Wonderful then you do have some familiarity with chapter one where Paul clearly says that God not man has chosen preaching as the method through which He will minister the gospel to men.
You just don't like the preaching of Gods word. You are just not going to accept it at face value. That speaks volumes.
You slander me. You know nothing about me. I like 'preaching', even in the way you mean the word. If I'm doing it, I'd like to have a couple of hours sometimes. But when I read what the Bible says to do in church, it says, 'every one of you hath a doctrine'. Multiple people taught in church. It wasn't just one long sermon. Some people think 'preach' means talk loud and enthusiastic and teach means talk quiet. There is a lot of ignorance on what 'preach' means. I suggest before you stop spouting off about it, you do a word study, even just looking up how the word is used in the KJV or some other translation. Then look at the words that are translated as 'preach.' Remember when Paul is talking about his past preaching, remember his ministry. He traveled from place to place evangelizing people who haven't heard the Gospel. He did not stay in most of these churches for years. He did not stay there in a pulpit year after year doing what we think of as modern 'preaching.' So when you read the epistles saying he preached Christ to a church, think of what he did in Acts. Read what 'preach' means in contexts in Acts. In some places, words are translated as 'proclaim'.
It seems to me that it is likely that you've heard so much 'preaching' about the importance of preaching, and you have taken your modern experience with what is called 'preaching' and held your tradition up as something sacred to the extent that when you encounter ideas like this, you won't even allow yourself to consider whether you need to search the scriptures on the issue.
I am in favor of preaching and teaching. Typically with believers it's teaching, though unbelievers can receive teaching as well. The real question is who does it and how many mouths it comes out of in a church meeting. Paul uses the phrase 'every one of you' while many moderns would say 'the pastor.'
Are you saying that people get saved by hearing sermons every week? So would you condemn the person arrested for doing one on one evangelism who spends years in a foreign jail as unsaved because he missed a lot of Sunday sermons there in the jail cell?
If 'preached' refers to delivering a 45 minute oration behind a wooden box in a church building, would you say that those who put their faith in Christ after hearing the Gospel proclaimed to them by an individual talking in a normal tone of voice one on one on a street corner isn't really saved, because he did not get saved from hearing the long formal sermon in a church building?
What about your own soul? Are you putting your faith in hearing long orations week after week for salvation? Is that really how you want to interpret that verse about the foolishness of preaching saving them that believe?
Evangelism is the primary purpose of every born again believer. Discipleship is the second purpose of every believer. First to become a disciple through study of Gods word then to teach others.
It's great that you emphasize evangelism, but what is your Biblical support for something like that? I'd try to get some specific scripture in mind before saying something like that. The Bible says all things are created for God's pleasure, so we might propose that the primary purpose of a believer is to please God. Or we could it is God's will that we be conformed to the image of Christ and try to argue that that is our primary purpose. There is also the purpose of finding a bride for God's Son. And another eternal purpose is for God to display His wisdom to principalities and powers through the church. I can't see how one can argue that one is the 'primary purpose' from what is stated though in such a way as to prove off the top of my head. But saying evangelism is the primary purpose could be very man-centered, so concerned with man's salvation in our way of doing things that we lose sight of the goals God has in regard to His Son.
If your emphasis as an individual is on being conformed to the image of Christ, then that does not neglect the importance of community in the church and personal holiness. If you think evangelism and then teaching others the word are the main goals, then you can lose sight of these other things that are also important in God's will.
Now that's funny a false dichotomy behind my post. Funny because it comes from you after what you have postulated in this thread. Funny in an ironic fashion not humorous manner.
My postulations in this thread are backed up by some specific verses in the OP. I find it interesting that you do not address these specific arguments, these specific scriptures and what they actually say, but you still able to post quite a bit.
Yet they would not receive Christ as their Messiah though He raised the dead and made the lame to walk. What did the people say of Christ? Never a man spoke like this man. The people came out and listened for hours as He opened the scriptures to them. People will still gather today to see miracles but their interest is not spiritual. They seek to be entertained not enlightened.
An interest in miracles could be sincere. Some people did believe when they saw miracles. Did all those people in Israel believe when Jesus preached to them? No, lots of them did not. Did the Pharisees and Saducees all follow Jesus after hearing Him preach? No. But does that mean that preaching doesn't produce faith? No. It just means some people have hard hearts. Some people believed when they saw miracles. What did they believe? The preaching. Other people saw miracles and did not believe.
Israel is blinded for now until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled but that has nothing to do with tongues in the present church.
Your postulations about Israel based on Paul's quote of Isaiah require you to make a lot of unsupported leaps of reasoning not supported by any text of scripture. It doesn't even match the point Paul makes in the passage after quoting Isaiah. Doesn't it bother you that your view is based on elaborate unsupported elaborate reasoning which leads you to argue against obeying the very direct commands written in the passage? I would find that troublesome if I were you.
If you think that Israel is still in unbelief now, that's all the more argument to see tongues as a sign that continues until they repent. Paul writes to the Corinthians of coming behind in no spiritual gift waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
This is important. If you do not have a man knowledgeable in the scriptures then it is because you have not sought one from God.
The church I got to know is more pulpit-centered than I am. But the issue is the word of God, not some piece of furniture. If you equate the pulpit with the Bible, that's your problem. Where does the Bible mention a pulpit? Ezra used a platform once, but where is the pulpit? I'm not anti-pulpit, but I suspect most Christian Grecco-Roman homes did not have them when those churches we read about in the epistles were starting out.
The author of Hebrews write, 'for when for the time ye ought to be teachers.' What I see in I Corinthians 14 are that the church is to have meetings where the brethren take turns speaking and singing to edify the congregation. Paul says of this 'let all things be done unto edifying' and later warns that his instructions are the commandments of the Lord. What do you base all of your opinions about preaching and how it should be done on?
Eph 4:11 says that God gifts such men to the church. God also has warned that men will not endure sound doctrine but heap to themselves teachers having itching ears.
That's the verse that talks about the Lord giving gifts like apostles and prophets, too. Some people won't endure that doctrine these days.
You really have a problem with pulpits and preaching Gods word to the congregation when assembled together. Clear out the furniture and bring in the band. Make room for dancing and revelry in Gods house? But I digress.
There is plenty about dancing and orchestras or bands or whatever you want to call them in the Old Testament. I don't see emphasis on this in the New Testament. Church meetings can be had with the furniture in place. You may need to move a couch or chairs or something so people can see those who are speaking. But no furniture is necessary. You seem to be the one fixated on furniture not mentioned in scripture that became more popular long after the twelve apostles died. If some of those Jerusalem meetings were held in synagogues, maybe they had a lectern, but if Jesus followed custom rather than going against it when he sat teaching in the synagogue, maybe they did not.
