". I've been thinking about your interesting study the past few weeks after having listened to all on your TH-cam channel and trying to asses how/where to integrate it with my understanding of the Bible. So thank-you for sharing what you have been studying about.
@@wandawiebe1581 Thanks for your patience and kind consideration of my content. I suggest that the reason "we can't let go of the idea that we are to worship in our assemblies" comes from our tradition, not from scripture. The NT nowhere uses Greek "worship" words to identify why Christians came together or to describe what they did when they got together. Further, the idea that the Jews had "Sabbath assemblies" is another case of anachronism. That is, we are forcing our modern assembly habits and ideas onto the ancient Jews. It's true that first-century Jews had developed a tradition of gathering in the synagogue on the Sabbath, but the Torah and the entire OT nowhere command or imply that the Jews were to have weekly "Sabbath assemblies." If we erase all our preconceived notions of the nature and purpose of a Christian gathering, and then open the New Testament to search afresh for evidence about those gatherings, we will never conclude that those meetings were for "worship" -- OR that somehow those meetings were meant to somehow replicate Jewish temple activities.
@@tomwadsworth I get that many people may have difficulties letting go of tradition, but you only have my word that I am eager to let go of faulty tradition. As for the "Sabbath assemblies" I was referencing, I was not speaking about the Jews, but about those in Acts. Some of those would be reaching out to Jews where they were found weekly, but other instances were after they were uninvited from the synagogues but those interested still wanted to meet to hear more of the apostles teachings. As for there being nothing but tradition for Sabbath assemblies, the creation account and the commandments certainly point to 'remembering to rest' weekly, and Jesus, our example, "went into the synagogue on the Sabbath AS WAS HIS CUSTOM", and even held the reading there. So if Jesus' keeping of the Sabbath included weekly assembling, and if Paul tells us to "forget not the assembling of yourselves together", then I can't accept your premise that there is no direction/command for us to assemble weekly. I certainly do agree that weekly 'priestly offerings of sacraments' is not in line with NT teachings. I note that you didn't respond to my reasons for having difficulty letting go of the concept of worship relating to being a royal priesthood, etc. I should do more study on the connection between that and the different aspects of what has been translated as worship as you have pointed out - how I wish the Bible translations were more consistent and accurate in the words that they used to translate (how blessed we are to have online interlinear/dictionary resources that I have come to much appreciate). Thank-you for your providing further information in my journey away from tradition towards Bible truth.
The current church lost the way in many ways. All churches started by the apostles were named by the place they were gathering not a certain name. Also the practices of believers in the gathering were prayers, reading scriptures, breaking of bread, eating together, feasts of mercy, distributing wealth to each other, teaching, singing psalms, hymns to one another, building one another. This practices were continuous. This is rare today. I also believe that we really lack the power of God in action in the church today because of this deviation. It is sad.
It’s not surprising that the church can go off track, the Israelites did too. I think it’s good that people like Tom challenge the status quo, with biblical truths. I am disillusioned by much church gathering in the last decade, and the message Tom shares makes sense to why. Conversely I find the thing I am most inspired by is when edification is taking place between believers. Especially small group conversations. Opponents to Tom should engage his message and not resort to attacking him or his understanding. Address the message, not the messenger
Question Tom... I'm interested in your view on how the early body of believers viewed Faith in general. While I don't believe in works based salvation, I tend to side with the Eastern Orthodox view of faith in that we are saved by grace through a faith that works through love. This seems to be more of a complete definition of what it means to be a Christian. I'm concerned in what I see regarding what appears to be an increase of free grace theology thinking. Early Christians called themselves The Way. It seems like modern day protestantism would closer side with the belief that one just has to make a mental statement of faith to be considered saved. Obviously we are saved by confessing our belief in Christ and His finished work, but before that even occurs we must have a broken and contrite heart and repent. Repent and believe, not believe and repent. Sanctification in my church at least according to some elders who appear to be Calvinistic in nature... make it seem like it's a long drawn-out process, when in reality once someone comes to Christ it's usually extremely transformative. That process of cleaning oneself up will continue. The flesh will war against the Holy Spirit. It just seems like when I speak about victory over sin in my men's group, I get the proverbial thrashing like I'm trying to work for my salvation. There's this knee jerk reaction to come against holiness almost it seems. Sanctification appears to be more akin to them as lying nine times today versus 10 times yesterday. We are called to forsake our sin, give it up... not swim in it. What's your view on obedience in general? I see a clear distinction between someone trying to be obedient to God as they wish to glorify Him, vs someone else who's legalistic in nature. David was a man after God's heart. It seems like he should be the example not the exception.
To respond to all your thoughts could require about six 300-page doctoral dissertations! I'll be painfully brief. 1. I like the way you're analyzing these issues, recognizing that each theological camp can have weaknesses. 2. I personally refuse to align with any camps (e.g., Orthodox, Protestant, Calvinist, Free Grace, Holiness, etc.). They all have strengths and weaknesses. 3. I try to focus on clear teachings of scripture, freely acknowledging when scripture is not clear. 4. Don't let the camps force us into division. Strife, dissensions, and factions are works of the flesh (Gal 5:20), but the fruit of the Spirit is love, peace, patience, and kindness (Gal 5:22). 5. Beware of those who have "a sick craving for controversial questions and disputes about words, from which come envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between people of depraved mind and deprived of the truth" (1 Tim 6:4-5). 6. Love and unity are highly emphasized throughout the NT. Let those priorities guide you through these questions.
As far as I can see the biblical concept of believers gathering for "horizontal" fellowship, a group meeting online (in a zoom call) equally serves the aim of "gathering" & fellowship.
Also listen to Frank Viola. He also wrote a lot of books on this subject. I met Wolfgang Simpson in 2009 in South Africa while he gave a presentation on his research. He put words to my thoughts which started in 2008 regarding this subject.
The observations I have noticed is that too often there is the dismissing the context of Old Testament or Hebraic contextualization in the early church. I have heard several videos of Tom's already and he seemed to miss Ephesians 5:19 in what it means to sing to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Now Tom does highlight the one anothering that this passage highlights as well. Excellent point he has. The interesting thing that I read last night was that the Psalms are broken down in the three genres. These would have been taught to new believers to do to each other. I was wondering about the songs of accent and found out that they would have been considered hymns. All of the “Songs of Ascents” (Pss 119-134, LXX) are identified as Odes (hymns). So the edification would speak to others of Adonai where the worship would unite the idea of loving others and to God.
Dr. I’m a fan of your videos. You have talked a lot about home gatherings but you haven’t really talked on the following. Can you touch on the early christian Jews and gentiles meeting in synagogues like the Bereans or where gentiles met in prayer houses on the sabbath like in Acts 16 in Philippi? Was worship/ προσκυνέω done in these places? Could you also talk about the liturgical prayers literally in the Greek “the prayers” in Acts 2:42 that the apostles practiced daily and was this something that the church modeled after?
The evidence indicates that (1) Christians did not "meet" in synagogues. Paul indeed went into the synagogues to proclaim the gospel to the Jews that regularly gathered there. (2) In the first century, Jews did not describe their synagogue activities as "worship" (whether proskuneo, latreuo, leitourgeo, sebomai, or threskeia). Throughout the Septuagint and the NT, those terms applied to specific (and different) temple activities, not synagogue activities. "The prayers" in Acts 2:42 (ταῖς προσευχαῖς) could refer to assembly prayer, or it could also refer to the continual prayers of the disciples regardless of the venue. Prayers play a pivotal role in Luke’s narrative, being found 30 times in the 28 chapters of Acts and often at pivotal moments in the church’s progress. So, it is not surprising that 2:42 characterizes the church’s life as devoted to "the prayers." In theory, the use of the plural with the article could refer to fixed or liturgical prayers, such as the Lord’s Prayer, but at this embryonic stage of Christian activity, it seems unlikely that Christians would have so quickly adopted or embraced fixed prayers, especially in the immediate atmosphere of widespread Spirit-led speaking (Acts 2:2-18, 38; 4:31). There are no clear examples of "liturgical prayers" elsewhere in the NT. And remember that Jesus, in the so-called Sermon on the Mount, spoke negatively of "thoughtless repetition" in prayer (Mt 6:7). Our tendency to view "the prayers" as "liturgical prayers" is probably a case of anachronism. In other words, since many modern assemblies routinely have liturgical prayers, we assume that the first-century church did the same thing.
We also tell the joke of a guy that drank a lot and got saved. He testified before he got saved: 'I used to drink 24 beer a night! Now I am saved and only drink 12!! Modern church ie catholic, Anglican, baptist, charismatic etc are like this. They still have a clergy and laity class. The five fold ministry is confined to the clergy class, the elders and deacons to the laity class, if there is classes it should be the other way around. They kept 50% of the service practises of the catholic pagan church of the middle ages. Ie sermons. The inherently believe in gnosis ie salvation via knowledge. Like Paul said in Romans 1 'even thou the KNEW the truth they rebelled'. They think if they know more they will be better Christians, the leaders think if they teach more everything will be good, and God will be pleased. Lully everyone into a drugged enfused stupor of passivity....
Thank you for your support. I'm working on a book on this topic. If you'd like to be updated on its publication, you can join the email list at tomwadsworth.com/contact.
@tomwadsworth While reading some of the other comments I noticed you mentioned that "(1) Christians did not "meet" in synagogues." I agree that's what happened in Acts, yet I watched an archeological documentary (I forget who or what city in Turkey) showing a Jewish synagogue with Jewish carvings that also had Christian carvings, before being destroyed. Their interpretation was that with enough converts to Christianity, the synagogue was transformed into a very early Christian church, before being destroyed by early pagan Roman persecution. Not sure if you were aware of that. Sorry I can't recall the details.
I could never get past the way 'worship' is represented by Paul in Romans 12: 1, 2. Its about the way of thinking, not paganistic actions. Prayer is not a pagan ceremony it is living in connection with our Saviour.
Traditions are hard to change because people find it comfortable, because the influence of the internet has opened up how complicated and evil the world we never seen ourselves. Its about our own comfort zones. Jesus said l.have overcome the world. The world in jesus day and what his people endured is not as we experience.
My church path has not led me to Pentecostal churches, but I have many good friends (brothers and sisters in Christ) who are of the "Pentecostal persuasion."
@tomwadsworth what i mean brother is not do you fellowship in a Pentecostal fellowship but do you believe in speaking in tongues as pentecostals do etc?
Everyone was speaking a different dialect of the Koine Greek in the 1st century, the dialects could differ as much as Spanish and Italian today. "how hear we every man in our own tongue wherein we were born" Acts 2:8 states this plainly. Its talking about foreign languages. Speaking "in tounges" is NOT some mystical thing like pentecostal charismatics would have you believe. The power of suggestion, peer pressure, preconceived notions, adrenaline and self hypnotic states induced by repetitive affirmations ["But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do:" Mat 6:7A] in combination with modern charlitantizm, live music bands, and showmanship honed to a craft, is a powerful combination. You go you a rock concert people will do all kinds of crazy things. There are two words in the original Greek text that have translated into the English word "tounge" glossa [Strong's #1100] (literally tounge, both the organ and a language) and dialektos [Strong's#1258] (we get the word dialect from that) Paul said said you need a translator, again this goes back to the edification of the church body, you can't translate this modern "speaking in tounges" charismatic babbing nonsense. 1 Corinthians 14:27-28 states this plainly "27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God."
Love Tom's teaching; however, he seems to contradict himself. "I'm not telling anyone to stop going to church" then says what we are doing is not correct. Then why go? I wholeheartedly believe what is done in modern "church" is not beneficial and the whole model should be scrapped.
Everyone was speaking a different dialect of the Koine Greek in the 1st century, the dialects could differ as much as Spanish and Italian today. "how hear we every man in our own tongue wherein we were born" Acts 2:8 states this plainly. Its talking about foreign languages. Speaking "in tounges" is NOT some mystical thing like pentecostal charismatics would have you believe. The power of suggestion, peer pressure, preconceived notions, adrenaline and self hypnotic states induced by repetitive affirmations ["But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do:" Mat 6:7A] in combination with modern charlitantizm, live music bands, and showmanship honed to a craft, is a powerful combination. You go you a rock concert people will do all kinds of crazy things. There are two words in the original Greek text that have translated into the English word "tounge" glossa [Strong's #1100] (literally tounge, both the organ and a language) and dialektos [Strong's#1258] (we get the word dialect from that) Paul said said you need a translator, again this goes back to the edification of the church body, you can't translate this modern "speaking in tounges" charismatic babbing nonsense. 1 Corinthians 14:27-28 states this plainly "27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God."
Thank you for your kind words. I'm working on a book on this topic. If you'd like to be updated on its publication, you can join the email list at tomwadsworth.com/contact.
What you describe has been the practice of the Plymouth Brethren since they were established in the 1830s. I grew up going to the "reading meeting" every Wednesday evening. When I was a boy it was a privilege to be asked to do the reading aloud of the passage under discussion. A number of brothers (not all) would have a dialogue about the passage. This went on for the better part of an hour. We did have preaching meetings and pray meetings too. The meeting that we considered to be a "worship" meeting was the Lord's Supper because it it was the meeting of remembrance of Him. It was the only meeting that was occupied exclusively with the Lord and nothing else. It was not a testimony meeting or a preaching meeting. Those things had their place but not at that time that was exclusively for His remembrance.
It is so today in our local gathering. We begin each Lord's Day with the Lord's supper. We all then have a fellowship lunch together. This is followed by a reading meeting. I so look forward to Lord's Days. 😊
The hymns we used to sing together were in simpler chords and we could sing in harmony with one another...... Most of the new songs are real high and in some chord that's not harmonizable with one another.....
But that makes these modern songs so great for emotional manipulation and idolization of the “worship team” as rock stars and encourages the congregation to pay them with the first fruits of their salary for the privilege of being manipulated and getting the sing along rock concert experience.
It’s a vital part of how churches make a killing by making people feel inadequate and dependent on the pastor/message/uplifting in order to have a relationship with God.
Without all of that we’d all be equal under God and give our money to the poor instead of to rich pastors and the “worship team”. We’d have to be responsible for ourselves instead feeling it’s OK to rely on and depend on someone else for intimacy with God. Plus we’d have to be more spiritually active in our families and communities. It’s so much easier just to pay a pastor to do it all for us and get to live in ignorance and inferiority.
Sarcasm aside, I agree that easy to sing songs in small venues such as a living room encourage a more egalitarian atmosphere, less pressure to “perform”, and more focus on the meaning of and reason for the lyrics than the quality of the voice.
Thank you for this excellent teaching. Worshiping "in spirit and in truth," as Jesus said in John 4:24, is about an authentic, heartfelt connection with God that goes beyond location or ceremony. For those who feel alone in their pursuit of true worship and edification, remember that Jesus meets you personally, right where you are. Spiritual growth and deep worship can happen powerfully in solitude through prayer, reflection, and study, without the need for a crowd. If you can't find others who share your commitment to sincere worship, take heart-God honors your devotion and will strengthen you. Even when fellowship seems out of reach, you are never alone; your faith and pursuit of truth connect you with God, who sees and values your dedication.
Thank you for your post. I really needed to “hear” this as I have been saying to the LORD that I feel lonely🙁🤗🇬🇧
@flowers1-2-1 You are welcome. God is in control and we can't conjure up true fellowship. We can pray for it, and He always answers. It took me a long time to get it. It’s His will be done and it will be done, so be joyful in His grace to us.
Thank you for your kind words. I'm working on a book on this topic. If you'd like to be updated on its publication, you can join the email list at tomwadsworth.com/contact.
Tom, this is fantastic! Imagine how many "words" are perverted by the modern-day-church...
Thank you for your support. I'm working on a book on this topic. If you'd like to be updated on its publication, you can join the email list at tomwadsworth.com/contact.
I like most of what you've been saying, as it speaks to questions I have had for a few years. And I too have concerns with many worship music services and the spoonfeeding sermons. But I tend to disagree that we are not to do "worship" because we need not have sacrifices. Have fairly recently presented a Bible study on Psalm 21, God tells us that the sacrifices he wants are a broken and contrite spirit. So I think we are to worship in our services and present the sacrifice of our heart (not necessarily our "praise" music and one-way sermons).
The NT distinguishes between literal sacrifices (e.g., the blood of bulls and goats), which are offered by Jews and pagans, and spiritual sacrifices offered by Christians, which would include the continual offering of a "sacrifice of praise" (Heb 13:15) and the offering of our bodies as a living sacrifice (Rom 12:1).
Further, the Greek words for "worship" are never applied to what Christians do in assembly. They actually don't even mean "worship" in the sense that we use the term.
@@tomwadsworth I get that, find it interesting and agree. Yet I can't let go of that idea that we are to worship, offering our sacrifices of a broken and contrite heart, praises, and our bodies as a living sacrifice, and possibly other such aspects. Further, we are to be "a royal priesthood, a chosen generation", which also implies the need to continue with sacrificial worship services. Thus just as the sanctuary services had morning and evening sacrifices, perhaps I as a priest am to offer my worship sacrifices to Jesus, the High Priest, myself each morning and evening (so that I may continue to abide in Him). Perhaps leaving Sabbath assemblies to be a time of all the individual royal priests to assembly to edify each other and to glorify God together.
I certainly agree that we should not be "offering" Jesus "blood and body" as offerings in our assemblies as Jesus was offered "once for all", but rather that we should "thus do in REMEMBRANCE". I've been thinking about your interesting study the past few weeks after having listened to all on your TH-cam channel and trying to asses how/where to integrate it with my understanding of the Bible. So thank-you for sharing what you have been studying about.
@@wandawiebe1581 Thanks for your patience and kind consideration of my content.
I suggest that the reason "we can't let go of the idea that we are to worship in our assemblies" comes from our tradition, not from scripture. The NT nowhere uses Greek "worship" words to identify why Christians came together or to describe what they did when they got together.
Further, the idea that the Jews had "Sabbath assemblies" is another case of anachronism. That is, we are forcing our modern assembly habits and ideas onto the ancient Jews. It's true that first-century Jews had developed a tradition of gathering in the synagogue on the Sabbath, but the Torah and the entire OT nowhere command or imply that the Jews were to have weekly "Sabbath assemblies."
If we erase all our preconceived notions of the nature and purpose of a Christian gathering, and then open the New Testament to search afresh for evidence about those gatherings, we will never conclude that those meetings were for "worship" -- OR that somehow those meetings were meant to somehow replicate Jewish temple activities.
@@tomwadsworth I get that many people may have difficulties letting go of tradition, but you only have my word that I am eager to let go of faulty tradition. As for the "Sabbath assemblies" I was referencing, I was not speaking about the Jews, but about those in Acts. Some of those would be reaching out to Jews where they were found weekly, but other instances were after they were uninvited from the synagogues but those interested still wanted to meet to hear more of the apostles teachings.
As for there being nothing but tradition for Sabbath assemblies, the creation account and the commandments certainly point to 'remembering to rest' weekly, and Jesus, our example, "went into the synagogue on the Sabbath AS WAS HIS CUSTOM", and even held the reading there. So if Jesus' keeping of the Sabbath included weekly assembling, and if Paul tells us to "forget not the assembling of yourselves together", then I can't accept your premise that there is no direction/command for us to assemble weekly. I certainly do agree that weekly 'priestly offerings of sacraments' is not in line with NT teachings.
I note that you didn't respond to my reasons for having difficulty letting go of the concept of worship relating to being a royal priesthood, etc. I should do more study on the connection between that and the different aspects of what has been translated as worship as you have pointed out - how I wish the Bible translations were more consistent and accurate in the words that they used to translate (how blessed we are to have online interlinear/dictionary resources that I have come to much appreciate). Thank-you for your providing further information in my journey away from tradition towards Bible truth.
The “Way” is narrow indeed, and very few find it💯✅👍🏾🇬🇧
The current church lost the way in many ways. All churches started by the apostles were named by the place they were gathering not a certain name. Also the practices of believers in the gathering were prayers, reading scriptures, breaking of bread, eating together, feasts of mercy, distributing wealth to each other, teaching, singing psalms, hymns to one another, building one another. This practices were continuous. This is rare today. I also believe that we really lack the power of God in action in the church today because of this deviation. It is sad.
👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👍🏾✅💯🇬🇧
It’s not surprising that the church can go off track, the Israelites did too. I think it’s good that people like Tom challenge the status quo, with biblical truths. I am disillusioned by much church gathering in the last decade, and the message Tom shares makes sense to why. Conversely I find the thing I am most inspired by is when edification is taking place between believers. Especially small group conversations. Opponents to Tom should engage his message and not resort to attacking him or his understanding. Address the message, not the messenger
The so called "Church" has become a LLC instead of realizing its us gathering to be instructed and edifying one another
Question Tom... I'm interested in your view on how the early body of believers viewed Faith in general. While I don't believe in works based salvation, I tend to side with the Eastern Orthodox view of faith in that we are saved by grace through a faith that works through love. This seems to be more of a complete definition of what it means to be a Christian.
I'm concerned in what I see regarding what appears to be an increase of free grace theology thinking. Early Christians called themselves The Way. It seems like modern day protestantism would closer side with the belief that one just has to make a mental statement of faith to be considered saved. Obviously we are saved by confessing our belief in Christ and His finished work, but before that even occurs we must have a broken and contrite heart and repent. Repent and believe, not believe and repent.
Sanctification in my church at least according to some elders who appear to be Calvinistic in nature... make it seem like it's a long drawn-out process, when in reality once someone comes to Christ it's usually extremely transformative. That process of cleaning oneself up will continue. The flesh will war against the Holy Spirit. It just seems like when I speak about victory over sin in my men's group, I get the proverbial thrashing like I'm trying to work for my salvation. There's this knee jerk reaction to come against holiness almost it seems.
Sanctification appears to be more akin to them as lying nine times today versus 10 times yesterday. We are called to forsake our sin, give it up... not swim in it.
What's your view on obedience in general? I see a clear distinction between someone trying to be obedient to God as they wish to glorify Him, vs someone else who's legalistic in nature.
David was a man after God's heart. It seems like he should be the example not the exception.
To respond to all your thoughts could require about six 300-page doctoral dissertations! I'll be painfully brief.
1. I like the way you're analyzing these issues, recognizing that each theological camp can have weaknesses.
2. I personally refuse to align with any camps (e.g., Orthodox, Protestant, Calvinist, Free Grace, Holiness, etc.). They all have strengths and weaknesses.
3. I try to focus on clear teachings of scripture, freely acknowledging when scripture is not clear.
4. Don't let the camps force us into division. Strife, dissensions, and factions are works of the flesh (Gal 5:20), but the fruit of the Spirit is love, peace, patience, and kindness (Gal 5:22).
5. Beware of those who have "a sick craving for controversial questions and disputes about words, from which come envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between people of depraved mind and deprived of the truth" (1 Tim 6:4-5).
6. Love and unity are highly emphasized throughout the NT. Let those priorities guide you through these questions.
I just want to get away from drum sets , sound systems , and light shows . That would be lovely.
As far as I can see the biblical concept of believers gathering for "horizontal" fellowship, a group meeting online (in a zoom call) equally serves the aim of "gathering" & fellowship.
Also listen to Frank Viola. He also wrote a lot of books on this subject. I met Wolfgang Simpson in 2009 in South Africa while he gave a presentation on his research. He put words to my thoughts which started in 2008 regarding this subject.
The observations I have noticed is that too often there is the dismissing the context of Old Testament or Hebraic contextualization in the early church. I have heard several videos of Tom's already and he seemed to miss Ephesians 5:19 in what it means to sing to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Now Tom does highlight the one anothering that this passage highlights as well. Excellent point he has. The interesting thing that I read last night was that the Psalms are broken down in the three genres. These would have been taught to new believers to do to each other. I was wondering about the songs of accent and found out that they would have been considered hymns. All of the “Songs of Ascents” (Pss 119-134, LXX) are identified as Odes (hymns). So the edification would speak to others of Adonai where the worship would unite the idea of loving others and to God.
Dr. I’m a fan of your videos. You have talked a lot about home gatherings but you haven’t really talked on the following.
Can you touch on the early christian Jews and gentiles meeting in synagogues like the Bereans or where gentiles met in prayer houses on the sabbath like in Acts 16 in Philippi? Was worship/ προσκυνέω done in these places?
Could you also talk about the liturgical prayers literally in the Greek “the prayers” in Acts 2:42 that the apostles practiced daily and was this something that the church modeled after?
The evidence indicates that (1) Christians did not "meet" in synagogues. Paul indeed went into the synagogues to proclaim the gospel to the Jews that regularly gathered there. (2) In the first century, Jews did not describe their synagogue activities as "worship" (whether proskuneo, latreuo, leitourgeo, sebomai, or threskeia). Throughout the Septuagint and the NT, those terms applied to specific (and different) temple activities, not synagogue activities.
"The prayers" in Acts 2:42 (ταῖς προσευχαῖς) could refer to assembly prayer, or it could also refer to the continual prayers of the disciples regardless of the venue. Prayers play a pivotal role in Luke’s narrative, being found 30 times in the 28 chapters of Acts and often at pivotal moments in the church’s progress. So, it is not surprising that 2:42 characterizes the church’s life as devoted to "the prayers."
In theory, the use of the plural with the article could refer to fixed or liturgical prayers, such as the Lord’s Prayer, but at this embryonic stage of Christian activity, it seems unlikely that Christians would have so quickly adopted or embraced fixed prayers, especially in the immediate atmosphere of widespread Spirit-led speaking (Acts 2:2-18, 38; 4:31). There are no clear examples of "liturgical prayers" elsewhere in the NT. And remember that Jesus, in the so-called Sermon on the Mount, spoke negatively of "thoughtless repetition" in prayer (Mt 6:7).
Our tendency to view "the prayers" as "liturgical prayers" is probably a case of anachronism. In other words, since many modern assemblies routinely have liturgical prayers, we assume that the first-century church did the same thing.
We also tell the joke of a guy that drank a lot and got saved. He testified before he got saved: 'I used to drink 24 beer a night! Now I am saved and only drink 12!! Modern church ie catholic, Anglican, baptist, charismatic etc are like this. They still have a clergy and laity class. The five fold ministry is confined to the clergy class, the elders and deacons to the laity class, if there is classes it should be the other way around. They kept 50% of the service practises of the catholic pagan church of the middle ages. Ie sermons. The inherently believe in gnosis ie salvation via knowledge. Like Paul said in Romans 1 'even thou the KNEW the truth they rebelled'. They think if they know more they will be better Christians, the leaders think if they teach more everything will be good, and God will be pleased. Lully everyone into a drugged enfused stupor of passivity....
♥️✝️♥️
Thank you for your support. I'm working on a book on this topic. If you'd like to be updated on its publication, you can join the email list at tomwadsworth.com/contact.
@tomwadsworth While reading some of the other comments I noticed you mentioned that "(1) Christians did not "meet" in synagogues." I agree that's what happened in Acts, yet I watched an archeological documentary (I forget who or what city in Turkey) showing a Jewish synagogue with Jewish carvings that also had Christian carvings, before being destroyed. Their interpretation was that with enough converts to Christianity, the synagogue was transformed into a very early Christian church, before being destroyed by early pagan Roman persecution. Not sure if you were aware of that. Sorry I can't recall the details.
I could never get past the way 'worship' is represented by Paul in Romans 12: 1, 2. Its about the way of thinking, not paganistic actions. Prayer is not a pagan ceremony it is living in connection with our Saviour.
Traditions are hard to change because people find it comfortable, because the influence of the internet has opened up how complicated and evil the world we never seen ourselves. Its about our own comfort zones. Jesus said l.have overcome the world. The world in jesus day and what his people endured is not as we experience.
Tom are you of the pentecostal persuasion brother?
My church path has not led me to Pentecostal churches, but I have many good friends (brothers and sisters in Christ) who are of the "Pentecostal persuasion."
@tomwadsworth what i mean brother is not do you fellowship in a Pentecostal fellowship but do you believe in speaking in tongues as pentecostals do etc?
@@Jeff-gr3yl With so many people claiming to speak in tongues, I find it hard to deny that it exists. But for myself, I have never spoken in tongues.
Everyone was speaking a different dialect of the Koine Greek in the 1st century, the dialects could differ as much as Spanish and Italian today. "how hear we every man in our own tongue wherein we were born" Acts 2:8 states this plainly. Its talking about foreign languages. Speaking "in tounges" is NOT some mystical thing like pentecostal charismatics would have you believe. The power of suggestion, peer pressure, preconceived notions, adrenaline and self hypnotic states induced by repetitive affirmations ["But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do:" Mat 6:7A] in combination with modern charlitantizm, live music bands, and showmanship honed to a craft, is a powerful combination. You go you a rock concert people will do all kinds of crazy things.
There are two words in the original Greek text that have translated into the English word "tounge" glossa [Strong's #1100] (literally tounge, both the organ and a language) and dialektos [Strong's#1258] (we get the word dialect from that) Paul said said you need a translator, again this goes back to the edification of the church body, you can't translate this modern "speaking in tounges" charismatic babbing nonsense. 1 Corinthians 14:27-28 states this plainly "27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God."
Love Tom's teaching; however, he seems to contradict himself. "I'm not telling anyone to stop going to church" then says what we are doing is not correct. Then why go? I wholeheartedly believe what is done in modern "church" is not beneficial and the whole model should be scrapped.
Everyone was speaking a different dialect of the Koine Greek in the 1st century, the dialects could differ as much as Spanish and Italian today. "how hear we every man in our own tongue wherein we were born" Acts 2:8 states this plainly. Its talking about foreign languages. Speaking "in tounges" is NOT some mystical thing like pentecostal charismatics would have you believe. The power of suggestion, peer pressure, preconceived notions, adrenaline and self hypnotic states induced by repetitive affirmations ["But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do:" Mat 6:7A] in combination with modern charlitantizm, live music bands, and showmanship honed to a craft, is a powerful combination. You go you a rock concert people will do all kinds of crazy things.
There are two words in the original Greek text that have translated into the English word "tounge" glossa [Strong's #1100] (literally tounge, both the organ and a language) and dialektos [Strong's#1258] (we get the word dialect from that) Paul said said you need a translator, again this goes back to the edification of the church body, you can't translate this modern "speaking in tounges" charismatic babbing nonsense. 1 Corinthians 14:27-28 states this plainly "27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God."