Back to Christmas

[Thinkingstuff]

I don't find any liturgy in the Bible. In fact some believe that the bondage of ritualism found in liturgy is the sin of "the doctrine of Jezebel" found in Revelation. I am not saying that I necessarily agree with that position, but we do know that Jesus condemned ritualism.

I find this statement interesting. As I study the bible I find more and more referrences to liturgy than you might guess at. First off liturgy was a custom of Jewish practices. Part of the synagogue was to learn scriptures in community by repitition from liturgical practices. It seems early Christians adopted this method having taken some aspects from the Jews. We see that with the New Testiment writings there were regular readings (part of this communal memory received from Jewish practices) ie; 1 Tim 4:13

Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture

, 1 Thes 5:27

I charge you before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers and sisters.

, Col 4:16

After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.

There was ritualized worship and doctrinal repitition: Eph 5:19

speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord

. Col 1:15-20 copies a common song/doctrinal statement used repetatively that the church was familiar with

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Regular prayers and responsitories such as amen 1 Cor 14:16

Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit, how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer,[a] say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying?

There was the practice of ritual welcoming 1 Cor 16:20

All the brothers and sisters here send you greetings. Greet one another with a holy kiss.

, 2 cor 13:12

Greet one another with a holy kiss.

Paul spells out how to celebrate communion properly in 1 Cor 11:20-29 and condemns diversion from proceedure. So though Jesus didn't want to have sensless prayer it seems the early christians were far more ritualized than what seems commonly accepted.

 

[DHK]

Why does it have to be in the Bible?

You are talking of worship, not about cars. The Bible is our final authority in all things pertaining to faith and doctrine--that is why. If your authority is the Pope, the Magesterium, or the RCC Catechism, then I suggest you switch churches and go to a Catholic Church. The first distinctive of a Baptist is that the Bible is the final authority in all things pertaining to faith and doctrine.

We do a heck of a lot of things that are not in the Bible in our churches. This is a tradition of devotion and remembrance. To those who celebrate and are in Christ, it is nothing close to ritualism.

I would challenge your statement. I don't know what kind of church you go to. You say you are Baptist in your profile, but in your statement of salvation you question your own salvation:
"This question is theologically problematic,"

However my challenge is to you: what are the "lot of things that we do that are not in the Bible," that pertain to faith and doctrine? Show me those things from my church. I am talking of worship, doctrine, not driving cars, etc.
For example here is what the early church did:

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. (Acts 2:42)

We do the same thing, and it is not liturgical.

Do you celebrate Advent? Christmas? Holy week? Easter? If so, you're already participating.

No, I don't celebrate any of the above. Why would I participate in Catholic and/or pagan rituals?

They're not commandments. It's purely worshipful devotion and remembrance. The Word is preached, the gospel is heard, and we remember the life of Christ during the year.

Get a hold of a Catholic Liturgical Calendar.
You can pray to a different saint every day of the year. That is a liturgical calendar. I used to pray to Saint Christopher, the patron saint of travel, before we set out on journeys. We had his idol on the dashboard. Since you seem to be caught up in the liturgical end of the rope, why not pray to Mary and the saints, and all the dead as well. Why not do it all? Like I said the Catholic Church is syncrestic, mixing the pagan with the Christian.

BTW, I remember Christ every day, not just on specific days of the year.

I can't believe I'm hearing this. This is a horrific, terrible thing to say. There are many, many evangelical Christians who follow the Church calender.

So you make that claim. I don't know any. And I don't know any evangelical Baptists that do.

When did I say I believed that? Your paranoia is causing you to put words in my mouth.

You were referring to the Catholic Church. They don't have a "Christian" message. Their message is a message of works. It sends people to hell not heaven.

Heresies of the "RCC" would include things like salvation according to works. It has nothing to do with following the liturgical calender.

The liturgical calendar promotes just that.
Ash Wednesday, for example, is just one of the many sacramental works that a Catholic can DO. It is a WORK! And you are party to their sinful way of salvation by association with it. The Hindus put a mark on their foreheads also. Pagan ritualism that has nothing to do with Christianity.

Friend, I would suggest you pray about this attitude of yours. I know many Catholics who have come to Christ and I know many former Catholics who came to faith while still a part of the Catholic church.

I am one of those Catholics that came to Christ.
Those who came to Christ and stay in the RCC remain disobedient to Christ. "Come out from among them saith the Lord."
God's command is always to separate, never to infiltrate.

We may have split many, many years ago, but we are the same Church.

There was no split. The RCC is not Christian, was never Christian, and never will be Christian. The Baptists did not come out of the Reformation; they were before it, and never part of the RCC.

 

[DHK]

I find this statement interesting. As I study the bible I find more and more referrences to liturgy than you might guess at. First off liturgy was a custom of Jewish practices. Part of the synagogue was to learn scriptures in community by repitition from liturgical practices.

Christianity is not Jewish. There was a clean break from the Jews.
It seems early Christians adopted this method having taken some aspects from the Jews. We see that with the New Testiment writings there were regular readings (part of this communal memory received from Jewish practices) ie; 1 Tim 4:13 [/quote]
We read Scripture too. There is nothing liturgical about reading the Bible.
Scripture out of context, maybe??

, 1 Thes 5:27
I charge you before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers and sisters.

They didn't have email. They couldn't forward one email with an attachment or a number of cc's. It was done by foot. The letter was carried to other churches who had not heard it and read publicly so that they could get the same inspired information that Paul had written.

, Col 4:16
After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.

Same as above. The letter was to be read in other churches. What has that to do with liturgy?? Nothing.

There was ritualized worship and doctrinal repitition: Eph 5:19
speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord

Wrong again. We carry out the same command in our own churches and our own lives. There is no liturgy here. What has "in our hearts" have to do with liturgy? Nothing.

Col 1:15-20 copies a common song/doctrinal statement used repetatively that the church was familiar with

You are totally off base here. You are right in that it is a doctrinal statement, but it is simply an opinion of yours that it is a common song. It has nothing to do with liturgy. That cannot be demonstrated or proven.

Regular prayers and responsitories such as amen 1 Cor 14:16
Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit, how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer,[a] say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying?

You are way out of context (as usual). In this passage Paul is speaking of the abuse of tongues. If they are speaking in tongues a person won't even know when to say amen, if no one knows what they are saying. Paul was rebuking them. No liturgy here; only rebuke.

There was the practice of ritual welcoming 1 Cor 16:20
All the brothers and sisters here send you greetings. Greet one another with a holy kiss.

And how does this fit into your liturgical calendar.
Will shaking your hand do?
If I greet you with a peck on the cheek will you be more satisfied?
Will it then fall in the category of ritual or liturgical??

2 cor 13:12
Greet one another with a holy kiss.

Same as above. Where do you get liturgy out of this? How is this ritualism any more than shaking a person's hand? It isn't.

Paul spells out how to celebrate communion properly in 1 Cor 11:20-29 and condemns diversion from proceedure. So though Jesus didn't want to have sensless prayer it seems the early christians were far more ritualized than what seems commonly accepted.

And there was no senseless prayer which is what kept it from being liturgical. Prayer is from the heart, not from a book. Read the teaching on prayer that Jesus gave in Matthew 6:5-7. The early Christians were not "ritualized" at all.

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. (Acts 2:42)

 

[jaigner]

Wrong again. We carry out the same command in our own churches and our own lives. There is no liturgy here. What has "in our hearts" have to do with liturgy? Nothing.

You are totally off base here. You are right in that it is a doctrinal statement, but it is simply an opinion of yours that it is a common song. It has nothing to do with liturgy. That cannot be demonstrated or proven.

Why are you so adamant that this is about faithless ritual? Because of your likely guilt-ridden upbringing? Because the message you got was one of works instead of faith?

I hear you reacting out of emotion here, not an objective, level-headed discussion. I could be wrong, but it seems that you are very quick to tie liturgy and all those who follow the calender to Catholicism. Could that be because of your very strong reaction to your Catholic upbringing.

There is no guilt by association and there is no hint of salvific works in this equation.

 

[DHK]

Why are you so adamant that this is about faithless ritual? Because of your likely guilt-ridden upbringing? Because the message you got was one of works instead of faith?

I hear you reacting out of emotion here, not an objective, level-headed discussion. I could be wrong, but it seems that you are very quick to tie liturgy and all those who follow the calender to Catholicism. Could that be because of your very strong reaction to your Catholic upbringing.

There is no guilt by association and there is no hint of salvific works in this equation.

Your above post shows your inability to comment on Scripture and your quickness to judge the heart of others. You should be ashamed of yourself.
The quote that you were commenting on was a comment on Eph.5:19

Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; (Ephesians 5:19)

This has nothing to do with liturgy, ritualism, or the RCC, or my emotions.
Are you the one with an emotional breakdown perhaps??
Where is reason here? What does this verse, and the others posted have to do with liturgy? As I answered and showed--nothing!

 

[jaigner]

Your above post shows your inability to comment on Scripture and your quickness to judge the heart of others. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Where is reason here? What does this verse, and the others posted have to do with liturgy? As I answered and showed--nothing!

I am not judging your heart, I'm just asking the question your words beg. What's really going on there is between you and your Maker.

Neither am I the one devoid of reason. The text you quoted does not indicate a command unfulfilled by liturgy. What do we do in liturgy? We remember the life of Christ as taught by the Bible. We sing, read and respond to the Word of the Lord in worship with songs, hymns. We speak the truth to ourselves and each other with creeds.

We participate in Christ's life because he is the center of Christian worship. We put ourselves in the garden, at the cross, at the empty tomb as a means of increasing our devotion and thankfulness to our Creator/Redeemer.

Don't like these things, don't do it, but don't for one minute act as if those of us who participate in liturgical worship are spiritually bankrupt or participate in a cult.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I am not judging your heart, I'm just asking the question your words beg. What's really going on there is between you and your Maker.

Neither am I the one devoid of reason. The text you quoted does not indicate a command unfulfilled by liturgy. What do we do in liturgy? We remember the life of Christ as taught by the Bible. We sing, read and respond to the Word of the Lord in worship with songs, hymns. We speak the truth to ourselves and each other with creeds.

We participate in Christ's life because he is the center of Christian worship. We put ourselves in the garden, at the cross, at the empty tomb as a means of increasing our devotion and thankfulness to our Creator/Redeemer.

Don't like these things, don't do it, but don't for one minute act as if those of us who participate in liturgical worship are spiritually bankrupt or participate in a cult.

Jag....just remember Nov 28 .... 1st Sunday of Advent. What color are the candles this year? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[jaigner]

Jag....just remember Nov 28 .... 1st Sunday of Advent. What color are the candles this year? :smilewinkgrin:

That's funny. This is a real blind spot for baptists. The anti-catholic sentiment in this country has been so strong that there's still a residue.

And liturgy has nothing to do with Catholicism.

As DHK says, there was never a split. We are the same Church.

That being said, I can't be a Catholic just like I can't be a lot of things. Doesn't mean we're not the same Church.

 

[webdog]

That being said, I can't be a Catholic just like I can't be a lot of things. Doesn't mean we're not the same Church.

If we are the same church, yet you cannot be a catholic...how are you part of the church?

 

[jaigner]

If we are the same church, yet you cannot be a catholic...how are you part of the church?

Christ's Church. Not talking about denominations.

 

[webdog]

Christ's Church. Not talking about denominations.

You think the Roman Catholic is part of Christ's church?

 

[jaigner]

You think the Roman Catholic is part of Christ's church?

We have the same foundation, which cannot be negated, even with the presence of doctrinal error.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Whats this all have to do with Christmas?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

O I see...we are in a general baptist discussions group. You should start something in other Denoms rather than inflame baptists

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Christianity is not Jewish. There was a clean break from the Jews.

from a clearly historical perspective you need to work on historical knowledge. There was a break from the Jews. I place more of that on the Jews especially after 70 AD. However, that doesn't mean Christianity did not incorporate certain jewish modes and practices.

It seems early Christians adopted this method having taken some aspects from the Jews. We see that with the New Testiment writings there were regular readings (part of this communal memory received from Jewish practices) ie; 1 Tim 4:13

We read Scripture too. There is nothing liturgical about reading the Bible.
Scripture out of context, maybe??[/QUOTE]
If you had read the Didache or Hyppolytus you would have noted early liturgical writings in Christianity. You can compare writings in the Didache to the NT and make comparisons. Also the verses I quoted indicate that the practice of communal readings from a liturgical stand point was done. You seem to compare this writing to a midieval crier who ran from church to church saying "Hear Ye! Hear Ye!" Not at all. Text were copied and given to the different churches who included the writings in their reading which they did consistantly over the year. Each believing community would attempt to keep their own copy of Apostolic Letters. NT writers took commonly read doctrinal statements like I mentioned from colosians and taught from them. You may say it is my opinion but not mine alone. The text can be seen to have been copied. One that was clearly known by the church he was writing to. It seem this statement was repeated regularily.

What has that to do with liturgy??

Evidence to support from the scriptures it was practiced in the early church.

Wrong again. We carry out the same command in our own churches and our own lives. There is no liturgy here. What has "in our hearts" have to do with liturgy? Nothing.

Here is where you are wrong. It was common practice and a comment on common practice. Its a statement on proceedural practice or liturgy.

You are totally off base here. You are right in that it is a doctrinal statement, but it is simply an opinion of yours that it is a common song. It has nothing to do with liturgy.

You can tell by the construction in the greek that Paul copied it. It seems very likely it has to do with liturgy. BTW I doubt I can demonstrate to you that the distance between the stars operate by distances we call light years in effect show the universe is older than 10,000 years. Why can't I? Not because it isn't shown factually but because you don't want to believe it. So facts are irrelevant to you in this case.

You are way out of context (as usual).

Not at all. You should review the passage.

In this passage Paul is speaking of the abuse of tongues. If they are speaking in tongues a person won't even know when to say amen, if no one knows what they are saying. Paul was rebuking them.

Yes because they were disorderly. Proceedure broke down. The fact is it lends itself to liturgy.

And how does this fit into your liturgical calendar.

I'm not discussing liturgical calander with you but liturgy itself.

Will shaking your hand do?

Paul obviously made into a ritual greeting. I would rather shake your hand than provide you with a kiss no matter how stricking you may look.

If I greet you with a peck on the cheek will you be more satisfied?

I think my wife might have something to say about it. I'd rather the handshake.

Will it then fall in the category of ritual or liturgical??

either way its ritualistic.

And there was no senseless prayer which is what kept it from being liturgical.

Praying psalms is not sensless but often done. Just because its writen down doesn't mean its any less heartful.

Read the teaching on prayer that Jesus gave in Matthew 6:5-7.

My church says this prayer in the way Jesus gave it all the time.

The early Christians were not "ritualized" at all.

Too much historical evidence contrary to this view.

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. (Acts 2:42)

Note the terms Continued and steadfastly. This is consistant regular way of doing things like ritural or liturgy.

 

[DHK]

We have the same foundation, which cannot be negated, even with the presence of doctrinal error.

What foundation is that?
The RCC has more in common with Hinduism than Christianity (in a sense)
"We" (whoever that may be) don't have anything in common with the RCC.
They and Biblical Christianity are at polar extremes. One teaches a false message which Paul calls anathema. The other teaches the truth of the gospel. One never did teach the truth; the other always taught the truth of the gospel. It is cut and dry. There is no "we".

 

[jaigner]

One never did teach the truth; the other always taught the truth of the gospel. It is cut and dry. There is no "we".

Ummm...pre-reformation, anyone?

True, the Catholic church had become corrupt many years earlier, but up until this time, it was the Church.

Go back to early Christianity, and, with the exception of those eastern weirdos, things were in a sense pretty unified.

God chose, for whatever reason, to preserve the Church that way. Go figure.

 

[DHK]

Ummm...pre-reformation, anyone?

True, the Catholic church had become corrupt many years earlier, but up until this time, it was the Church.

Go back to early Christianity, and, with the exception of those eastern weirdos, things were in a sense pretty unified.

God chose, for whatever reason, to preserve the Church that way. Go figure.

The Catholic Church never existed until the 4th century. The Apostles were not RCC--sad news to you. Paul went on three missionary journeys and in that time established approximately 100 independent churches. There were no denominations. These early believers had the Scriptures as their guide--first the OT, and then the NT, as it became inscripturated and available to them. Thus the commands in the Bible "Let this epistle be read in all the churches," etc. The RCC had nothing to do with the spread of Christianity or even the Scriptures.
Please don't count the early believers and the apostles themselves intellectually challenged so that they could not discern what God had told the Apostles what was inspired and what was not. That position is just insulting. Take 2Pet.3:15,16 and see how Peter recognizes Paul's writing as Scripture. Peter knew what was Scripture and what was not. But most of modern critics think that the apostles in this area were intellectually challenged. They more or less agree with the Pharisees assessment:

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. (Acts 4:13)

(but they don't mind believing the last half of the verse)

 

[jaigner]

The Catholic Church never existed until the 4th century. The Apostles were not RCC--sad news to you.

Dude, why the animosity?

The Church was more scattered and autonomous before the first council of Nicea in 325, but that council was meant to unify and solidify Christian doctrine. Though that was around the time, because of Constantine, we first had the RCC, it's nothing but ludicrous to believe that it started a new, bastardized version of the Church. You know this, I'm sure. Nicea was a major, positive turning point.

You can't possibly believe the true Church largely stopped existing after Constantine and the first nicene council, though, if you do, everything else you've said would make sense. This point of view is nothing but inaccurate.

I know you will go to whatever lengths possible to claim otherwise, but just because the Catholic church has much doctrinal error today doesn't mean that it does not have the same roots. To argue this would place yourself somewhere outside the realm of nicene Christianity, since the roman church had already been established and churches were much less independent.

I just don't understand the hostility here, man. I'm not some idiot neophyte making stuff up here. I'm theologically trained and understand the framework of the Church's development. I'm coming from the same viewpoint as most evangelical scholars would.

 

[DHK]

Dude, why the animosity?

The Church was more scattered and autonomous before the first council of Nicea in 325, but that council was meant to unify and solidify Christian doctrine. Though that was around the time, because of Constantine, we first had the RCC, it's nothing but ludicrous to believe that it started a new, bastardized version of the Church. You know this, I'm sure. Nicea was a major, positive turning point.

Christian doctrine was unified and solidified long before that time. Believers knew the truth and had always "contended for the faith" as Jude exhorted them to. They kept the faith, as Paul did. There were those churches that did, and then there were those churches that did not, but went astray accepting baptismal regeneration and other various erroneous doctrines. There were false teachers in the Apostles time. Every writer of the NT, including Jesus, warned of them. Here is what John said:

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. (1 John 2:19)

The problem was already there. But so was the Apostle John and other mature believers. They were never part of the RCC; but always remained outside of that apostate organization.

You can't possibly believe the true Church largely stopped existing after Constantine and the first nicene council, though, if you do, everything else you've said would make sense. This point of view is nothing but inaccurate.

First your definition of "church" needs defining. There was no "true church" only "churches" as the ones Paul started. The Greek word is ekklesia and is defined as "assembly." It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly--one that never meets, doesn't have a pastor or deacons, never worships together, never makes any corporate decisions, etc. There is no such animal described in the Bible. There are churches, but not "the Church," not "denomination."
I don't believe my view is inaccurate; rather it is Biblical and historical. Outside of the RCC God has always preserved those churches that have kept the faith, been true to Him, have never apostatized in any way. The Lord knows them that are his.

I know you will go to whatever lengths possible to claim otherwise, but just because the Catholic church has much doctrinal error today doesn't mean that it does not have the same roots.

Its roots began with Constantine. It was a time when Christianity was paganized and paganism was Christianized. The compromises made on both sides were so acceptable that Biblical Christianity was hardly recognizable any more.

To argue this would place yourself somewhere outside the realm of nicene Christianity, since the roman church had already been established and churches were much less independent.

Biblical Christianity didn't have anything to do with the Nicene Council. What makes you think it did?

I just don't understand the hostility here, man. I'm not some idiot neophyte making stuff up here. I'm theologically trained and understand the framework of the Church's development. I'm coming from the same viewpoint as most evangelical scholars would.

You don't sound like it.