Johnb, greetings in Christ from sunny Texas,
Thank you for telling you that you are clueless here. I did give you a clue by telling you to read the other gospels on this. Bet a nickel you didn't--did you?
One should understand "feetwashing" before we go raring off trying to use it as a club to deny CENI..
Joh 13:5 After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.
Mar 14:13 And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him.
Mar 14:14 And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?
Mar 14:15 And he will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us.
Mar 14:16 And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
Mar 14:17 And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.
Mar 14:18 And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.
Mar 14:19 And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I?
Mar 14:20 And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish.
This what I mean when I talk about covenants--we have the same problem here--we read but we don't think beyond what we have been told and what to accept.
You want to make this a CENI..
First--question--what in that world is a man doing carrying water? Have you not considered whom in the home normally washes feet--normally carries the water? Consider that the house was empty--the master of the home was not there. If He had been, this issue would not of come up. If He was wealthy a slave would of washed the feet of the men.
In no way is this the "normal procedure" out of this culture for feet washing and yet you continue to try and force CENI UPON IT. Why? So you can use it as club to try and deny CENI???
Remember, you told me this..
I am staying with the text. I am also staying with the basic rules of CENI. If a specific command is given and it is reinforced with an approved example then it must be followed. This is the rule Thai is used for baptism singing only etc.
Now if you can make CENI out of of non normal procedure done once...have at it. Personally, I know better than to make that attempt. It is a fruitless effort.
In that Culture--foot washing was the norm---However in the worship of the early church did not happen when they were together bowing down and worshipping God.
The example in Tim is not a church ordinance--You are simply trying to appropriate it...from out of the culture and make it binding.
Now, the culture of the time covers both covenants...but it is not church-- And for those who can read--that foot washing took place at the Lord's last passover--which does not come after the cross. enough said.
The argument is made that one can not add to or substitute something else for the specific command. Christ gave the command and an approved example of foot washing in John 13.
MY observation-- One does not need to--Christ did indeed give the command..but not to the whole wide world--nope just to those men present with him at the Passover. An event as such that disappeared at the cross with the death of Jesus.
It is also obvious that it was a pratice in the first century because in I Tim 5:10 one of the requirement for a widow indeed was that she washed the saints feet. The argument can be and has been made by some that it is a mater of obedience because Peter was told if he did not let Jesus wash his feet he could have no part of Him.
My response--Oh it was indeed--but wasn't it a tad bit hard to do to the saints while they were using their feet??
"others" are as clueless as you are about this..
Now, let me admit something--for thirty years in the church...so was I...But I started listening and I started looking at exactly what I was or was not reading.
I also understand and agree that it was really about service and humility. I understand that wearing sandals and walking every where is no longer part of our culture. However, if one trys to apply the same liberty of interp. to other commands and examples they are condemned.
My response--It is with foot washing because folks are not using it not even as a "norm" from the culture nor considering that it was a Jew teaching Jews and Jesus used foot washing to make a point--not to make footwashing CENI.
This whole section is sectioned off at both ends with love--not footwashing.
Take the no instrument argument. "It only said to sing" A specific command so one can not do anything different. The argument that a psalm was always accompanied by an instrument is cast off.
My observation --Let's take this-- If you guys would stay with this--it would be all over..Now, do you think we are _____ using this argument? Or, are you that ____________? This is not hard to understand--if one wants to.
Now, I am serious--YOu know that I know better--and I know that you are not __________..yet you continue to parrot an argument that does not work--never has worked.
It is very much like the foot washing...you are attempting the same thing here...
 Because the command is sing---and it is not sing with an instrument--the folks who have gone before you knew this and you don't?
In the culture--foot washing was acceptable and necessary--In the culture psalms could be accompanied with an instrument
BUT NEVER EVER IN THE CHURCH..
Ok--are you trying to convince to yourself?
And if for no other reason unlike the Old Covenant--where we can find authorization for instruments--such is sadly lacking in the New Covenant. As Priests of the most high God offering up sacrifices--IM as a sacrifice is not approved by God thus making it an act of unrighteousness. Not a good deal.
The fact that folks were commanded to play instruments in the OT is cast off, harps in heaven and trumpets at the end of time does not matter.
My response--these are tired old and very ineffective defenses of IM. But I do understand that there is nothing better around.
When one as a Priest seeks to offer those sacrifices that are given by God for man to offer--those things are considered and you know they are.
You are "NOT IN HEAVEN" You "DO NOT LIVE UNDER THE MOSAIC LAW AND THE PROPHETS" You do however LIVE UNDER THE NEW COVENANT-- AND under that new covenant--there is no authorization for the insturment in man's worship.
We are also told to make a joyful noise. That can be done with instruments and other ways. The argument can be made that giving praise to God by making a joyful noise is what is important not what is used or not used.
You see you have to change the rules over and over to try an make this "pattern" that must be followed. I could do the same "the real purpose of the command was..." with baptism or any other command. However, this is only allowed when the patternist tells us it is.
My response--CENI comes to man from God..folks seem to tend to want to forget that. The command as I remember it is the "you" is literally everyone "you" not just a few "you's"
Remember, our common adversary--He knows better but also strongly believes that you do not--ergo this conversation with statements that are known to be faulty.
He is NOT interested in winning discussions only in winning souls..