The fallacy of CENI

[Johnb]

The fallacy of CENI.  When taken as the proper method of understanding the bible this is a flawed theology.

Commands, (approved) examples and necessary inference but also law of exclusion and law of silence is added to round out the method.

Problems
1. If we must obey NT commands then we must obey them all.  However, every group wants to pick and choose or quibble over semantics and say certain commands were not for all times etc.  

2. Human logic is applied also to approved examples.  Those who hold to CENI insist that we must take the LS but not in an upper room when both are approved examples. If we must follow approved examples we must follow them all.  If not who get to make the call?

3. Necessary inference now here is a good one.  Clearly human logic is at work here.  What seems to be inferred to one is not clear to another.  God will determine our salvation on how well we decipher some secrete code?

4. Law of exclusion.  CENI folks are not willing to apply this law to all NT verses.

The legalistic person uses CENI but only wants to debate certain conclusions they arrive at not the validity of their method.  Like all methods of interpretation it is flawed.  It is no better or worse than many other methods.  However, the conclusions of ones human logic should not be used to judge who is or is not in good standing with God.

[DCR]

It's actually a form of the "regulative principle of worship," which was devised by John Calvin, Zwingli, and other early Protestant Reformers.

For further reading on this subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulative_principle_of_worship

http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/McMahonRegulativePrinciple.htm

http://www.reformedprescambridge.com/articles/ICRC_RPW_Final.pdf

I think we owe it to our Presbyterian and Baptist roots, even though most mainline churches of those traditions drifted away from that approach (with the exception of some conservative Baptists and Presbyterians, such as Primitive Baptists and other independent Presbyterian and Baptists churches).

So, really, our philosophy on how to regulate worship might be characterized as "Calvinist" in origin.  

[blituri]

I think it is a fact that Calvin, all founders of denominations, all of the church fathers and the common understanding of civil society always taught that practice of Commands and approved examples.  The "I" part has always meant that YOU cannot infer something and then impose it on ME or a whole society. The Disciples used the "Law of Silence" to impose instruments after which it became the WILL OF JESUS CHRIST.  In practice, that is always the fact: the person who objects on THEIR OWN inference is defined as SOWING DISCORD for not going along to get along.  Now, that is a truly criminal mind.  Jesus identified the Sons of the Devil by saying "they speak on their own." In fact Christ in Isaiah 58 outlaws seeking your own pleasure or SPEAKING YOUR OWN WORDS.  Peter recorded his eye and ear-witness to MARK as false teachers those who did not "teach that which HAD been taught."  People DENY a right for God which they assume for themselves.

Acts 4:20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.

Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Jer 13:8
Thus saith the Lord, After this manner will I mar the pride of Judah, and the great pride of Jerusalem. Jer 13:9
This evil people, which refuse to hear my words,
        which walk in the imagination of their heart, [twisted]
        and walk after other gods, to serve them,
        and to worship them, shall even be as this girdle, which is good for nothing. Jer 13:10

Paul outlaws doubtful disputations in Romans 14 by the sects marked by DIET but all who practiced musical worship.

Rom. 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

Paul defines the ekklesia or synagogue in Romans 15 and outlaws SELF-pleasure: to we readers  of fact that is the same laded burden Jesus died to remove: it means creating spiritual anxiety through religious rituals. A laded burden in Hebrew and Greek defines SINGING a spirit-arousing song always identified as "enchantment or Sorcery" as John in Revelation 18 agrees.  By REJECTING the CENI most preachers and ALL songs are calculated to PLEASURE the lust of the flesh, of the eyes and of the EARS.

“Disputing” implies a questioning mind and suggests an arrogant attitude by those who assume they’re always right. Arguing with others in the body of Christ is disruptive. That’s why Paul spent the first part of chapter 2 on humility.

To dwell above, with saints we love, that will be grace and glory
But to live below with saints we know, now that’s a different story!

Dialogismos is used 14 times in the NAS (Matthew; Mark; Luke 6x; Romans 2x; 1 Corinthians; Philippians; 1 Timothy; James) and is translated as: argument, 1; disputing, 1; dissension, 1; doubts, 1; motives, 1; opinions, 1; reasonings, 2; speculations, 1; thoughts, 3; what...were thinking, 2

Dialogismos is used 11 times in the Septuagint (LXX) (Ps 40:5, 56:5, 92:5, 94:11, 139:2, 139:20, 146:4, Isa 59:7, Jer 4:14, Lam 3:60-61) Dialogismos often means the perverse, vain thinking which contemplates destruction (Ps. 94:11), and is turned against God (Jer. 4:14; Isa. 59:7) and against the godly (Ps. 56:5).

Lam. 3:60 Thou hast seen all their vengeance and all their imaginations against me.
Lam. 3:61 Thou hast heard their reproach, O LORD, and all their imaginations against me;
Lam. 3:62 The lips of those that rose up against me, and their device against me all the day.
Lam. 3:63 Behold their sitting down, and their rising up; I am their musick.

    H4485 mangıynâh man-ghee-naw' From H5059 ; a satire:—music.
    H5059 nâgan naw-gan' A primitive root; prop to thrum, that is, beat a tune with the fingers; especially to play on a stringed instrument; hence (generally) to make music:—player on instruments, sing to the stringed instruments, melody, ministrel, play (-er. -ing)

    5060. naga, naw-gah´; a primitive root; properly, to touch, i.e. lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphem., to lie with a woman); by implication, to reach (figuratively, to arrive, acquire); violently, to strike (punish, defeat, destroy, etc.):beat, (x be able to) bring (down), cast, come (nigh), draw near (nigh), get up, happen, join, near, plague, reach (up), smite, strike, touch.

Commenting on Phil 2:14, MacArthur notes that dialogismos...

soon developed the more specific ideas of questioning, doubting, or disputing the truth of a matter. In Romans 14:1, the word is used of passing judgment on another believer’s opinions and in 1 Timothy 2:8 it is rendered “dissension.” Whereas grumbling is essentially emotional, disputing is essentially intellectual. A person who continues to murmur and grumble against God will eventually argue and dispute with Him. (MacArthur, J. Philippians. Chicago: Moody Press)

That is EXCLUDED from the short assembly time.

Passing judgment demands INFLICTING something on another person: speaking out of their own imagination would JUDGE that the commanded Word of Christ (Spirit) are not ADEQUATE.  The form of singing was always known by the simpliest of people as AFFLICTING people by using external force to create a mental effect: that is why the religious music and the sexual/perverted connection is one of the clearest facts of actual recorded history.

[s1n4m1n]

I have to agree with DCR and blituri. Certainly the CE part of CENI is not exclusive to the RM. In the past they called it precepts and precedents. I read a book written in the 1800s by a Presbyterian that responded to the Baptists arguments against infant baptism. The entirety of the Baptist arguments the writer quoted were to the effect that there was no precept nor precedent for infant baptism in the New Testament.

Reading Alexander Campbell's debates on baptism, I found he used the exact same arguments as the Baptists.

[Johnb]

Yes The Campbells were even part of the baptist for a while.

However, neither the B. or P.  use CENI in the same way as the conservative CoC to exclude all chrustians except themselves. 

[blituri]

When you read the false teachers they will not tell you--because they haven't read it-- that A. Campbell used the term "c"hristian to identify anyone who walked by christian principles: like saying we are a christian nation. They say he was open to fellowship those among the sects.

It is true that he would rather have as a friend a person who had never been baptized than an evil person who HAD been baptized.

However, he defined a "C"hristian in the save sense as only one who had been baptized.  He said that THERE MUST be such baptized believers among the sects. However, it so then he said that they must come out of Babylon.  He would not attend, support and defend those who discorded the Disciples and Christian Churches which added instruments.

Furthermore, he said that if one ASSUMES that one is saved and fails to teach them the truth about baptism that they are BEYOND the pale of being a Christian.

He did not FELLOSHIP the sects although he would preach just about anywhere.  However, he would not preach unto the organ and organist had been silenced. 

The church of Christ EXCLUDES no one if they are honorable people: no one asks if they have been baptized before they can participate in a GREAT COMMUNION.  Anyone can attend, listen, speak up in classes and whatever.

The INSTRUMENTALISTS who are founded on a different principle will AUTOMATICALLY exclude 1/3 to 1/2 of the OWNERS of a congregation just so their friends can PERFORM.  ALL churches which use instruments AJUTOMATICALLY excludes all of those who will not participate while the mock Jesus by refusing to speak HIS Words.

However, one who is known to be false is not allowed to take a leading role, preach or teach. And YOU don't know of any instrumental group which is different.  You don't know a single LIBERATED congregation who would allow me to simply stand up and READ all of the passages violently opposed to instruments.

They will all take your money? Certainly, but to mount a hate campaign against people just because they won't ACCEPT the false views of music and worse will not STOP teaching the truth is pretty evil.  The instrumentalists have changed their chant: now they say that GOD COMMANDED MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS and if YOU do not do it you are DISOBEDIENT.

If you PREFER not to use instruments they will give you a stamp on the forehead. However, if you teach AGAINST instruments the new term is ANTI-instrumental and you are fair game for games fair or foul.

[Johnb]

For anyone who has actually read what the Campbells and Stone said and wrote that was laughable.

[blituri]

When you get through laughing you might read ALL of the Lunenburg correspondence, not just the tidbits you read out of the highest level of incompetence which rests it's reputation on the idea that the Church of Christ invented the CENI.

There is no reason that you should have run across that in a 'college.'

[marc]

I've read a lot more than the Lunenberg letters, although I didn't take RM history in college.  It's all out there online.

I've even read quite a bit of the MH.

[blituri]

The name Christian is now current in four significations:--

1. The ancient primitive and apostolic import simply indicates follower of Christ. With a strict regard to its original and scriptural meaning, my favorite and oft repeated definition is,

    A Christian is one that habitually believes all that Christ says, and habitually does all that he bids him.

2. But its national and very popular sense implies no more than a professor of Christianity. Thus we have the Christian nations, as well as the Pagan and Mahometan nations; the Christian sects as well as the sects political and philosophical.

3. But as soon as controversies arose about the ways and means of putting on Christ or of making a profession of his religion, in a new and special or appropriated sense,

    "a Christian" means one who first believes that Jesus is the Christ, repents of his sins, is then immersed on confession into Christ's death, and thenceforth continues in the Christian faith and practice.

4. But there yet remains the sense in which I used the term in the obnoxious phrase first quoted by our sister of Lunenburg. As in the judgment of many, some make the profession right and live wrong; while others make the profession wrong, but live right; so they have adopted this style--"I don't know what he believes, nor how he was baptized, but I know he is a Christian." Thus Adam Clarke quotes some poet:

    "You different sects who all declare,
    "Lo! Christ is here, and Christ is there!
    "Your stronger proofs divinely give,
    "And show me where the Christians live!"

Now in this acceptation of the word, I think there are many, in most Protestant parties, whose errors and mistakes I hope the Lord will forgive; and although they should not enter into all the blessings of the kingdom on earth, I do fondly expect they may participate in the resurrection of the just.

The words Jew, Israel, circumcision, disciple, are used in the same manner, even in the sacred writings: "They are not all Israel that are of Israel"--"An Israelite indeed"--"The true circumcision"--"A Jew inwardly and outwardly"--"Then are you my disciples indeed," &c.

I am glad to see our brethren so jealous of a correct style--so discriminating, and so independent. They are fast approaching to the habit of calling Bible things by Bible names.

    They only misunderstood me as using the term in its strictest biblical import,
    while in the case before us I used it in its best modern acceptation.

[HRoberson]

The problem with CENI is the people who try to apply the concept without knowing what God actually is saying in Scripture, or who don't know how to interpret written documents appropriately.

[Johnb]

The problem with CENI is the people who try to apply the concept without knowing what God actually is saying in Scripture, or who don't know how to interpret written documents appropriately.

Amen!

[Johnb]

When you get through laughing you might read ALL of the Lunenburg correspondence, not just the tidbits you read out of the highest level of incompetence which rests it's reputation on the idea that the Church of Christ invented the CENI.

There is no reason that you should have run across that in a 'college.'

I have read the whole letter.  I have taught RM history.  The same guy published a papper called "The Christian Baptist"  T. Campbell  said in the D&A that the church of Christ on earth is one....  This was before there was a RM and over 100 years before the CoC as we now know it.  Neither Alex or Tom was a legalist nor did they believe that their little movement was the whole of the body of Christ.  How can you call for unity of all believers if tere were no Christians in the sects?  It is you and your dependence on Piney.com that is wrong and trying to re write our history.

[Mere Nick]

The problem with CENI is the people who try to apply the concept without knowing what God actually is saying in Scripture, or who don't know how to interpret written documents appropriately.

That wouldn't be such a big problem if folks only tried to do the applying to themselves.

[blituri]

I told you and you DID NOT read that Alexander admitted that there MUST be baptized believers in all of the sects and if so they MUST come out of Babylon.  Alexander didn't want to be as silly as those promoting UNITY by becoming Christian Churches by asking that IF he believed that the SECTS were ok then WHY in the name of common sense would he have spend his life preaching SOMETHING ELSE.  You just have to confess that those who identify themselves as "among the scholars" are terminally ignorant or terminally evil.  It is a PATTERNISM to lie about the Declaration and Address and the Lunenburg letters as their favorite for demanding UNITY by EXCLUDING the owners of the property and ALL of those who continue to be and teach Bible and historical literacy universally associating music as violating specific demands and minimal common decency if they INTENDED to conduct school of the Bible.

Yes, he said that but you proof text just as Patrick Mead and all of the new ANTIS.

PROP. 1. That the Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every place
        that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him
        in all things according to the Scriptures,
        and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct,
        and of none else; as none else can be truly and properly called Christians.

People who lie about all of the "instrument" passages and church history, and CLAIM to be guided by visions (Lucado), audible voices (possible re Shelly) or by the Holy Spirit guiding the "leaders" (Atchley) do not manifest a Christian temper and conduct.

When Thomas got off the boat he had the D&A and defined the desired pattern for continuing the RESTORATION MOVEMENT begun by John Calvin and furthered among some Presbyterians.

    [Whatever their particular beliefs most early protestant groups called themselves the Church of Christ.
    Locke specifically uses the term to define those groups which are ruled by the Bible only]
    The English can prove that the Church of Christ as we know it had existed long before the Campbells.

    http://www.piney.com/ChofChristName.html

2. That although the Church of Christ upon earth must necessarily exist in particular and distinct societies, locally separate one from another, yet there ought to be no schisms, no uncharitable divisions among them. They ought to receive each other as Christ Jesus hath also received them, to the glory of God. And for this purpose they ought all to walk by the same rule, to mind and speak the same thing; and to be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment.

Neither Cambell believed that unity IS but that unity OUGHT TO BE based on teaching the same thing. Adding instruments intended SCHISMS with the attitude of "get over it or get out."

3. That in order to this, nothing ought to be inculcated upon Christians as articles of faith; nor required of them as terms of communion,
       but what is expressly taught and enjoined upon them in the word of God.

BUMP closed communion. BUMP instrumental music. BUMP a clergy. BUMP a law of giving.

Nor ought anything to be admitted, as of Divine obligation, in their Church constitution and managements,

    but what is expressly enjoined by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ
    and his apostles upon the New Testament Church;
    either in express terms or by approved precedent.

Instrumental music (noise) is ADMITTED and IMPOSED if you want to have communion with the ones who just swiped your church, church family and often your marriage.

John Locke 29 August 1632 – 28 October 1704)

But since men are so solicitous about the true church, I would only ask them here, by the way, if it be not more agreeable to the Church of Christ

    to make the conditions of her communion consist in such things, and such things only,
    as the Holy Spirit has in the Holy Scriptures declared, in express words, to be necessary to salvation;

I ask, I say, whether this be not more agreeable to the Church of Christ
than for men to
      impose their own inventions and interpretations
      upon others as if they were of Divine authority,

The NEW mantra of the NACC and by Rick Atchley is that God Commanded instrumental praise and we must not be disobedient."

and to establish by ecclesiastical laws, as absolutely necessary to the profession of Christianity,
      such things as the Holy Scriptures do either not mention,
      or at least not expressly command?

Whosoever requires those things in order to ecclesiastical communion, which Christ does not require in order to life eternal, he may, perhaps,
        indeed constitute a society accommodated to his own opinion and his own advantage;
        but how that can be called the Church of Christ which is established upon laws that are not His,
        and which excludes such persons from its communion
        as He will one day receive into the Kingdom of Heaven, I understand not.

If you listened to Patrick Mead etal they TWIST the D&A at the same time they appeal to John Locke as a "rationalists." They just HATE John Locke (whom they cannot have read) for saying that THEY do not have the ability to get visions, hear voices or have God prompt them to know ANYTHING which is not in the revealed Word.

When you read the "scholarly books" claiming ot be YOUR thought leaders, you will discover that they LIFT honorable scholars out of context as fodder to make THEIR POINT. Even then they quote some other writer and never to the original documents.  Olbricht made a job on the D&A but quotes literature out of context to make their point.

One of the majors of John Locke was to REPUDIATE most of the clergy who lifted statements out of context and then FABRICATED their own false doctrine.  Rubel Shelly promoting NARRATIVE THEOLOGY gives you liberty to write yourself into the Bible by using the remaining erroneous fragments.

Paul said, in effect, that "fools love to be fooled." Think about paying 10K to sweat yourself to death.