In the fall of 2013 Mark Ciampa led a 3 part group study on "How Church's Make Decisions" Whole Series: http://goo.gl/MZHlW

1. Mark Ciampa
Ciampa Study Week 1
10/12/12
Mark Ciampa–I thought I‘d start with a little background to how we got to this point. This summer I had a
couple of different individuals who got in touch with me and said that how churches make decisions would be
very beneficial for them. I think there were some questions that came up in the financial group; should the
church do this, should the church do that. That sort of thing. When those individuals talked to me, I prayed
about it and I talked to a couple people here. I thought it would be a good idea for this type of stuff. Even
beyond that, maybe having recurring studies like this. Maybe, once every three months or something like that?
Maybe stop and have a time where we can do this sort of thing. That‘s just kind of where this comes from. What
we‘re going to do, spend about an hour or so on it. We‘ll be done by 8:15 for sure.
One of the things I want us to try and do is be real honest with each other. We‘re going to have a discussion
back and forth, but lets really try to be open and honest. I‘m going to start the way you should not start a
presentation. But I‘m going to do it anyway. I‘m going to start with a bunch of not‘s. I‘ll set the stage, I guess,
for what we‘re going to be doing; about how churches make decisions. This is not going to be a lecture. I‘m not
going to talk to you for an hour or so and you‘re going to take copious notes. That‘s not what this is. This is not
a free for all either. I‘ve been to far too many of those and you have twenty different people that say twenty
different things. You go home and you say ―Well, what did we do except hear twenty different opinions?‖ So,
we‘re not looking for this to a free for all, or what everybody thinks. But really, I hope this is going to be an
open study from the scriptures and a time for discussion for us here. I think it‘s important to have this discussion
and at a time right now, to do so.
So we‘re going to be looking at God‘s word and we‘ll be discussing. This is not a bashing of what other groups
think. That‘s not appropriate for us. We‘re not going to be doing that. On the other hand, I don‘t think it‘s going
to overlook incorrect interpretations about looking at scriptures. I don‘t think that would be healthy for us either.
So what we‘re going to try and do, is we are going to look at some different views about how different
individuals/groups look at how churches make decisions. Particularly, we‘re going to do that this evening.
This is not easy. This is not an easy thing for me to prepare. Generally speaking, I like to think, ―Okay, here‘s a
particular topic. Here‘s something. Let‘s go to this scripture or these group of scriptures, study it, and see what it
says.‖ But we can‘t do that here because there‘s not a scripture that we can go to that‘s going to talk about this.
So, I don‘t know if I‘d say it‘s been a struggle, but it hasn‘t been easy to try and put all this together. I‘ll just say
that for some of you, this may not be easy to listen to. I‘m not saying anyone here is of this mindset. There could
be. But for some people, this topic is sort of the bedrock of what they are. Of what they think. Of how they make
decisions personally. Of how they look at church. So, it may not be easy for some of us in here. It may get kind
of uncomfortable. I just want to make you aware. There may be some of us sitting here that may find it to be
uncomfortable as well. I just wanted to mention that.
As a couple individuals mentioned previously, we may not all agree by the time we get done. Okay, so we don‘t
all agree. We‘re not looking for unity necessarily. But I think we need to keep that in mind. I don‘t want this to
be a setting where anyone feels intimidated. That should not be the case at all. We need to be comfortable with
what we‘re going to say. I think we‘ll have some discussions but no point at all, of anyone feeling intimidated.
This is not the WCC official position. I‘m giving you what I think, what I can study. I don‘t like WCC has an
official position on this, either written or unwritten. So that‘s not what we‘re going to be talking about.
My intention is not create a replacement checklist. Some people look at how churches make decision, as a
checklist. If we meet all the things of the checklist, than the church can do that. My goal is not to say, ―We‘re
going to throw that checklist out and come up with a new checklist.‖ Not at all. I‘m not interested at all in
making a replacement checklist. Last but not least, this does not matter. Seriously. In the big picture of things,
this is nothing. It really does not matter. I think the time is right for it and I think it will be a very lively
discussion at certain times, but when we look at the big picture, this is not something that we want to say, ―Oh
this is critically important.‖ Anybody got anything they want to say about those not‘s? Okay.

2. Here‘s our outline for our three weeks. Tonight I‘d like to look at what I consider to be a flawed method of how
churches make decisions. The reason I‘m doing this is because probably 98% of us in here come from that
background. I‘m going to look at why I think this method is flawed. Next week, I‘d like to talk about how
decisions were made by New Testament churches. What did the choose to do? They had to make a
decision…what was their process in doing so? In the third week, we‘ll be looking at some principles for us to
consider and how we make decisions. This is a very fluid sort of outline and it may change as it progresses.
What happens tonight may dictate the changes in this. If you have some burning topics on your mind that fit into
this that you‘d like us to look at and discuss, let me know. Send me an email. We want to shake this.
One of the things I‘ve done for tonight and hopefully do for the three nights of this, is I‘ve got built in time for
comments and discussions so I‘m not going to be the one that‘s talking the whole time. I think we all need to
hear from each other. Like I said, I‘ve got built in time so if you don‘t say anything, we‘ll be done in ten
minutes or so. This is a time for us to have our give and take. So I‘m going to be quiet and let anyone talk about
anything we‘ve talked about so far. By the way, if you have a question, just say it at that time. Don‘t have to
wait until the end. But if you say your question, lets take it from the approach that I‘m not going to give the
answer but the group is going to give the answer. Okay? BJ may ask a question and we‘ll just toss it around to
see what you think. I think that‘s fair.
Commentator – [inaudible?] 08:15
Mark Ciampa–Sure, in the big picture of things…let me back up. I‘ve been in some churches where this is the
most important thing and really it‘s more important than talking about what Jesus is doing. So from that
standpoint, in the big picture, that‘s what I mean by it doesn‘t matter. I think the degree is important but when
we step back 500 years from now and look at this, that‘s what I mean. I‘m sorry.
Commentator – From your standpoint, what is the purpose of this?
Mark Ciampa– That‘s a good question. What would you want the purpose to be? I‘ll toss it out real quick.
Commentator–[inaudible] 09:10
Mark Ciampa–I like your word prayer. Maybe that‘s a thing to look at? Maybe we‘re looking at some
parameters around it. Yeah, good. Who else will answer that question? Come on now. Don‘t be shy.
Commentator– [inaudible] 09:43…all on the same page, in a sense, that we‘re aware. I think it‘s helpful to
know about our… to know that [inaudible] 10:12-11:06
Mark Ciampa– Yes. On that note…that sets some…I‘ll add one more to that. I mean, let me say this in the
right way. This is a wonderful group of which to be a part of. That‘s why Susan and I drive 200 miles every day.
Only feels like it. But what I have found in this group since the very beginning is there are a few 800-pound
elephants in the room that don‘t want to say. I‘m not saying this is one of them but I‘m saying this is a start. For
whatever reason, maybe because we‘re sensitive of other people we don‘t know if we should talk about other
people say sometimes. [Laughter]. Yes, Roger. But Randy is not here.
Commentator–[inaudible] 12:15-12:25 Preconceived or implanted ideas. It‘s just a depressing thing to look at.
Being a family of society, [inaudible] 12:42-13:00
Mark Ciampa– Sure, agreed. Completely. Yeah that‘s a good point. A very good point. Who else? Anybody?
Commentator–It seems like almost every study that I‘ve done personally is on a topic [inaudible] 13:15-13:28
Mark Ciampa–That‘s a very good point. Sure. Okay. Let‘s keep going. We‘re talking about how churches
make decisions. As I mentioned, I want to spend some time this evening and talk about what I think is a flawed
method. [Paused for mic change] We‘re going to talk about what I think is a flawed method. Probably 98% of us
in here grew up in church, or been in the church, and been involved with methodology about how churches
make decisions. I‘m not trying to misrepresent anyone. I‘m not trying to bash anyone but I think it‘s important

3. for us to lie out what this is. I‘m just going to call it CEIF. Command Example Inference [?]. Okay. CEIF, when
you talk to individuals at churches that practice this, they say they are attempting to establish bible authority.
Sometimes this is called, patternism [?]. It‘s actually, if you look back historically, its based off of a fault
scientific theory called Proconium Inductivism. It was real popular back in the 1800‘s. That‘s another discussion
entirely but I wanted to let you know this is based off something that is only about 150 years old or so. This
concept. Here are some of the individuals that were the main components of it in the late 1800‘s or so. What is
CEIF? CEIF says that the New Testament is not instructive in its native narrative format. That is to say, you
can‘t open up the bible and just read what it says, and come away with an understanding of what a church
should do. That‘s the basic principle. It‘s not instructive as it was written for us. Instead, CEIF have to be
invoked to understand the New Testament, not only correctly but also completely. If I want to understand what a
church has to do, I‘ve got to invoke this CEIF. A person can‘t read and understand the Bible without using this
method. Churches have to use this method when they‘re making decisions. There‘s no option involved.
Individuals that adhere to this CEIF, will say that the New Testament is not instructive as its written, has to be
invoked if we want to understand what it means, and churches have to use this when they are making decisions.
Okay. Anybody want to say anything about that? Patrick?
Commentator – [inaudible] 17:57-18:17
Mark Ciampa– That‘s a very good question. Gregory, you‘re about to be asking questions so be ready. When
you do research, you gather a body of data, correct? You gather a body of data. You‘re going to make some sort
of…by observations. This is leading somewhere. You are then going to generate some type of conclusion,
correct? Now, where does the development of the hypothesis come in here? We‘re doing the scientific method
sort of thing. We develop a hypothesis. We say, ―You know, I think this is going to happen when I look at my
data. By the time I do my observations, I collect my data, and I analyze it.‖ With the conclusion, I say―That‘s
correct or no my hypothesis is not correct.‖ Right? With this inductivism type of thing looked at in a trivia slide,
in the mid-1800‘s, Patrick, what happened was, this was not the method they used, but rather they developed
their hypotheses after they had looked at the data. Today, we would say, that‘s completely backwards. But it
was that concept that was going on that led to this, CEIS. This may be become…
Commentator– This is just not a religious…this was all over.
Mark Ciampa– Entirely correct. In the scientific, medical communities, all this was…influenced this. That‘s a
great point. Sure. Don‘t get lost in this. This is nothing. [Laughter]. All right, so we are part of this CEIF
methodology. We‘re a church that practices CEIF. What does that mean? #1. The first question to ask anytime
the church has to make a decision is about what it‘s going to do, is, and is there a specific command that the
Bible says do that? That‘s the first question to ask. You look for a specific command where the bible says do
this. #2. If there is not a command, than you look for an approved apostolic example. Not just any example. But
the example has to be an apostolic example. The example has to be apostolic and it must be approved. #3. If
there is no example, then can we make some sort of inference about what‘s there? #4. If there is no command,
example, or inference, then that means the scripture is forbidden. Okay? There in a nutshell is CEIF. Is there a
specific command, if not is there an approved apostolic example, if not, can we make an inference, and if not,
then the scriptures are silent about it and we can‘t do it. Okay. Now we‘re going to drill down each one of these.
But have I misrepresented anybody? Okay, all right. Let‘s drill down each one. Command—when God makes a
command, it has to be done. No question about it. Commands are prescriptions that are given as to say do this,
don‘t do this. Commands, by their very definition, are clear, they are plain, and they are very understandable.
Here‘s our side note number 1. You know when you‘re reading along in a book and there‘s a little side note that
gets your interest and gets you back on board? I‘m going to do side notes. Here‘s side note number 1. Talking
about commands, what do you think is the most common command found in the entire Bible? Go ahead. What
command appears more frequently than any other command in the Bible?
Commentator– Old and good?
Mark Ciampa– Fear God? Love God? Love each other? Who said that? You know what, 366 in all of the New
Testament, [clapping.]. Do not be afraid. That command. Excellent. That‘s a good question, what does she get?

4. [Laughter]. Don‘t be afraid. That‘s the command that‘s found more often than any other command in the Bible.
Okay. Good. Command, they are plain, clear, unquestionable, descriptive. Let‘s now move to examples. Under
the CEIF methodology, an example carries the same weight as a command. Okay. No difference. Now, these
examples have to be approved and have to be apostolic examples. Not just any examples of the church doing
something. Can I decline it? Good point. It has to be something that has to be approved. It can‘t be something
that is obviously incorrect. Jeff said, in the context. That‘s the best way to look at it, thank you. The examples
have to be approved and apostolic. All New Testament church examples are always binding for today. Open the
New Testament, find an example of what the church is doing, and that example applies in 500, in 1000, in 2012.
It will apply in 4098, whatever. Okay. Those examples are always binding for today. As long as its called for
today. It always is. That‘s right. Examples carry the same weight as a command; they are approved and
apostolic and all New Testament examples are always binding for today. That‘s examples. Inferences. What in
the world is an inference? By definition: to derive by induction, to conclude, to surmise, to imply. An inference
carries the same weight as a direct command. God said, ―Do this.‖ That has weight to it. An inference has equal
weight to what God commanded. They are strict manners of faith. Am I going too fast? Okay. You can
summarize this in two words; silence and forbids. If the scriptures do not address it, if the don‘t say anything
about it, then we have no authority to act. The whole purpose of this is to guard against anything that is
permissible if it‘s not specifically mentioned. Here are some examples of these in a bit. This is the idea of
silence. Let me go back through very quickly. Is there a command? If not, is there an example? If not, is there an
inference? If none of those, than we cannot do it. Okay. We talked about commands, we talked about examples,
we talked about inferences, and we talked about silence.
Commentator– This is for personally decisions right?
Mark Ciampa–I feel like it is, yes. More often, 99% of this the time, this is in the context of church decisions
but you‘re correct, a lot of individuals see this as applicable to individual decisions as well, yeah.
Commentator–You think this a problem?
Mark Ciampa– I think it is, yes. We‘ll see in a little bit. Okay. Good question, who else? We‘ll keep rolling.
An example for First Corinthians 16:1:4; this is one of those unique passages and I‘m going to say unique, in
that individuals use this CEIF find all four elements here. So. Anyway, first four verses.
Commentator–[reading scripture] 28:35-28:54
Mark Ciampa– As we said, this is unique in that all four elements are found in it. They say there is a direct
command and the direct command is what? They say there‘s an example here, and the example is what? Got to
give each week. They are also saying there is an inference, and the inference is? It‘s implied that what? That the
money has to go into a church treasury. Some sort of account. And, there is silence because it only says that you
do it when? The first day of the week. Now, it doesn‘t say do it on Tuesday. So what‘s that mean, Mike? You
can‘t do it on Tuesday. This is one of those passages where those that promote this, say that all four are listed. A
command to give, give each week, that‘s our example. Inference is you got to have a church treasury and there
is silence. We can only do it on Sunday. Are we okay there? All right. Are you following along? Okay. I‘m
going to give you my response to CEIF. You may agree or disagree. If you disagree, say so. If you agree, say so.
I‘m trying to be fair and honest. I‘m not trying to do bashing. I‘m trying to say it subjectively but I don‘t know
if can look at this subjectively from my background. Look at First Corinthians 16:1-4 that we talked about just a
minute ago. Paul told the Galatian Churches. Why not all the churches? It says universal for all time. You know,
why Paul why didn‘t you tell other churches in other regions? The one that really stands out to me is, make this
collection so that no collections will have to be made when I come. What conclusion do you think we can make
from that that I‘ve made here? Probably going to meet with him the first day of the week. My conclusion is, this
is not designed for something that is always going to be collecting because Paul says ―When I come, what are
you going to do with this collection?‖
Commentator– Give some money…specific manner?

5. Mark Ciampa–Specific manner. Let‘s take care of it. When he comes, don‘t leave it anymore.
Commentator– [inaudible] 32:05. If necessary for the inferences to work…he says that 32:23, specifically says,
each one of you [reads scripture]. I fully agree with you but in that scripture, it says I‘m supposed to be setting it
aside for when he comes and I have it for him. It‘s supposed to be giving him the money right?
Mark Ciampa– Exactly right. When he comes…we‘re done.
Commentator – Do you know why the first of the week? It‘s just not absolutely necessarily for…
Mark Ciampa–Good point. I don‘t want to misrepresent anybody. If you feel like that‘s not accurate, shout out.
Let‘s talk about…I‘m going to start with examples. Because we talked about commands, if God says do it,
we‘re going to do it. No questions asked. Do this, yes. Don‘t do that, yes. No questions asked. Lets talk about
the CEIF looks at examples. Got a couple questions here. Are examples prescriptive or are the descriptive?
Someone with a good vocabulary, help us out here. Something that is prescriptive, means what? Prescriptive
means you got to do this. No question. Excellent Mike. Prescriptive says do this; descriptive says this is how it
is done. When we think about the CEIF examples, the question I would like to ask is, are the examples in the
New Testament, prescriptive—that is, every example we have, is you have to do this. Or are they rather
descriptive of something? That‘s a good point. Are the examples, an example or are they ‗the‘ example? What‘s
the difference here? Pam hits it on the head. Is what we see an example of how they did it or is it the absolute
final, this is the only possible way it can be done?
Commentator –[inaudible] 35:25
Mark Ciampa –Only example on an un-predictive topic, yes. It could be the only example on that topic, correct.
Commentator –But was that ‗the‘ example or was that just an example?
Mark Ciampa – Yes, if we have one example, would it be an example or ‗the‘ example. If we had twenty of
them, would it be ‗the‘ example or ‗an‘ example? Because they wouldn‘t contradict each other. I think the
purpose of the examples is to reinforce commands. Now we‘re going to drill down a little more. John 13:12-17
Commentator– [reads scripture]
Mark Ciampa– Thanks Mike. Question or statement, I think James [Jesus?] is providing an example, and its
purpose of washing feet is to reinforce its instruction. I don‘t think the washing of the feet is the exclusive
example of the only way of serving others. Does that make sense?
Commentator –You need to be careful with what you say. I‘ll be the first to say it.
Mark Ciampa –All right. So I think pretty well agree that what Jesus said is not ‗the‘ exclusive example but
it‘s an example of how we serve. Okay? Which was very appropriate at that point in time. Brian, you have a dog?
Does your dog go out in the backyard? Does your dog do unpleasant things in your backyard? If your dog has an
upset stomach, are those things very unpleasant? Yes, okay. Do you like to walk in bare feet out in your
backyard when your dog has an upset stomach and is doing unpleasant things? Okay. Remember in New
Testament times, that they didn‘t have sidewalks. They had paths that donkeys went on, that horses went on,
that people went on. Guess what was in those paths as you walked along in your bare feet? Very unpleasant
things, thank you Mike. [Laughter]. You know what? Jewish individuals who were slaves or servants were
absolutely forbidden to wash someone else‘s‘ feet for that reason. They absolutely could not do it. They could
not. What did Jesus do here? He washed the stuff off of peoples‘ feet showing he‘d go as low as he needed to go
to serve others. That was the principle. It wasn‘t that he washed their feet; it was how low Jesus went to do it.
Okay. Now, thankfully Patrick wears some type of shoes occasionally and does not walk in his backyard very
often. The point is, this is not the exclusive example that Jesus has given of how to serve someone. It‘s an
example. I think we need to look at examples in the New Testament in the same way, as we‘ll see. Inferences.
So we‘ve talked about examples, we‘ve talked about inferences. Inferences are elevated in status to a direct

6. command. We‘ve already seen it because if it‘s not a command, it‘s an example. If it‘s not an example, it‘s an
inference. Inferences are elevated to that status. Inferences are based on the reasonings and conclusions of us, by
definition. Often times, inferences require following a checklist of criteria. Okay. I saw the…when I was
growing up…they were very…how do you know if something is an inference? Well here‘s a checklist and it
literally has 25 items that if it met all that, then yes, it was okay. So there are checklists about what makes
something an inference. Lets go back to chapter 20, [?] 7-11 for us.
Commentator – [reading scripture]
Mark Ciampa – Okay. This is often spoken of in terms of its inferred that only one time on this message. I
have a question. 46-47, can you read that? What‘s it say?
Commentator– [reading scripture]
Mark Ciampa– Everyday they were breaking bread. In the passage here, it used the same expression. Breaking
bread. I think that‘s a manner of investigation. By the way, in what Brian read, remember after the young man
fell out of the window, at what time did that happen? Midnight. Then after all that occurred, they went back
upstairs and what did they do? They broke bread so that was I guess after midnight. That was Monday.
Commentator –It‘s Monday by our time. But for the Jews, it started at sunset; that would have been about
already Monday. Unless it‘s in the morning?
Mark Ciampa –The point is, whether it‘s Roman time or Jewish time, it‘s still done technically the next day.
Okay, just pointing that out. Lets let Brian stir everything up. Lets talk about silence. Okay. Shhh. I love this
example because I‘ve heard it a million times. A parent gives a child $10 to buy a gallon of milk, but the child
returns with a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread. Parent says, ―I didn‘t say to buy bread!‖ and the child‘s
response was ―Ah, you didn‘t say I couldn‘t.‖ That‘s an example commonly given by a CEIF, if it doesn‘t‘
address it, if it‘s silent, you cant do it. Lets think about that for a minute. Susan the other evening when Mia and
Gabe were here; had fixed this wonderful soup. She had gone to the grocery store and had forgotten to get
crackers. So Mia and I jumped in the car, went over to Publics, got crackers. There was something else I saw; I
think it was cheese. Anyway, I got cheese. When I got back, ―Look Susan. Here are the crackers, here is the
cheese.‖ Did Susan say ―You idiot! You bought the cheese and the crackers! I only said to buy the crackers!‖
Okay? The question is, did the child show initiative character and responsibility? I would say the child did. Is
the parent making the child scared to act or is the parent giving the child freedom? I think that‘s a very valuable
question. Here‘s a question for all you parents. Does a parent really want a child that only follows specific
commands? [Laughter] Would be nice…okay. All right. I really come back from that. Okay, so you take it Pam.
Yeah, you know. But is that what we‘re after—just saying to our children, ―You can only do this specific thing.
You can‘t do anything else.‖ Chapter 25 13-20, somebody read that for me.
Commentator – [reads scripture]
Mark Ciampa – Which servant was rebuked? In what town? Because…did that servant show initiative? Did it
show…no. That is a great point. His motivation. That takes us back to the thing about the child. Am I so afraid
of my parent that I wouldn‘t dare step out? If he had said ―I‘m only getting milk. Because I‘m going to beat
when I get home.‖ Good point.
Commentator– (Patrick) [inaudible 48:45-49:20
Mark Ciampa– Exactly. Excellent point. Very good. Yes. Or take risks, yes. Very quickly, Matthew 12. We‘re
getting a little short on time. Somebody read this short, 1-5.
Commentator –[reads scripture]
Mark Ciampa –Did the law prohibit this? The answer is no. No, it did not. What they were arguing was ―Hey,
there is silence here. So you can‘t do it.‖ BJ, Jesus said what?

7. Commentator –[reads scripture]
Mark Ciampa – Short change here. The silence of the law did not prohibit the activity. I believe that God has
given us freedom to apply his principle to our everyday cultural situation. I think he has to. Otherwise we would
be confined…[?] right now would not be in an airplane going to China. He would be doing what? He would be
walking, or taking a donkey or both. Okay. Yeah, certainly He wants us to apply his principles in our everyday
cultural situations. We do that all the time. Now, this is kind of my summation about some of the warnings and
dangers of this approach. Warning. Lets look at Matthew 15. Somebody read 1-9 for us there. See what the
problem is.
Commentator– [reads scripture]
Mark Ciampa– These are things that originated for man and they were binding these onto others. Jesus said
―No.‖ I look at the inferences as often falling in this category. We come up with inductions about what is
inferred and then we say, ―You got to do my induction.‖ Okay. I don‘t see that. Corinthians 2:4-6. Somebody
quickly read that.
Commentator –[reads scripture]
Mark Ciampa –God has not given us an absolute set of ears for every single thing we should do in every
situation. It simply is not there, its not intended to be there. First Corinthian 6, last part 2-5 or so. Someone read
that quickly for me. These are some scriptures that have warnings to this CEIF approach. Who wants to read?
Go ahead.
Commentator –[reads scripture]
Mark Ciampa – Thank you. My version is similar to that one. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies
about words that have resulted in [?] 54:42. I‘m sorry but my experience here has been this is very divisive and
there is no need for it. Keep going. Here are some assumptions of CEIF I think. This being the primary one.
CEIF assumes that there is a hidden and complete group of print in the New Testament that we have to uncover
and apply. That‘s the underlying principle. Bible doesn‘t tell Churches what to do directly, but there is this
hidden print, that if we dig deep enough and hard enough, we will come up with what God wants. Absolutely. It
also assumes justification is based on how closely you follow his path. I‘m going to say how closely I follow
CEIF. I will tell you that I have been told that in numerable times throughout life. Some of the dangers of CEIF,
again, nothing is every stated in scriptures. It‘s not even applied about CEIF. If this is so critically important,
why is there no mention of it? It‘s simply not there, ever. It also makes rejection of CEIF, a condition of
fellowship. If you don‘t follow CEIF, then you‘re not a fellowship with us and you‘re not a fellowship with God.
Some of the dangers of CEIF, in my opinion, its arbitrarily and capriciously inconsistently applied. Okay. Listen,
I can turn to ten different scriptures off the top of my head where it says, ―do this.‖ I can be talking with
someone who can advocate for CEIF and the response is ―No, that doesn‘t apply.‖ But wait a minute; it just
said…no that doesn‘t apply. One of the things they commonly do, is they reject it on the basis of culture. Okay.
―No we don‘t have to wash feet because of culture.‖ ―No we don‘t have to do this because of culture.‖ But they
do have to do this other thing. But wait a minute? What‘s the difference there? John 14:6 to explain what Jesus
says here although it‘s crystal clear. ‗Jesus said, ―I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes before the
Father except for me.‖‘ You know what Jesus says there? Jesus is saying that salvation is a relationship. He‘s
not saying, ―I have a way. I have this plan.‖ What he says? He says, ―I am the way. Salvation is a relationship.‖
I think also in Romans, 8:1. Let me look there. ―Therefore there is no condemnation for those who are [?].‖
CEIF is not a test of fellowship. It‘s not a test of whether or not I‘m going to heaven or not. I‘m saying it‘s what
Jesus is doing. That‘s what Roman 8:1 says. I think CEIF makes human reasoning the primary focus. What I can
deduce, then I get to say, this is the ultimate and everyone gets to follow. This is perhaps the most alarming to
me. I see CEIF in many churches dethrone Jesus. CEIF becomes a test of faith, it becomes a focus of church,
and it becomes a focus of teaching. Okay. You may or may not agree with that, and that‘s fine. That is my
observation of being in this for the overwhelming majority of my years. That to me is the danger of this. It

8. becomes a witness test, it becomes a whole purpose of church, and it becomes a focus of teaching. Jesus thanks
for doing what you did, but we can take care of it now. Okay? I‘ve talked far too long. Your turn.
Commentator– You think its really important for when God said, [inaudible] 59:19-59:1:00:27, so the old
covenant and the new covenant, we have a lot of liberty. Those things are not in any way, the new law.
[Inaudible] 1:00:54
Mark Ciampa– Excellent point. Yes, he does. Very true. Brian?
Commentator – How do you decide if something is an example or the example?
Commentator 2 –[inaudible] 1:01:27-1:01:52
Mark Ciampa –Does that help?
Commentator – Some things there‘s not an answer for, they are just 1-2 examples that hard to determine
whether that‘s the way to do or whether that‘s just something we have to figure out ourselves. For me, that‘s
hard to decipher. It creates an opportunity for disagreement. Especially when you come from that.
Mark Ciampa– Yes, there‘s no problem with disagreements. They had a lot of it in the New Testament topic
we‘re going to see next week. Yeah, good point.
Commentator– [inaudible] 1:02:33
Mark Ciampa–If there are examples there, that are appropriate, sure. Do I agree with silence? No. Do I agree
with inference? Certainly not. But that‘s me.
Commentator –[baby crying]
Mark Ciampa –Well yah, God commanding…
Commentator – [inaudible; baby crying] 1:03:08-1:03:28
Commentator 2– [inaudible] 1:03:33-1:04:57
Commentator 3 – [inaudible] 1:05:00-1:06:07
Mark Ciampa –Good point, yeah. I told you brought up that one. Yeah, Keith?
Commentator – [inaudible] 1:06:16-1:07:41
Mark Ciampa –Yeah, that‘s a great point. Go ahead.
Commentator – You said you don‘t agree with silence?
Mark Ciampa– Um, let‘s tackle that another time. Not to put you off, but for time‘s sake. Tread lightly today.
We‘ve gone over a few minutes. I apologize for that. I wanted to try and be done by 8:15. If you felt like this
was not appropriate or on the wrong level, just shoot me an email or talk to me after this about it and I can make
adjustments for it next time. I have to think of where to meet to make…what I want us to do for next week, is
I‘ll send out some verses, chapters briefly. About how they make decisions. If we are truly going to say, we‘re
going to follow the New Testament, let‘s see how we‘re going to make decisions. The conflicts they had and
how they got through. Jeff, would you lead us in a quick closing prayer? And then we‘re done!
Jeff– [closing prayer]