I Cor. 14:26-34, the clearest example of NT church practices, and the RPW

[Pergamum]

1 Corinthians seems to be the closest glimpse we have of seeing how NT worship was practiced.

But when it comes to the regulative principle of worship, I do not often see this text cited.



Also odd is that in 1 Corinthians 14:26-34 it seems that there is significant lay-involvement as well, almost everybody seems to be sharing a teaching, revelation, etc., whereas we often stress the speaking role of the ordained elders.

Is there evidence that we need to throw out this significant lay involvement due to its I Cor. 14 abuses?


And what can 1 cor. 14 teach us about how NT worship was, and should be, practiced

(i.e., what is descriptive and what is normative for us if often hard to ascertain).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I would dispute the observation. Paul was trying to correct so many problems in Corinth, it boggles the mind. So, I don't think Corinth is any safe guide as to normative practices. They apparently had an especially "gifted" bunch, or those who thought they were, which is why Paul sets out a method by which the best (or one's with the real gifts) could be "approved."

If they had an overabundance of prophetic and sign gifts, perhaps they should have had more missionary zeal.

There is a wealth of "ordinary" church and worship life scattered throughout the Acts and the Epistles. And in the Pastorals, you have what I would define as the clearest glimpse of NT church order spelled out in didactic form. They were written for such a purpose.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

I also believe that lay involvement in 1 Corinthians 14 is overblown. There were standards in place in the synagogues, which were normative for 1st century Christian worship, which help us to understand what Paul is teaching, in the historical milieu into which he spoke. The references to "each of you" need not refer to anyone in the congregation, but those approved teachers which sat on the "Rabbi's bench" a normal fixture in the synagogue. In verses 26-33 Paul is speaking of the "prophets" that is, the ordained or approved teachers of the Church, who, according to the usage of the synagogue, sat together at a designated place.

This is seen in Luke 4 where Christ enters the synagogue and stands to receive the scroll--this was not done by anyone in the congregation, but by the prophets--the teachers. There was also a particular dress that was worn by these men, designating them from the rest of the congregation.

 

[christianyouth]

Also, remember that for whatever reason, there seems to have been NO leadership in the church of Corinth. It's a lay-run church. This is why the pastoral epistles have been rejected by some scholars, because they talk about a form of church government that doesn't seem to be present in Corinth. Ehrman argues that early Christianity was made up of 'charismatic assemblies', and he cites Corinth as an example. And then argues that later on a 'hierarchichal' church government was developed. I think this makes sense, contrasting the pastoral epistles and 1st Clement with 1 Corinthians.

Timothy is given instructions on how to rule in the local assembly. He's told how to handle accusations against an elder(implying plurality of elders), how to teach the people of God, etc.

Contrast this with 1 Corinthians, where there is no mention of a local authority. He writes to the whole church as if they were laymen. So why, in 1 Timothy, do we see the Apostle Paul delegating authority to Timothy? That's a much different style of ruling then what was going on in Corinthians, where he appeals directly to the congregation.


Also, in 1 Clement, we know that there were teachers in Corinth, and that the Corinthians had rebelled against their rule. So what happened? How come there is no mention of leadership in 1 Corinthians, but then in 1 Clement there is mention of leadership?

My theory is this : The Apostles went around preaching the Gospel, and groups of believers formed. Later on, the Apostles sent leaders to these churches. Corinth was a church that had not yet received leaders.

So therefore, since they were a 'leaderless' church, we can't take them for our example.

Just my

Happy Thanksgiving all!
In Christ,
- Andy

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I do not feel this conclusion is warranted. It may be true that Corinth lacked effective leadership at this time, but to propose that it had no government is warrantless capitulation to revisionists' reading, in my opinion.

What about Apollos (1Cor.1:12 & 3:5)? What about Crispus (1Cor.1:14), who was "ruler of the synagogue" (Acts 18:8) before his conversion? And then there is Sosthenes, another previous ruler of the synagogue (Acts 18:17), who apparently is the one who goes to Paul (an inference from 1Cor.1:1) with the questions that are the motivation for Paul's writing 1Cor.

It seems to me that Sosthenes' departure on errand (and possibly Apollos' departure by the time of this letter) had left a church weakened by internal divisions in a position of having almost nothing by way of effective on-site leadership. Hence, in his greeting Paul makes no special note of writing to the "elders" in Corinth, along with the brethren (compare Phil.1:1).

But it seems a stretch to think that Paul had left a church in a rudderless state, or without a captain, helmsman, and crew to safeguard the passengers and cargo.

In short, the revisionist argument seems circular to me, and actually much dependent on the Pastorals being forgeries.

 

[christianyouth]

I think the very beginning chapter in 1 Corinthians shows us that there was no clear leadership. Some of the people had allegiance to Paul, some to Appolos, some to Peter. Why was there this division among them if the church was being led, locally, by elders? It seems like Paul would have addressed the problem of division differently if there was local leadership in place. He could have written something like Ignatius' wrote, about obeying the bishops because they are Christ's representatives.

So I think you and I both agree that the church was in a leaderless state. But we both have different explanations of it. I'm really not sure which of the views is right, but I appreciate hearing another explanation for the state of the church at Corinth.