No, it's not.
It's about sexuality in God's intended context.
Read SoS and tell me it's allegorical. It's pretty straightforward.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Are some Churches getting out of hand?
- Thread starter Ps104_33
- Start date
- Status
No, it's not.
It's about sexuality in God's intended context.
Read SoS and tell me it's allegorical. It's pretty straightforward.
I enjoy your posts and agree with most of what you say, but just to clarify, SoS has nothing to do with Christ and the church (but you're also right that it is not a sex manual).
We can talk about SoS in another thread as to it being literal/allegorical.
But in either case it doesn't prove what Ann says it proves. Its not a manual for sex..period. In the literal since it is a discussion between two people who are in love. This means it has nothing to do with the sexaual relationship between husband and wife and how to "spice" things up. Therefore it can't be a proof text in the way Ann has used it. That was the point I was trying to make.
Last edited by a moderator:
yeah...rethinking how I answered..."manual" wouldn't be right. JDF got it.
Was I defending the signs because of VBS? No. You said:
"Using the signs and the secular songs is not and never will be scripture. They cross the clear lines of holiness and seperation that the scripture draws for us. This is being unevenly yoked. This is darkness (worldliness) have part with the light."
You did not clarify that you were speaking of particular signs. I read it as any signs and billboards. I'm sorry if I misunderstood.
If God has an entire book devoted to the love of a man and a woman - with sexual connotations in there, don't you think it would be useful in a discussion on sex? I've read it and see that sex between a married couple is to be enjoyed fully - not as obligatory as some say it should be.
It is getting them to hear the Gospel since how will they hear it if it's not preached to them? They need Jesus Christ, clear and simple.
I disagree that a discussion of sex is putting the cart before the horse because, as I mentioned earlier in this thread (I think), I was in a discussion about Christ and the church with some people online. They thought they had a zinger about sex with me - a question that would apparently bury me and make me a fool in front of everyone. When I told them what the Bible had to say and didn't say, they were shocked. Not many outside the faith understand the truth of the Word of God even with issues such as this. Why is it wrong to teach the truth of the issues and preach the Gospel together? I don't think your church gives the same message every week, do they? They teach topically or through a book or whatever - and I'm sure the Gospel is preached too. There's nothing wrong with that, IMO.
Let's put it this way:
I agree with Rod Rosenbladt's statement on the White Horse Inn: "Did Jesus have to die in order for what you're preaching to be true? If not, then you shouldn't be preaching it."
We're called to preach the word of God, not give life enhancement serminars.
If a church is preaching the word of God, then there's no need for the recent "better sex" fad because if we were preaching the word of God, then people would already have a sound Biblical understanding of the role sex plays in a marriage. Churches wouldn't have to hold financial seminars because they'd already have a Biblical understanding of finance.
There are too many churches that have stopped preaching God's word today and have become more interested in becoming just another life enhancement program, like Tony Robbins, only with a couple of Bible verses thrown in.
When I first started preaching, the best advice I ever got was "Just keep it close to the cross, boy". What does a "seven day sex challenge" have to do with the cross?
Did Jesus really die so that we could preach about having "your best sex life now"?
I agree with Rod Rosenbladt's statement on the White Horse Inn: "Did Jesus have to die in order for what you're preaching to be true? If not, then you shouldn't be preaching it."
We're called to preach the word of God, not give life enhancement serminars.
If a church is preaching the word of God, then there's no need for the recent "better sex" fad because if we were preaching the word of God, then people would already have a sound Biblical understanding of the role sex plays in a marriage. Churches wouldn't have to hold financial seminars because they'd already have a Biblical understanding of finance.
There are too many churches that have stopped preaching God's word today and have become more interested in becoming just another life enhancement program, like Tony Robbins, only with a couple of Bible verses thrown in.
When I first started preaching, the best advice I ever got was "Just keep it close to the cross, boy". What does a "seven day sex challenge" have to do with the cross?
Did Jesus really die so that we could preach about having "your best sex life now"?
But by your own logic, if sex was to be the focus, why is it only in 1/66 of the books of the Bible?
And that has... what, exactly to do with sex?
Not every commentary assumes an allegorical interpretation.
In addition there could be no allegorical interpretation before the Word became flesh.
As to only 1/66 of the Bible having to do with marriage and reproduction; that also is not true. Marriage and/or human reproduction are found everywhere in the Scripture and sometimes in not so delicate terms (i.e. Genesis 38:8-9).
HankD
Last edited:
There in lies your poor understanding of the scriptures!:wavey:
Maybe the problem is that you are winning them in stead of allowing The Lord Jesus Christ to win them.
You evidently buffet'd the feeding of the five thousand and the feeding of the seven thousand and Jesus pointing it out to his disciples out of your Bible. You call it a gimmick or a fad or what ever you want to call it, I call it meeting their need to gain their ear and The Lord Jesus Christ did it over and over and over and over again.
You said it not me!:thumbsup:
Really??
You mean that you havent even read your Bible? Because if I'm not mistaken God said for a man to take the first year of marriage of so that he may learn to pleasure his wife.
That sounds to me like a one year challenge.
But then that was only God that said that and he was the same guy that used the gimmicks.
So, over two millennia of devout Jewish and Christian reading of the book is wrong, because . . .
I was just curious. What communion was he talking about when he described her breasts (8 times) and aluded to the sucking of the breasts? Please help me understand because I really hadn't figured this into my relationship with my Lord.
Wow. And you actually had the nerve to accuse somebody else of having a poor understanding of scripture.
Yeah, I said it and I stand by it.
Yes, I've been studying it for just over twenty years and teaching and preaching it for about fifteen.
Are you referring to 1 Cor 7:33?
Sure it does, just as does Eph.5. Thats one of the really cool things about The Lord he is often addressing multiple subjects in one statement.:applause:
No Duet.24 it actually says cheer up. The judgemental implication was cool though.
Nope. Two different passages. SoS has nothing to do with Christ and the church.
If you want to believe that Christ has sex with the church, then that's up to you, but if you do, please don't accuse others of not understanding the Bible.
Ah, verse 5. This has nothing to do with having sex, nor should be the basis for foolish "seven day sex challenges".
You mean I can't compare scripture with scripture? You mean I can't rightly divide the word of truth? Thats to bad because I could have sworn that both of the passages were talking about both marriage and the Church (ie. my relationship with Christ).
Wow!
Really??
Wow!
Man you really filled my mouth with words.
You don't suppose that I was trying to illustrate that because of the sexual connatation that he couldn't have been specificly addressing the "communion" that he has with the believer and therefore must have been addressing the sexual relationship between a man and his wife which is the most intimate relationship that two humans can have, and was there by illustrating that he wishes to have an intimate relationship with his creation that allows the two to become one in the consumation of faith?
Give me a break man!
If you dont allow me a little Grace then I'll never be able to learn all of those big words that you use in the Pulpit.
raying:- Status