A video of my girls dancing in church...

[padredurand]

There are three parables in Luke 15- the lost sheep, the lost coin and the lost son.

The first ends with Jesus saying, "I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance." Luke 15:7 KJV


The second is similar, "Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth." Luke 15:10 KJV

The premise is clear. There is joy in Heaven and joy in the presence of the angels of God over the sinner who repents. That brings us to the third parable.

And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
Luke 15:21-24 KJV

Once again the connection between repentance and the resultant joy only this time only this time Jesus makes the parable much more personal when he says, "A certain man had two sons:" Luke 15:11 KJV Not only do we get the mind picture of a father and two sons but a very clear characterization of the celebration and joy that follows the return and repentance of the Prodigal...

Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing.
Luke 15:25 KJV

I can't speak for the rest of you but I sure do put a lot of stock in the words uttered from Jesus mouth. Here He is teaching about the joy in Heaven that follows the lost being found and He illustrates it by telling us about the merry making at the father's house. More than that, He quotes the father saying, "It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found." Luke 15:32 KJV

The NASB renders it...'But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.'"
Luke 15:32 NASB

This was no mere party. It was worship! They brought the fattened calf like Abraham did for God (Gen 18:7). The lost have been found and the dead have come to life! Heaven rejoices, we have to be merry with the sound of "musick and dancing."

If Jesus wanted dance prohibited in this dispensation why didn't He simply omit the word dance? Then the older son would've come home to the sound of music alone. Why is there no condemnation about dancing here? What better place to discuss the evils of dancing but in a parable about repenting?

Could you imagine a fourth parable that started, "There was a large group of people who were dancing..."

 

[DHK]

Since that is a personal prayer TO God, we don't need to pray that prayer (although I have to admit that I've wanted to at times).

Psalm 150 is not a prayer but a directive. Different animal completely.

Oh - and if you don't realize it, we are Israel. All those who have been grafted into the Vine are Israel (Romans 9).

You don't make sense. If the psalmist David has the "authority" to command me to praise God, then he has the same "authority" to command me to kill, such as he killed Uriah. Context is everything.
David, in a prayer of praise, is praising the Lord. He is not commanding anyone to do the same. It is a prayer, and a prayer of praise. These are not directives, even if they look like it. It is a psalm of praise--not commands, but a prayer. It is not different than Psalm 150

Yes we have been grafted in; but that doesn't make us Israel. It makes us partakers of the blessings that were given to Israel and that is all. Israel is still a separate nation that one day will recognize who the Messiah really is, and as a nation will be saved (Rom.11:22). They will look upon him whom they have pierced. We are not Israel.

As pertaining context of Psalm 109, let's not take one verse out of the context of the entire psalm. Look at the last few verses and get the entire context.

Psalms 109:28-31 They may curse, but you bless. When they arise, they will be shamed, But your servant shall rejoice. Let my adversaries be clothed with dishonor. Let them cover themselves with their own shame as with a robe. I will give great thanks to Yahweh with my mouth. Yes, I will praise him among the multitude. For he will stand at the right hand of the needy, To save him from those who judge his soul.

He rejoices in the defeat of his enemies, those whom he prayed for is such a judgmental way.
He rejoices in those that he cursed, that they were indeed cursed by God and faced God's judgement.
He rejoiced that they would be covered with their own shame.
For this he gives great thanks. And for these things he praises God among the multitude. He is ever grateful that the Lord will save those like him from the enemies such as those that he cursed in his prayer. That is the ending of the psalm.

 

[DHK]

If Jesus wanted dance prohibited in this dispensation why didn't He simply omit the word dance? Then the older son would've come home to the sound of music alone. Why is there no condemnation about dancing here? What better place to discuss the evils of dancing but in a parable about repenting?

Could you imagine a fourth parable that started, "There was a large group of people who were dancing..."

If you are going to butcher the parables of Jesus, why not just make the application that when celebrating the Lord's Supper we should roast a fatted calf and celebrate the Lord's Supper by sharing a fatted calf. That is a parallel illustration to what you are doing here.
He uses an earthly illustration of the culture of that time to teach a heavenly principle--that the angels rejoice when one soul is saved. The prodigal son had come back to the father. Over this reconciliation they rejoiced. This was the point of the parable. Most other things of the parable were irrelevant, especially the dancing. Your eisigesis is ridiculous.

 

[padredurand]

Most other things of the parable were irrelevant, especially the dancing. Your eisigesis is ridiculous.

They do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...

The parables, fair in their outward form, are yet fairer within —
apples of gold in network of silver: each one of them like a casket,
itself of exquisite workmanship, but in which jewels yet richer than
itself are laid up ; or as fruit, which, however lovely to look upon, is yet
more delectable still in its inner sweetness. ~Bernard

 

[matt wade]

Most other things of the parable were irrelevant, especially the dancing.

Personally I believe that all scripture is relevant. Your credibility has now been completely shot. You've just told us that you are able to declare portions of scripture as irrelevant.

 

[John Toppass]

Most other things of the parable were irrelevant, especially the dancing. Your eisigesis is ridiculous.

Someone has gone off the deep end. Prayers sent.

 

[Joshua Rhodes]

Annsi - I finally saw the video... my computer apparantly has an aversion to YouTube. Your girls are precious. Keep encouraging them to praise God and honor Him with their gifts.

 

[annsni]

Annsi - I finally saw the video... my computer apparantly has an aversion to YouTube. Your girls are precious. Keep encouraging them to praise God and honor Him with their gifts.

Thanks Joshua.

 

[gb93433]

DHK:

I am still waiting for some direct answers to my questions in post #192

 

[Alive in Christ]

gb93433,

Dont hold your breath. I posted this in post 136...

Theres something I dont understand, DHK.

I have seen you vigorously argue against Church of Christers who say everything must come from the New Testament to be valid for us today. You say...correctly...that we go according to the entire counsel of the scriptures, not just the NT.

Now, however, you discredit David dancing unto the Lord, because its from the old testament, and everything must be proven from the New Testament.

Could you explain about this?


Thanks.

...and Spinach later "2nd" it.


The silence has been deafening since then.


:godisgood:

 

[gb93433]

God told Israel not us, to praise Him with loud instruments and dancing.

The entire Bible was written in the past. The writings are historical. Why would you read your Bible if you find no application in it?

 

[padredurand]

"We must reduce our volume to the simple Evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphiboligisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his and which is as easily distinguished as diamonds in a dung-hill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages." Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Adams October 12, 1813 as Jefferson prepared to undertake the "Jefferson bible"

Thomas Jefferson thought that much of the Gospels were irrelevant. He did, however, leave the parable of the prodigal son intact.

 

[DHK]

gb93433,

Dont hold your breath. I posted this in post 136...

...and Spinach later "2nd" it.

The silence has been deafening since then.

I don't think you read much. I have given those reasons three or four times if not more. Here is just one example of where that answer is explained in some detail. I hope you understand English.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1352504&postcount=127

 

[DHK]

You are the one that wrote you did not find dancing in the OT. Therefore suggesting that it was not valid.

We know that dancing is not found in the NT. We also know what NT worship included. It is clearly taught in the Word of God. We don't teach from silence. I don't have to prove anything from silence. I can show you from Acts 2:41,42 what some of the elements were in NT worship. There are other passages that can be used as well. But there is no passage that includes dancing. None.

Pant and dresses are not in the OT and NT and according to your hermenetuical principle they must not be worn because they are not in the NT. Red herring? Just applying your principle. I am just being consistent in what you claimed. Do you have a problem with being consistent in your hermeneutical principle?

This is a red herring. If you want to talk about dress start a thread on dress. This has nothing to do with worship.

I was discussing worship, but you wrote off the issue of dancing because "it is not found in the NT." So I followed up with a practice I am quite sure you do, trying to draw you out and challenge your principle.
The principle I saw you practicing is that is if it is not found in the NT then it must not be practiced now, and that the OT is no longer valid so that is a non-issue. Am I right or wrong?

You are wrong. Not only is the practice not found in the Bible, but the principles of dance as worship are not found in the Bible.

Answer: What is dance, and what is the purpose of dance?
It is (and always has been) a form of entertainment?
If done in church, who is being entertained: man or God?
I have news for you: God needs no entertaining, nor does he wish to be.
God is all-sufficient; He has need of nothing. If He needed anything, then He wouldn't be God. He commands our worship, for He alone is worthy. To worship God is for our good, not His. However, God does not need nor desire entertainment.
Man does not need entertainment. There are times when entertainment may not be wrong--in your own home, on your own time, at your own leisure, etc., but not in church or during a time of worship. Worship and entertainment do not go together. Dance is not worship; dance is entertainment. It is of the world. The Bible says be not conformed to this world.
Rather "Be conformed to the image of Christ."
Dancing does not conform one to the image of Christ.
I don't picture Christ as dancing. That is not my picture of deity.

 

[DHK]

The entire Bible was written in the past. The writings are historical. Why would you read your Bible if you find no application in it?

Why would you even bother to study your Bible if you are determined in your heart not to interpret it properly.

Peter warned:
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

If you care about the Bible and its instruction you wouldn't keep twisting the Scriptures and taking them out of context.

 

[DHK]

Thomas Jefferson thought that much of the Gospels were irrelevant. He did, however, leave the parable of the prodigal son intact.

I am a Canadian. I am not concerned about Thomas Jefferson. I leave him in your hands. As for me, I am more concerned about living my life according to the Scriptures--all 66 books taken in their proper context.

 

[Alive in Christ]

DHK,

Thanks for the link. That post is in the *general approximate area* of this *general* topic, but....

I am asking a specific question.


Unfortunetly, there is nothing in that post that describes why you criticize Church of Christers for their habit of having to have everything justified specifically from the new testament, yet now you continually say that dance is inappropriate in our churches because it is not specifically mentioned in the NT.

Just a clear response to a clearly articulated question would be much better.

Thanks.


:godisgood:

 

[DHK]

DHK,

Thanks for the link. That post is in the *general approximate area* of this *general* topic, but....

I am asking a specific question.


Unfortunetly, there is nothing in that post that describes why you criticize Church of Christers for their habit of having to have everything justified specifically from the new testament, yet now you continually say that dance is inappropriate in our churches because it is not specifically mentioned in the NT.

Just a clear response to a clearly articulated question would be much better.

Thanks.

You exhaust my patience. I have repeated my stand, and have been consistent with it throughout these many pages, that I fail how you cannot see the difference.
I am not Church of Christ. I do believe that instruments can be used in the Church because I believe there is a Biblical precedent for them. In fact I can demonstrate through the NT, specifically the epistles written to the local churches that instruments were probably used in their worship. At least I can make a case for it using the Scriptures.
The Church of Christ prohibits the use of instruments, even when they don't have a case. That is hypocritical. I can show them the use of instruments in the Bible and still they won't accept it. It is a matter of belief and unbelief. If I challenge an atheist: "If I demonstrate to you beyond any shadow of a doubt that Jesus Christ lived, died, and bodily rose again from the dead, then will you believe Him as your Savior?" The answer will still be NO. The COC, like the atheist, will not believe, in spite of the evidence given, because he doesn't want to go against his denominational belief. It is hypocritical for him to say he believes the Bible, and then to reject its teaching.

On the other hand, unlike instruments, dancing is not in the NT, is not a form of NT worship, cannot and has not been demonstrated to be worshipful; but rather is carnal. It is and always has been a form of entertainment. Neither God nor man needs entertainment when it comes to worshiping our Creator, the Lord of Lords, and King of Kings. Glory, Honor, and Worship belong to Him alone--not dance. Dance is entertainment, and you won't find that in the NT. There is no precedent for such activity in the NT local churches. It is not a Biblical practice.

 

[gb93433]

Why would you even bother to study your Bible if you are determined in your heart not to interpret it properly.

Peter warned:
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

If you care about the Bible and its instruction you wouldn't keep twisting the Scriptures and taking them out of context.

Give one example where I have done such a thing.

 

[gb93433]

If you want to talk about dress start a thread on dress. This has nothing to do with worship.

Are red herrings anything you are uncomfortable with and do not have an answer for or too afraid you might be wrong? If you had ever read what I wrote, you would have quickly realized that it was never about pants but about your hermeneutics. How many times do I need to explain that? This is now the fourth time.

Not only is the practice not found in the Bible, but the principles of dance as worship are not found in the Bible.

Nor are the principles of wearing pants found in the NT but I assume you wear them. Why?

If done in church, who is being entertained: man or God?

WOW!! Can you just imagine an emotionless man worshiping God in true worship as the Jews and early church did? I have never really thought of being entertained but rather focusing on God. I assume you see a lady dancing instead of seeing God by what you wrote. I have seen men dancing in church and among Jews and messianic Jews. So I guess you are the only one who could possibly be right? What you wrote reminds me of the tyrant who came on campus to preach to (rather condemn) the students and pointed out a lady with a slightly low cut dress. He drew their attention to the lady in the crowd rather than on Christ. Gotta have those legalist's rules for everyone to know and divert their attention from Christ. One of my students came to class and told the class about what the man said about the lady and then went on to say what the preacher also thought about--the lady in her low cut dress. Some in the class laughed about the preacher while the Christians were disgusted.

Certainly we would never want anything that might be thought of as entertainment in the church. It would be just too much fun to praise God for who He is and what He has done. Christians should never enjoy God's presence because they have served Him.

He commands our worship, for He alone is worthy. To worship God is for our good, not His.

It is obvious that you really do not know what true worship is. Pull out your Greek NT and see how many words are translated as worship. I seriously doubt that in your church that you do one of those. I could just see the men in their stiff suits and ties doing that! If they did someone might just catch them worshiping God and that could look bad for your church.

However, God does not need nor desire entertainment.
Man does not need entertainment. There are times when entertainment may not be wrong--in your own home, on your own time, at your own leisure, etc., but not in church or during a time of worship.

Those statements are contradictory. God does not need nor desire entertainment and man does not need entertainment. How is that doing all to the glory of God?

Worship and entertainment do not go together. Dance is not worship; dance is entertainment. It is of the world. The Bible says be not conformed to this world.
Rather "Be conformed to the image of Christ."
Dancing does not conform one to the image of Christ.

I don't picture Christ as dancing. That is not my picture of deity.

I can easily picture Christ dancing with children and having a great time until people like you walk in and begin to condemn them like the Pharisees did when Jesus picked grain on the sabbath. The problem is that your personal opinion has become "your" personal biblical theology. That is like what many say to those in Bible studies, What does it mean to you?" Now you have just told us your problem. What your think and what your opinion is has nothing to do with what scripture really teaches and what the practice among those in the early church was.

Now I understand why you say what you do. Your personal opinion and your personal theology being mixed up with some verses in the Bible is a lot like Mormonism.