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).

 

[Cathode]

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.

No you don’t believe God’s Word Alone, you believe in Scripture Alone, which ironically isn’t taught by scripture.

Catholics are Word of God Alone, because we hold to all of it, The Spoken Word of God and the Written Word of God together.

“ Hold to the traditions we taught you by word of our mouth or by letter “

What happens when you reject the apostles word of mouth tradition and only take their writings.

You get human tradition alone chaos error and rebellion, Protestantism.

First you are disobedience with scripture, and this primal error leads to many other secondary errors.

Instead of allowing Apostolic Oral tradition guide your interpretations of Scripture, they fall into human interpretation and many human traditions of men.

The Church in Scripture looks nothing like bible aline Protestant denominalism.

The inspired Apostolic Oral tradition explains scripture, not human reasoning we see in bible alonism.

There were no denominations, and no one was told or granted to be inspired textual critics of themselves but hold to the apostles oral traditions and writings together.

The first disobedience of rejecting Apostolic oral tradition has lead to tens of thousands of disobeying traditions of men nullifying the Word by conflicting human interpretations and doctrines of men.

 

[Cathode]

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).

“He writes this way in all his letters, speaking in them about such matters. Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:16

Those ignorant of Apostolic oral traditions will twist the scriptures.
Scriptures alone without apostolic tradition, the Spoken Word of God, leads to destruction.
Why? Because Apostolic tradition is the inspired interpretation of scripture.

“But the word of the Lord endures forever.” And this is the word that was preached to you.” 1 Peter 1:25

The preached Word of God endures forever in Apostolic Tradition guarded by The Holy Spirit.
The Spoken word of God explains the written.

 

[Ascetic X]

But alleged “apostolic” tradition that contradicts the written Word must be rejected. The written Word of God is more reliable than any institution now, as it was also more reliable when the Pharisees enforced a temple tradition that had become corrupted.

And when the alleged “apostolic” tradition embedded in an institution joins forces with political powers, worldly kings and queens, growing fabulously wealthy and powerful, the truth of the Living Word, Christ Jesus, has obviously been betrayed.

 

[Cathode]

But alleged “apostolic” tradition that contradicts the written Word must be rejected. The written Word of God is more reliable than any institution now, as it was also more reliable when the Pharisees enforced a temple tradition that had become corrupted.

Apostolic Tradition is the Spoken Word of God explaining the Written word of God.

“Hold to the traditions we taught you by word of our mouth or by letter “

Are you holding to the Oral traditions of the apostles as well, or only their written traditions.

If you are only holding to the scriptures, you are disobeying the scriptures, which tell you to hold to both the Apostles oral traditions and Apostles written traditions.

The Apostles oral teachings are just inspired and infallible as their written traditions. They interpret the scripture infallibly.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

Do you mean, men wearing suits? And I am curious , where do you buy your food?

 

[JonC]

“He writes this way in all his letters, speaking in them about such matters. Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:16

Those ignorant of Apostolic oral traditions will twist the scriptures.
Scriptures alone without apostolic tradition, the Spoken Word of God, leads to destruction.
Why? Because Apostolic tradition is the inspired interpretation of scripture.

“But the word of the Lord endures forever.” And this is the word that was preached to you.” 1 Peter 1:25

The preached Word of God endures forever in Apostolic Tradition guarded by The Holy Spirit.
The Spoken word of God explains the written.

That is subjective. Different groups claim "apostolic tradition". The true Apostalic tradition is recorded in Scripture.

Catholics, for example, ignore both oral tradition and the writings of the church for centuries when dealing with the eucharist. It is a pick-choose-change thing.

 

[JesusFan]

Apostolic Tradition is the Spoken Word of God explaining the Written word of God.

“Hold to the traditions we taught you by word of our mouth or by letter “

Are you holding to the Oral traditions of the apostles as well, or only their written traditions.

If you are only holding to the scriptures, you are disobeying the scriptures, which tell you to hold to both the Apostles oral traditions and Apostles written traditions.

The Apostles oral teachings are just inspired and infallible as their written traditions. They interpret the scripture infallibly.

The ONLY oral traditions that are valid are the ones in the Bible

 

[Cathode]

That is subjective. Different groups claim "apostolic tradition". The true Apostalic tradition is recorded in Scripture.

It’s not subjective, only Catholics existed in Apostolic times, that’s how we preserved the scriptures and assembled the first canon of scripture. No bible aloners existed before the bible. Only Catholics, which is easily proven.

Catholics, for example, ignore both oral tradition and the writings of the church for centuries when dealing with the eucharist. It is a pick-choose-change thing.

No, the Fathers consistently passed on the apostles tradition that the Eucharist is Jesus Flesh and Blood.

This was universally believed in the Church for 1500 years.

You ignore the direct disciple John, the author of John 6. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch, martyr is telling you what the Apostolic understanding is, but you would prefer Zwingli’s new human tradition of symbolic Eucharist and symbolic baptism. Human tradition.

Test Zwinglis bonafides against Ignatius’ .

Was Zwingli taught directly by John and appointed Bishop of Antioch by John.
Who would know the mind and interpretation of the Apostle better, Ignatius or Zwingli 1300 years later, teaching radical crap no one had heard before.

What’s truly subjective is bible aloners views on the Eucharist, They can’t even agree amongst themselves on the Eucharist with so many human traditions.

If Catholics are so inconsistent, why do we have the same understanding of the Eucharist as Ignatius nearly 2000 years later.

 

[JonC]

It’s not subjective, only Catholics existed in Apostolic times, that’s how we preserved the scriptures and assembled the first canon of scripture. No bible aloners existed before the bible. Only Catholics, which is easily proven.



No, the Fathers consistently passed on the apostles tradition that the Eucharist is Jesus Flesh and Blood.

This was universally believed in the Church for 1500 years.

You ignore the direct disciple John, the author of John 6. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch, martyr is telling you what the Apostolic understanding is, but you would prefer Zwingli’s new human tradition of symbolic Eucharist and symbolic baptism. Human tradition.

Test Zwinglis bonafides against Ignatius’ .

Was Zwingli taught directly by John and appointed Bishop of Antioch by John.
Who would know the mind and interpretation of the Apostle better, Ignatius or Zwingli 1300 years later, teaching radical crap no one had heard before.

What’s truly subjective is bible aloners views on the Eucharist, They can’t even agree amongst themselves on the Eucharist with so many human traditions.

If Catholics are so inconsistent, why do we have the same understanding of the Eucharist as Ignatius nearly 2000 years later.

Catholics did not exist for the first several centuries (the catholic...little "c"...did...but wirh various sects).

 

[easternstar]

One thing that disproves Catholicism as apostolic is that there were no monarchial bishops in the apostolic church. A bishop in the NT and early church was simply a pastor of a local church, as 'bishop' and 'pastor' were synonymous terms for one and the same office. There were not two separate offices with a bishop over a pastor in the early church.