Contradicting Beliefs

[Ernest T. Bass]

It certainly can be. And many people use it as that in their worship services.

Singing to God is worship and in Eph 5 Paul was regulating this form of worship. The bible says the true worshipper worships in spirit and in truth. Jesus said 'thy word is truth'. So God's word is truth therefore the true worshipper worships as God's word regulates and not as they please. And God's word regulates the act of worship of singing for the church in Eph 5 no matter how much some will deny that. Some see only what they want to see.

 

[Knotical]

Singing to God is worship and in Eph 5 Paul was regulating this form of worship. The bible says the true worshipper worships in spirit and in truth. Jesus said 'thy word is truth'. So God's word is truth therefore the true worshipper worships as God's word regulates and not as they please. And God's word regulates the act of worship of singing for the church in Eph 5 no matter how much some will deny that. Some see only what they want to see.

Ah, another case where we are taking either an overly legalistic view, or an out of context view, of a portion of scripture. Does it now also way that God looks at an individuals heart? How does this prohibit the use of instruments, even something as benign as a piano, in worshiping God during a worship service? Do you not agree that our gifts come from God, and that one of those many gifts is playing a musical instrument? Quite frankly I think you are being way to legalistic in regard to what is, and is not, allowable in a worship service.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Noah is from the OT; there is lots of instruction to use musical instruments in the OT. But, really... Demanding proof of a negative is silly, especially when there is no proof of the affirmative. Where should we turn?

Luk 9:49 - And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
Luk 9:50 - And Jesus said unto him, Forbid [him] not: for he that is not against us is for us.
​

Noah is from the OT but the logic is still the same. In the NT the Lord instituted the Lord's Supper using unleaven bread and fruit of the vine. Does that mean we can use cokes and hot dogs (or anything else we choose) since the Lord did not specifically eliminate them?

From Col 2 Christ took the OT out of the way nailing it to His cross thereby making the OT laws of no effect to NT Christians. So NT Christians go by CHrist's NT and not by the OT laws. As Paul said in Rom 7:4 "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, [even] to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God."

So Christians are dead to the law by the body or death of Christ on the cross and therefore the Christian cannot try and keep both the OT and NT at the same time without comitting a type of spiritual adultery, Rom 7:1-6. The Christian is 'married' to Christ and His NT law and not married to Moses and his law. ANy arguments must therefore come from the NT.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Ah, another case where we are taking either an overly legalistic view, or an out of context view, of a portion of scripture. Does it now also way that God looks at an individuals heart? How does this prohibit the use of instruments, even something as benign as a piano, in worshiping God during a worship service? Do you not agree that our gifts come from God, and that one of those many gifts is playing a musical instrument? Quite frankly I think you are being way to legalistic in regard to what is, and is not, allowable in a worship service.

Jn 4:23 Jn 17:17 nothing legalistic about following the bible. It's the lack of following what the bible says that has produced many, many religious organizatons that contradict each other at every turn on every issue. No one will ever prove that God's truth is found in all that contradiction 'cause it's not!!!

If I do not have to follow God's word/His truth when it comes to worship/music, then why do I have to follow God's word when it comes to any issue? I wouldn't and could just get rid of my useless bible since I am not going to follow it any more but just follow my own ideas and opinions. Some would label me legalistic or part of a cult simply because I will not go along with all the unbiblical contradictions but speak out against them.

I could have a talent to make idols out of gold and silver. Does that mean it would be alright to use my talent to make golden idols for people to worship? Nothing wrong for people using their abilities as long as those abilities fall in line with 'the truth' of God's word and do not contradict or produce disobedience contrary to God's word.


The word legalistic gets thrown around a lot. What does it mean to you and where is it found in the bible?

 

[stovebolts]

I find it ironic that nowhere in the NT writings of Jesus do we find the commandment to the public reading of Scripture, yet we do see Jesus following the traditions of Israel when he reads, and gives commentary on Isaiah. We see Paul later writing to Timothy not only supporting the OT writings, but affirming Jewish tradition by commanding the public reading of scripture as handed down by Jewish Tradition.

What I would like my brothers to see is that the NT is not divorced from the OT. We need to stop pitting them against each other. Perhaps a little covenant theology is in order... Just because we are in the new covenant of Christ's Blood, does not mean we throw the baby out with the bath water.

Also, where did the NT writers come up with the names of the two Egyptian sorcerers? Certainly you won't find their names in any of the OT writings. Why then is oral tradition quoted and used in NT writings if as what I've read in this thread that both tradition and oral tradition is bad, bad bad. Must not be too bad if we find both within apostolic authority.

 

[Knotical]

Jn 4:23 Jn 17:17 nothing legalistic about following the bible. It's the lack of following what the bible says that has produced many, many religious organizatons that contradict each other at every turn on every issue. No one will ever prove that God's truth is found in all that contradiction 'cause it's not!!!

If I do not have to follow God's word/His truth when it comes to worship/music, then why do I have to follow God's word when it comes to any issue? I wouldn't and could just get rid of my useless bible since I am not going to follow it any more but just follow my own ideas and opinions. SOme would label me legaistic or part of a cult simply because I will not go along with all the unbiblical contradictions but speak out against them.

I could have a talent to make idols out of gold and silver. Does that mean it would be alright to use my talent to make golden idols for people to worship? Nothing worng for people using their abilities as long as those abilities fall in line with 'the truth' of God's word and do not contradict or produce disobedience with God's word.


The word legalistic gets thrown around a lot. What does it mean to you and where is it found in the bible?

Nice. I believe this is what is referred to as a "Strawman".

Legalism, as you should already know, is when you take an overly literal view of something and completely forget, or overlook, the spirit behind it. The chapter, or more importantly the verse, you referenced in Ephesians 5 (Eph 5:18-21) is talking about being filled with the Spirit and bring praise and thanksgiving where it is due, to God, for everything He has provided, through Jesus Christ. God has given us many gifts, among them are playing musical instruments and singing. Both can be used to "make a joyful noise unto the Lord" as part of our overall worship to Him.

How do you reconcile Psalm 150 with your view on worship?

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Rom 7:1 "Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?"

Rom 7:2 "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband."

Rom 7:3 "So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. "

Rom 7:4 "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, [even] to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God."

Rom 7:5 " For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. "

Rom 7:6 "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter. "


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Col 2:14 "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took (perfect tense) it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;"

Perfect tense denoting the OT law was permanently taken out of the way never to be made effective again.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Heb 10:9 "Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second."

Christ took away the first for two laws cannot exist and be followed at the same time, see Rom 7:1-6 above

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eph 2:12 " That at that time ye (Gentiles) were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:"

Eph 2:13 "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ."

Eph 2:14 " For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us]; "

Eph 2:15 "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace;"

Eph 2:16 " And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby."

Christ abolished "the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances". He "hath broken down the middle wall of partition" between Jew and Gentile. Why? "that he might reconcile both (Jew & Gentile) unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby". So Christ had to remove, abolish the OT law to reconcile Jew and Gentile together within the one body, the one church for that could never happen if the OT that was given to the Jews and not the Gentiles (verse 12) remained in effect. If the OT remained in effect it would create a wall that separated Jew and Gentile.

 

[Knotical]

Rom 7:1 "Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?"

Rom 7:2 "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband."

Rom 7:3 "So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. "

Rom 7:4 "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, [even] to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God."

Rom 7:5 " For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. "

Rom 7:6 "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter. "


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Col 2:14 "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took (perfect tense) it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;"

Perfect tense denoting the OT law was permanently taken out of the way never to be made effective again.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Heb 10:9 "Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second."

Christ took away the first for two laws cannot exist and be followed at the same time, see Rom 7:1-6 above

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eph 2:12 " That at that time ye (Gentiles) were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:"

Eph 2:13 "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ."

Eph 2:14 " For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us]; "

Eph 2:15 "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace;"

Eph 2:16 " And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby."

Christ abolished "the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances". He "hath broken down the middle wall of partition" between Jew and Gentile. Why? "that he might reconcile both (Jew & Gentile) unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby". So Christ had to remove, abolish the OT law to reconcile Jew and Gentile together within the one body, the one church for that could never happen if the OT that was given to the Jews and not the Gentiles (verse 12) remained in effect.

What does any of this have to do with Psalm 150? It isn't "part of the law." By the way, Jesus even said Himself that he did not come to replace or abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Try reading through the gospels again.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Nice. I believe this is what is referred to as a "Strawman".

Not a strawman for I did not try and define what legalism means for you. Instead I asked you to explain what YOU think it means and where it is found inthe bible.

Legalism, as you should already know, is when you take an overly literal view of something and completely forget, or overlook, the spirit behind it. The chapter, or more importantly the verse, you referenced in Ephesians 5 (Eph 5:18-21) is talking about being filled with the Spirit and bring praise and thanksgiving where it is due, to God, for everything He has provided, through Jesus Christ. God has given us many gifts, among them are playing musical instruments and singing. Both can be used to "make a joyful noise unto the Lord" as part of our overall worship to Him.

You defined legalism as "when you take an overly literal view of something and completely forget, or overlook, the spirit behind it."

Which I cannot say I completely agree with how you define it. The way you have defined it means if God explicitly, literally said to do "x" then I do not have to take it literally as God said but can take it in any spirit I want to take it in therefore do as I want to do. Example: God explicitly, literally told Noah to use gopher wood. Was Noah being overly literal when he built the ark out of gopher wood and not some other type wood? Could Noah have built the ark out of pine and think that type wood was the "spirit behind the literal type of wood God said to use"?

How do you reconcile Psalm 150 with your view on worship?

Christ took the OT out of the way, all of it so none of its laws are binding upon NT Christians see my post # 131. OT laws was only given to Jews to keep, Deut 5:1-3 and never given to Christians to keep.

How do you reconcile Psa 66:13-15 or Num 19:9 or Deut 22:8 with Gal 5:3? Paul's point was that one cannot go back to the OT law and just cherry pick out what he likes and ignore the rest but one is a debtor to the WHOLE law.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

What does any of this have to do with Psalm 150? It isn't "part of the law." By the way, Jesus even said Himself that he did not come to replace or abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Try reading through the gospels again.

Jn 10:34 "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

Here Jesus is speaking to the Jews and quotes Psa 82:6 thereby calling Psalms "law". All the OT can be called law.

 

[Knotical]

Jn 10:34 "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

Here Jesus is speaking to the Jews and quotes Psa 82:6 thereby calling Psalms "law". All the OT can be called law.

Ok, then since He came to fulfill the law, what of that?

Let me ask you this, do you only study the New Testament having completely ripped out the Old Testament of your bibles? After all, if you belief that the "law has been abolished" you have no use for the Old Testament.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Ok, then since He came to fulfill the law, what of that?

Let me ask you this, do you only study the New Testament having completely ripped out the Old Testament of your bibles? After all, if you belief that the "law has been abolished" you have no use for the Old Testament.

Mt 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

In this verse destroy is contrasted to fulfill. Christ took the OT out of the way not by destroying it but took it out of the way by fulfilling it. Fulfilling meaning bring to an end, to stop, cease. When you fulfill a loan agreement you do not owe anymore for loan then ended, ceased. So you ended the loan not by destroying and tearing the contract up but ended the loan by fulfilling it paying it out unto the end.



EDIT: I should have pointed out that destroy in Mt 5:17 is a different Greek word from abolish in Eph 2:15. In Mt 5:17 destroy katalyō means to dissolve, demolish and abolish in Eph 2:15 katargeō to make of no effect, reduce to no activity.


The OT helps temendously in giving understanding to the NT but those OT laws are not binding upon Christians, they were never given to Christians to keep only the Jews, Deut 5:1-3.

In 1 Cor 10:1-10 Paul gave some examples of how God dealt with Israel and in verse 11 Paul says "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come." So even the OT laws are not binding upon the NT Christian, the NT Christian can learn from their examples and be admonished. We can learn from their example that if we disobey God as they did then we can expect to be punished by God as they were, so 'take heed lest ye fall".

 

[Knotical]

Mt 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

In this verse destroy is contrasted to fulfill. Christ took the OT out of the way not by destroying it but took it out of the way by fulfilling it. Fulfilling meaning bring to an end, to stop, cease. When you fulfill a loan agreement you do not owe anymore for loan then ended, ceased. So you ended the loan not by destroying and tearing the contract up but ended the loan by fulfilling it paying it out unto the end.


The OT helps temendously in giving understanding to the NT but those OT laws are not binding upon Christians, they were never given to Christians to keep only the Jews, Deut 5:1-3.

In 1 Cor 10:1-10 Paul gave some examples of how God dealt with Israel and in verse 11 Paul says "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come." So even the OT laws are not binding upon the NT Christian, the NT Christian can learn from their examples and be admonished. We can learn from their example that if we disobey God as they did then we can expect to be punished by God as they were, so 'take heed lest ye fall".

And yet Jesus calls us to keep His commandments, not disregard them now that He has made salvation possible.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

And yet Jesus calls us to keep His commandments, not disregard them now that He has made salvation possible.

Yes, CHristians are to keep Christ's NT laws and not Moses' OT law.

 

[Knotical]

Yes, CHristians are to keep Christ's NT laws and not Moses' OT law.

Jesus included the 10 commandments in that, and added to love our neighbors as ourselves. He did not say we no longer have to keep the 10 commandments, just that our salvation will not be based on how we keep them.

 

[wayseer]

The 10 Commandments are only for those who don't understand the Love commandment.

 

[farouk]

This is a serious question, I'm not asking to set you up for anything other than what I say!

In the new testament is there any where where it says Christians must have a wedding ceremony and publicly take vows of marriage to be married? I can't think of one. Jesus turn water into wine at a wedding feast at the govenor's but in the old testament I don't see a ceremony either.

And what is the doctrine of the Coc on this matter?

Deborah:

Good question.

I think for example with the instance of the Lord's presence at the marriage at Cana, where He turned the water into wine, it's not that either water or wine are essential to the occasion. But rather that He graced the institution with His presence, and that it had a multiplicity of witnesses: in other words there was a public as well as private aspect to the undertaking of marriage.

But you are right: an actual ceremony formula is absent; (as it is even for the Lord's Supper, which, rather is a simple remembrance of Him around bread and the cup).

Blessings.

 

[for_his_glory]

Actually each and every one is right, but only in their own mind by that of what they believe to be truth by the way they are being taught. There is no contradiction to Gods word but only mans interpretations that contradict what God has already spoken. Religion is what separates us from truth as we put our faith in the Church we attend, but yet Jesus is outside many of these Churches knocking on the door to be let back in. Are we putting our trust in Church doctrines or are we putting our trust in that which is the doctrine of Christ for what he has already said. How sad it is to me when I am showing someone in scripture what Christ has already said and even have them read it aloud to me, but then look me in the face and say, well that's not what my Church teaches. It just shows me they are following mans teachings neglecting that of what has already been written. Each of us who claim we are a Christian will stand in that of Christ judgement to give an account of what we have done in the body whether it be good or bad and some Jesus will reject and some He will receive to be with him for eternity. We need to learn how to listen to the Holy Spirit who teaches all truths and also teaches us how to discern that of truth or error that is being taught us.

Matthew 7:
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

 

[Mike]

The onus is upon you to prove your own positions it is not up to anyone to unprove them.

Here, you are most certainly wrong. If scripture is silent on something, the onus is on those who say God demands that it not be done. You don't know that He demands that instruments not be used in worship, because He never says they are not to. The onus is on you to prove your position. It is most definitely on you. Scripture is silent on it. This would be an amusing conversation if you didn't make a small thing that God is silent on salvific. Since you have, your flawed logic is tragic.

 

[ezra]

Here, you are most certainly wrong. If scripture is silent on something, the onus is on those who say God demands that it not be done. You don't know that He demands that instruments not be used in worship, because He never says they are not to. The onus is on you to prove your position. It is most definitely on you. Scripture is silent on it. This would be an amusing conversation if you didn't make a small thing that God is silent on salvific. Since you have, your flawed logic is tragic.

:amen