Go out in Jesus Name

[Ascetic X]

It is as biblical as Baptists using hymnals (or putting lyrics on screens). It may not be wrong, but it is also not biblical.

Other things that are “not biblical” (not commanded in the New Testament):

1. Men wearing clothes in church.
2. Bible colleges and seminaries.
3. Owning a car.
4. Annual physical checkups with a physician.
5. Buying food at a grocery store.
6. Vacation Bible school.
7. Joining the military.
8. Pastors using a microphone.
9. Choir robes.

 

[JonC]

“Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.” Col 3:5

All Sin is idolatry, In Colossians and Ezekiel we see the putting to death of all that is not marked by thau/ the Cross.

Jerusalem is symbolic of our own souls.

"But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem".

The Kingdom is within us in the New Covenant. What happened outwardly in the old covenant prefigured what happens inwardly in the New Covenant.

The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed as they say.

See how beautiful the covenants are joined, isn’t God wonderful.

But that is not what the "marking" in the verse you offered speaks of.

In Col 3:5 we see repentance (putting to death that nature). The mark was to identify people who lamented idolatry and to kill those who did not.

Look....we cannot take verses about one thing and apply them to another then call that other "biblical". Nowhere in the Bible are Christians said to mark their foreheads with ash or make signs "crossing" themselves.

The cross was not even used as a Christian symbol initially (it was recognized to represent the faith in the 2nd century and gained acceptance in the 4th century).

We need to be more careful with God's Word when declaring something "biblical".

That said, I see nothing wrong with the practice precisely for the symbolism you mention. But calling it "biblical" is more than exaggeration. It is demeaning God and His Word.

I actually have the "sign of the cross" (a tattoo). By your standard that is biblical. It was out of a biblical principle I got it. But getting a cross tattoo is not biblical.

 

[JonC]

Other things that are “not biblical” (not commanded in the New Testament):

1. Men wearing clothes in church.
2. Bible colleges and seminaries.
3. Owning a car.
4. Annual physical checkups with a physician.
5. Buying food at a grocery store.
6. Vacation Bible school.
7. Joining the military.
8. Pastors using a microphone.
9. Choir robes.

I agree with all but #1. We should wear clothes in church.

But you are right. Those things may not be wrong, and many may be good ideas. But they are not biblical.

 

[Cathode]

But that is not what the "marking" in the verse you offered speaks of.

In Col 3:5 we see repentance (putting to death that nature). The mark was to identify people who lamented idolatry and to kill those who did not.

Look....we cannot take verses about one thing and apply them to another then call that other "biblical". Nowhere in the Bible are Christians said to mark their foreheads with ash or make signs "crossing" themselves.

The cross was not even used as a Christian symbol initially (it was recognized to represent the faith in the 2nd century and gained acceptance in the 4th century).

We need to be more careful with God's Word when declaring something "biblical".

That said, I see nothing wrong with the practice precisely for the symbolism you mention. But calling it "biblical" is more than exaggeration. It is demeaning God and His Word.

I actually have the "sign of the cross" (a tattoo). By your standard that is biblical. It was out of a biblical principle I got it. But getting a cross tattoo is not biblical.

We can read scripture like accountants or see it merely as an instructional.
Scripture is extremely profound, it is very deep and layered and is polyvalent in many areas meaning multiple things at once.

Idolatry was the issue in Ezekiel, Idolatry is the issue in Colossians meaning sin.
Putting to death was the cure in both cases.

You don’t see the profound connection here either by choice to be contrary or indoctrination.

The connection is obvious.

The Covenants reflect each other.

Thau is marked on our foreheads at Ash Wednesday as we mourn our sinfulness and the state of our souls.
Christians are sealed by this sign on their foreheads. In revelation the beast marks his own on the forehead in imitation and to claim his own. The beast seeks to destroy all those without his mark.

Those without Christs mark will be destroyed in the end.

So we can see the symbolism come together in both covenants if we recognise the depths of scripture.

 

[JonC]

We can read scripture like accountants or see it merely as an instructional.

I think we are using "biblical" differently.

By your standard anything that may be considered by any sect could be called "biblical".

For example, "Scripture alone" is biblical (Deut 31, Ps 23, Matt 28). Local church autonomy is biblical (Eph 1, Acts 14, Matt 18, Rev 2-3). But so is having a councel over local churches (Prov 11, Acts 15).

What I mean by biblical is actually in the Bible.

I understand that Catholics base the practice of Ash Wednesday on principles that are in the Bible. But that does not make it biblical.

It does not mean it is wrong. I get the symbolizm. I appreciate the symbolism.

But it is not biblical any more than wearing a cross is biblical. The Apostolic church did not even view crosses as a Christian symbol (that came later in Christian history).

 

[JonC]

@Cathode

Again, we are defining "biblical" differently. I use a stricter standard. I define "biblical" as "in the Bible".

Using your explanation of repentance, I see your explanation (that we are to repent, die to sin) as a biblical principle. But the practice you develop from that principle (the expression of that repentance) is not biblical (using "in the Bible").

Crossings yourself? Putting an ash cross on your forehead? I say - "Go for it". Express your faith. Live by biblical principles.


But I am cautious using "biblical" because once we say "this is biblical" it becomes prescriptive. One should cross themselves or put ash on their foreheads, which is obviously wrong (it is the crime of the Pharisees).

It also can lead to evil. When we think of evil done in God's name four major organizations come to my mind - the Roman Catholic Church, Calvinists, Puritans, and the KKK.

The Roman Catholic Church used Scripture to oppress and persecute people. They used Scripture to gain wealth and build its organization. They identified this and reformed their organization.

Calvinists used Scripture to persecute non-Calvinists (particularly Baptists). They looked for a theocracy.

The Puritians probably sought out biblical principles more than any of the others mentioned, but the expression of the principles found were many times evil. They were a legalistic sect that persecuted not only other Christians but also members of their own sect.

The KKK used Scripture to support evil. They took what is biblical (God instructing His people to refrain from marrying pagans, to be a pure and holy nation) and misapplied biblical principles to create an evil ideology.


When we call our expressions of biblical principles themselves "biblical" we are trying to remove evaluation and examination.

That is my concern.

 

[Cathode]

@Cathode

Again, we are defining "biblical" differently. I use a stricter standard. I define "biblical" as "in the Bible".

Using your explanation of repentance, I see your explanation (that we are to repent, die to sin) as a biblical principle. But the practice you develop from that principle (the expression of that repentance) is not biblical (using "in the Bible").

Crossings yourself? Putting an ash cross on your forehead? I say - "Go for it". Express your faith. Live by biblical principles.


But I am cautious using "biblical" because once we say "this is biblical" it becomes prescriptive. One should cross themselves or put ash on their foreheads, which is obviously wrong (it is the crime of the Pharisees).

There is a difference between prescriptive obligations and inculturation.

See this is the problem with bible alonism, it is each reconstructing their Christian religions from scripture alone. Which is not how and what Christianity was founded on.
Psychologically everything is possibly proscriptive in this mindset.

It reduces the bible to oughts and ought nots and “ I don’t have to do that, where in the bible does it say to do that !!??”
They miss the point almost entirely.

This mindset doesn’t savor the Word or see its beauty or inculturate it.
The Typology between old and new covenants, not only carries truth and context, but it brings great beauty and beauty elevates the mind to the transcendent.

Yes, Catholics view the Bible very differently, the Catholic Church carried birthed the Bible and understands and loves it as only a mother could.

 

[JonC]

There is a difference between prescriptive obligations and inculturation.

There is. But my point is your use of "biblical" certainly means "Bible only" is biblical.

The problem is it also means racism is biblical. (Not accusing you, by any means, of racism. Just noting biblical passages have been used to support racism).

That is what I mean by differing on the word "biblical".

Do I believe in God's Word alone? As the standard of our faith, yes. Why? Because we are commanded to lean on His eords alone rather than our understanding.

Obviously that means there will be differences, but even here one holds their understanding at arms length and are not divided in Christ.

Kinda like the church as described in the Bible (sects holding different practices but united in Christ). This is probably why God through Paul commands Christians not to judge other denominations, that Jesus will make them stand.

 

[Ascetic X]

There is. But my point is your use of "biblical" certainly means "Bible only" is biblical.

The problem is it also means racism is biblical. (Not accusing you, by any means, of racism. Just noting biblical passages have been used to support racism).

Racism is biblical? Just because some biblical passages have been used to support racism? What verses have been used to support racism?

The use of the term “biblical” has now gone berserk, if any evil or wrong idea can be supported by misapplied verses from the Bible, and then those errors are called biblical..

I would hope that the word “biblical” would only be used to indicate things that are based on a proper understanding of what the Bible teaches. Just because instances of incest, murder, lying, betrayal of friends, envy, gluttony, polygamy, and other sins and crimes are mentioned in the Bible does not mean such acts are biblical.

EXAMPLES: Honoring your parents is biblical. Abstaining from fornication and adultery is biblical. Doing good things for others is biblical. Elders praying in faith for the sick is biblical. Trusting God in the midst of suffering is biblical.

 

[JonC]

Racism is biblical? Just because some biblical passages have been used to support racism? What verses have been used to support racism?

The use of the term “biblical” has now gone berserk, if any evil or wrong idea can be supported by misapplied verses from the Bible, and then those errors are called biblical..

I would hope that the word “biblical” would only be used to indicate things that are based on a proper understanding of what the Bible teaches.

EXAMPLES: Honoring your parents is biblical. Abstaining from fornication and adultery is biblical. Doing good things for others is biblical. Elders praying in faith for the sick is biblical. Trusting God in the midst of suffering is biblical.

No. Racism is unbiblical.

My point was when we define "biblical" as ideas that people can use verses to support then we open the door to all kinds of error.

Using your example - abstaining from fornication is biblical. Forced castration to prevent fornication is not biblical, although it would encourage people to abstain from fornication.

I just used racism as how evil men used verses in the Bible to support their evil.

The Puritans did the same in the early 17th century. They read passages but misapplied those passages, believing their actions were biblical because they could point to verses in the bible from which they derived their actions. (Granted, much of the Puritian heresy was in misunderstanding the identity of the church).


It is the same with @Cathode and the sign of the cross (except there is absolutely nothing wrong with that sign). We are told repent. We are to live holy lives, to be identified with and imitators of Christ. The principle is biblical. The sign is an expression of that biblical principle. But the sign itself is not biblical (the cross was not even considered a Christian symbol during the Apostolic church period).