Churches of Christ...Continued

[Charles Meadows]

Bmerr,

Well you're busy enough replying to about 20 posts!

If the church of Christ were insisting on some OT command, such as tithing, or burning insence, you would have a valid point. But such is not the case.

But I think it is. What is the difference between burning incense and getting dunked in water? Both are works.

Let me put my position another way...

I believe that the gospel is this: "Salvation by faith in Christ".

As such this is going to define my stance fairly definitely. "Salvation by faith" means that no works of any sort are to be considered obligatory. Obviously this is a departure from the OT scheme in which fulfillment of certain works was reckoned as righteousness. In my estimation you are still "stuck" in that mold. To say that baptism is a sine qua non for salvation is to retain the legalism of the OT. If one believes "salvation by faith" then no ritual work can be corequisite - not baptism, not tithing, not incense.

Again this is a bit of a "reductio ad absurdum" since no true believer will refuse baptism. But if one holds to salvation by faith then we must be certain to localize salvation to the faith and not the subsequent baptism.

Again I think Paul is explicitly saying that salvation comes only by faith and that no works are necessary. But implied in that statement is the fact that making any works (including baptism) necessary is to deny that salvation is by faith alone (which Paul clearly said was the case).

So my objection to your assertion about baptism (which I reckon as a well-meaning but erroneous reading of scripture) is that is rejects the Pauline doctrine that salvation is by faith alone and not by (any) works.

 

[bmerr]

Bmerr,

Well you're busy enough replying to about 20 posts!

If the church of Christ were insisting on some OT command, such as tithing, or burning insence, you would have a valid point. But such is not the case.

But I think it is. What is the difference between burning incense and getting dunked in water? Both are works.

Let me put my position another way...

I believe that the gospel is this: "Salvation by faith in Christ".

As such this is going to define my stance fairly definitely. "Salvation by faith" means that no works of any sort are to be considered obligatory. Obviously this is a departure from the OT scheme in which fulfillment of certain works was reckoned as righteousness. In my estimation you are still "stuck" in that mold. To say that baptism is a sine qua non for salvation is to retain the legalism of the OT. If one believes "salvation by faith" then no ritual work can be corequisite - not baptism, not tithing, not incense.

Again this is a bit of a "reductio ad absurdum" since no true believer will refuse baptism. But if one holds to salvation by faith then we must be certain to localize salvation to the faith and not the subsequent baptism.

Charles,

bmerr here. Yeah, I'm playing a bit of "catch up"! Stay gone for a couple of days, and POW! You're three pages behind in the discussion! Not that I'm complaining, or anything, I'm glad folks want to talk about this stuff.

The difference between burning insence and being baptized is the Testament under which each is commanded. One is in obedience to the OT, whichg applied to the Jews, the other is obedience to the NT, to which all men are amenable.

Again, I would agree that salvation is by faith in Christ. I would go on to say that faith without works is dead (James 2:17). I would therefore conclude that some work is required, lest I say that one is saved by a dead faith, which would be to speak against the Scriptures (James 2:14).

Again I think Paul is explicitly saying that salvation comes only by faith and that no works are necessary. But implied in that statement is the fact that making any works (including baptism) necessary is to deny that salvation is by faith alone (which Paul clearly said was the case).

Then you will have no trouble showing where Paul said "salvation is by faith alone".

Paul rules out the "works of the law", and "works of righteousness which we have done", both of which are works of which a man could boast (Eph 2:9). If you force Paul to exclude any and all works, then you force him to contradict James, who was inspired by the same Spirit. God is forced to contradict Himself. It cannot be!

The only way for the two to be in agreement is to allow for obedience. Therein, faith is perfected by works (James 2:22), and man cannot boast (Eph 2:9; Luke 17:10). I don't see any other way to harmonize the two, other than to wrest the Scriptures.

So my objection to your assertion about baptism (which I reckon as a well-meaning but erroneous reading of scripture) is that is rejects the Pauline doctrine that salvation is by faith alone and not by (any) works.

Again, I'd say the context of Paul's condemnation of works is the works of the Law, which the Jewish Christians were trying to force on the Gentile Christians.

The Scriptures nowhere say we are saved by faith alone apart from any works.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[J. Jump]

Paul rules out the "works of the law", and "works of righteousness which we have done", both of which are works of which a man could boast (Eph 2:9). If you force Paul to exclude any and all works, then you force him to contradict James, who was inspired by the same Spirit.

That is not a true statement at all and I have shown you this before. Paul and James are not talking about the same subject. Yes they use the same wording, but the context is totally different and can not be combined, because you are actually putting the contradiction on their words by your belief in baptism which goes directly against what Paul said in that no works of righteousness we have done.

No works means exactly what it says NO WORKS.

Why do you just keep ignoring this truth?

 

[Charles Meadows]

Bmerr,

One last post before I go take the wife and kids out to dinner...

I think in Eph 2:9 says it pretty well - that salvation is by faith and not of works.

As I see it there is only one way to take James and Paul together. Faith is what saves a man - but true faith also will not fail to produce good works. That is entirely self-consistent. In fact Eph 2:9 goes on to say that faith will produce good works.

The difference between burning insence and being baptized is the Testament under which each is commanded. One is in obedience to the OT, whichg applied to the Jews, the other is obedience to the NT, to which all men are amenable.

I see a bigger difference. The whole idea that any works can save is out the window. What you suggest is basically, "different testament, different works". I think you miss the forest for the trees. The whole point of the NT is that there will be no flesh justified by works - of any kind.

Consider the story of Abraham and Isaac. God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Did Abraham actually slay the boy? No. So according to a literal reading he disobeyed God. But we find that God reckoned his faith as righteousness. It was not the fact that he did or dod not do a particular work - but rather that he had true faith in God - a faith that would and did produce good works. I think this story holds the answer to your argument. It is the faith which God accepts as our justification - not the works. The faith will produce works (as James and Paul both point out). But yet it is the faith which God justifies.

Again - I think you miss the forest for the trees a bit. For I think that salvation by faith alone is what distinguishes the NT from the OT. Works of any kind are not required specifically because Jesus accomplished the work once and for all!!

 

[Eric B]

The whole thing about mechanical instruments of music in the worship has to do with the fact that while some people desire it, God has not authorized it. The instrument used in true NT worship is the voice, or that with which one "sings". It is the fruit of the lips (Heb 13:15).

NT music must meet the following criteria:

It must be the fruit of our lips (Heb 13:15)
It must be able to teach and admonish (Col 3:16)
It is to include the congregation speaking to "yourselves", or to "one another" (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16)
It is to be accompanied by the melody of the heart, or the proper attitude (same texts).

No mechanical musical instrument can meet these criteria. Please understand that instrumental music is not objected to out of personal preference. I, myself, am a musician. The bottom line is that worship is not to please men, but God. As soon as one says, "But I like...", then God is no longer the object of worship. When phrases such as this are used in the descisions of a religious group, Man has supplanted God as the authority.

Any reconciliation between the church of Christ and the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ must be based on truth not on some spurious desire for "unity". Have you ever noticed that those who call for "compromise" always insist that the instrument be allowed into the worship? They never seem to be willing to give up that which God has not authorized.

In Christ,

bmerr

So should we then make a "ban" on everything we have today that we cannot find mentioned in the NT? This is a ridiculous issue to be making yet another division on. If it doesn't forbit it (and God allowed them in the OT), then there's no reason to say it is "unauthorized" now. This shows the double standard of your view, because when it comes to WORKS (Naaman, Jericho, Abraham, etc) then the method of justification is just like the OT. (Charles: "different testament, different works":thumbs:--but same mechanic!) Only with instruments do we shun the OT practice (and without anything in the NT even saying that they have passed with the OC).

 

[bmerr]

Bmerr,

One last post before I go take the wife and kids out to dinner...

I think in Eph 2:9 says it pretty well - that salvation is by faith and not of works.

Charles,

bmerr here. I hope dinner was tasty. I'm getting a little hungry myself...

Eph 2:9 tells us that salvation is not of works, lest any man should boast. But a man cannot boast of his obedience, since to obey is what he ought to do anyway (Luke 17:10).

As I see it there is only one way to take James and Paul together. Faith is what saves a man - but true faith also will not fail to produce good works. That is entirely self-consistent. In fact Eph 2:9 goes on to say that faith will produce good works.

Faith is what saves a man. Faith that is perfected, or made complete by works (James 2:22). Apart from works, faith is dead. If a man say he has faith, yet he has not works, can that faith save him? The question is rhetorical, the answer is "no".

I see a bigger difference. The whole idea that any works can save is out the window. What you suggest is basically, "different testament, different works". I think you miss the forest for the trees. The whole point of the NT is that there will be no flesh justified by works - of any kind.

There's where you leave off from the text, and go to interpretation, Charles. The text does not say "There will no flesh be justified by works of any kind", it, (or at least one applicable text) says, " Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight" (Rom 3:20). Gal 2:16 and 3:11 read similarly.

Consider the story of Abraham and Isaac. God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Did Abraham actually slay the boy? No. So according to a literal reading he disobeyed God.

Let's go back to Gen 22 to find out whether Abraham did or did not obey God.

Gen 22:2 - And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

Question: Did God command Abraham to slay his son?

Answer: No. God commanded Abraham to offer his son.

I would agree that to slay Isaac would be the normal way to carry out this command, and it is certain that that is how Abraham understood God's command.

Question: Did Abraham offer Isaac?

Answer: Yes, he did. James 2:21 tells us so. It also tells us that Abraham was justified by works, "when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar".

So, though Abraham did not actually slay Isaac, he did offer Isaac, which is exactly what God commanded him to do.

But we find that God reckoned his faith as righteousness.

Yes, Abraham's obedient, working faith was counted to him as righteousness.

It was not the fact that he did or did not do a particular work - but rather that he had true faith in God - a faith that would and did produce good works.

Rather, it was the fact that he did a particular work. After Abraham offered Isaac, after God stayed his hand from taking the boy's life, only then did God say, "...for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen 22:12).

But by no stretch of the imagination would I call offering one's son as a whole burnt offering a "good work". Never again has God ever asked it of man, and it is not something the Scriptures throughly furnish one to do (2 Tim 2:15).

Abraham's faith is an example for us because when God told him to do something, he did it.

Again - I think you miss the forest for the trees a bit. For I think that salvation by faith alone is what distinguishes the NT from the OT. Works of any kind are not required specifically because Jesus accomplished the work once and for all!!

And I respectfully submit to you that you arev missing what is written for your interpretation of the text. Where the text says "faith", you seem to read "faith only". Where the texts says "works of the law", you seem to read "works of any kind". And one bad interpretation demands another, and another, and another. We absolutely must not go beyond what is written, Charles.

Jesus finished His work once for all. He never needs to suffer again. When Jesus died, He said, "It is finished". If His death were all that is required for man's salvation, why then are all men not saved? Because man has his part to play as well. It is not to come up with his own way to be saved, but to humbly obey God's commands.

You might call this "legalism". But you can't be saved unless you obey the gospel.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Marcia]

...Anyway I got to thinking about this, and you are probably right, they are asking what to do to cleanse themselves of the sin of killing their king, and the reply is verse 38, repent and be baptized for the remission ( Definition: acquittal Synonyms: absolution, amnesty, discharge, excuse, exemption, exoneration, forgiveness, indulgence, mercy, pardon, release, reprieve) of their sins, including that of having killed their king.

37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

They took baptism to be an immediate needed step. Needed for what? According to Peter to be cleansed of the sin of killing the Son of God. That is what the context indicates with no scolars having to define it, just reading it straight as an entire chapter.

"For the remission of sins" turns on the little word translated as "for."

The NET bible commentary:

There is debate over the meaning of eij" in the prepositional phrase eij" a[fesin tw'n aJmartiw'n uJmw'n (eis afesin twn Jamartiwn Jumwn, "for/because of/with reference to the forgiveness of your sins"). Although a causal sense has been argued, it is difficult to maintain here. ExSyn 369-71 discusses at least four other ways of dealing with the passage: (1) The baptism referred to here is physical only, and eij" has the meaning of "for" or "unto." Such a view suggests that salvation is based on works-an idea that runs counter to the theology of Acts, namely: (a) repentance often precedes baptism (cf. Acts 3:19; 26:20), and (b) salvation is entirely a gift of God, not procured via water baptism (Acts 10:43 [cf. v. 47]; 13:38-39, 48; 15:11; 16:30-31; 20:21; 26:18); (2) The baptism referred to here is spiritual only. Although such a view fits well with the theology of Acts, it does not fit well with the obvious meaning of "baptism" in Acts-especially in this text (cf. 2:41); (3) The text should be repunctuated in light of the shift from second person plural to third person singular back to second person plural again. The idea then would be, "Repent for/with reference to your sins, and let each one of you be baptized..." Such a view is an acceptable way of handling eij", but its subtlety and awkwardness count against it; (4) Finally, it is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. That Peter connects both closely in his thinking is clear from other passages such as Acts 10:47 and 11:15-16. If this interpretation is correct, then Acts 2:38 is saying very little about the specific theological relationship between the symbol and the reality, only that historically they were viewed together. One must look in other places for a theological analysis. For further discussion see R. N. Longenecker, "Acts," EBC 9:283-85; B. Witherington, Acts, 154-55; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 129-30; BDAG 290 s.v. eij" 4.f.

 

[J. Jump]

Bmerr I noticed that you didn't bother to respond to my post. Awfully hard to refute Truth isn't it.

But let's take a look at some of your posts to others. Charles talks about the faith of Abraham and you say yeah let's look at the faith of Abraham and you take him to Genesis 22 and them make this comment:

Yes, Abraham's obedient, working faith was counted to him as righteousness.

But what you fail to do is go back to Genesis 15 where Abraham's faith was actually counted to him as righteousness. And in that passage there is NO WORKS at all mentioned. He just believed in God based on the promise that God would give him a great many descendants.

You have to compare right Scripture with right Scripture. You can compare Scripture with Scripture and come up with any ole teaching. You and mman are a perfect example. You like to compare Scripture with Scripture, but in the process you compare apples to oranges and destory two pefectly good pieces of fruit to try and save your man-made teaching.

 

[bmerr]

So should we then make a "ban" on everything we have today that we cannot find mentioned in the NT?

Eric,

bmerr here. We should not "make a ban" on anything. God has already banned anything not authorized by the New Testament. It is for us to submit to His authority, and comply with His "ban".

Col 3:17 says, "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus..." God told Peter, James, and John, when they were presented with Moses (Law), Elijah (prophets), and Jesus, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him" (Matt 17:5).

Under the New Testament, Christ is the authority. What was given through the Law and the prophets is profitable for our learning (Rom 15:4), and was written for our examples (1 Cor 10:6), but they are not what we are to look for for authority in worship.

If we look to the OT for authority to use instruments in worship, what is to keep us from finding authority there to burn incense, or to have a priesthood? Where will we draw the line?

This is a ridiculous issue to be making yet another division on. If it doesn't forbit it (and God allowed them in the OT), then there's no reason to say it is "unauthorized" now.

Well, why not add ham and eggs to the Lord's Supper then? It's not forbidden by the NT, is it? Or how about dancing girls? That would draw a crowd, wouldn't it? Again, where does one draw the line?

This shows the double standard of your view, because when it comes to WORKS (Naaman, Jericho, Abraham, etc) then the method of justification is just like the OT. (Charles: "different testament, different works":thumbs:--but same mechanic!) Only with instruments do we shun the OT practice (and without anything in the NT even saying that they have passed with the OC).

As I noted earlier, the things written in the OT are for our learning and example, so we don't make the same kind of mistakes the Israelites did, like adding to what God had commanded, for example.

Anyone remember Nadab and Abihu? Lev 10:1-2. They offered strange fire which the LORD "commanded them not". God had not forbidden the fire they offered, had He? He simply had not commanded it. He had commanded something else. They offered that which God had not commanded, and they died before the LORD. It's an example we are to learn from.

Or how about Noah? If he had used any other kind of wood other than gopher wood, would he have obeyed God? God did not specifically forbid Noah to use pine, or balsa, or whatever. But He did command a specific kind of wood.

In the NT, God has commanded a specific kind of music. Vocal music that can teach and admonish.

Though there are many styles of music, there are only two kinds. Vocal and instrumental. Will you not learn from Noah, Nadab, and Abihu, and just do what God says?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

Bmerr I noticed that you didn't bother to respond to my post. Awfully hard to refute Truth isn't it.

Jump,

bmerr here. No, it's just that there's so much error in your posts, it's hard to know where to start. Sometimes I just don't have the energy. Since this is a short one, I'll try to help you out.

But let's take a look at some of your posts to others. Charles talks about the faith of Abraham and you say yeah let's look at the faith of Abraham and you take him to Genesis 22 and them make this comment:



But what you fail to do is go back to Genesis 15 where Abraham's faith was actually counted to him as righteousness. And in that passage there is NO WORKS at all mentioned. He just believed in God based on the promise that God would give him a great many descendants.

And where do we find that this Scripture was fulfilled? Right back in James 2:21-23. Let me type it out for you.

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou [Jjump] how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was impured unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

You have to compare right Scripture with right Scripture. You can compare Scripture with Scripture and come up with any ole teaching. You and mman are a perfect example. You like to compare Scripture with Scripture, but in the process you compare apples to oranges and destory two pefectly good pieces of fruit to try and save your man-made teaching.

And you've got an inspired apostle, who had just been commanded by Jesus Christ to go preach the gospel beginning at Jerusalem, preaching, not the gospel, but some imaginary message about the kingdom that they just missed, having killed the One Who was to be their King.

What a load of nonsense!

Jesus cannot rule in Jerusalem as King on the throne of David (Jer 22:28-30). The church was not an afterthought to "tide man over" until Jesus comes again. It was part of the plan from before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4). The rejection of Jesus by the Jews was according to the "determinate council and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23).

The church is not "Plan B". It is the kingdom over which Christ now reigns, which He received when He came "to the Ancient of Days" (Dan 7:13). Good night.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[J. Jump]

No, it's just that there's so much error in your posts, it's hard to know where to start.

You're a funny guy. :sleeping_2:

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou [Jjump] how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was impured unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God

Well either the Bible contradicts Itself, because Abraham is said to have been justified in Genesis 15 as well, or maybe James is speaking of a different justification. Wow could it be that simple of an explanation that He was justified by faith in Genesis 15 for one thing and then justified by faith and works in 22.

Yeah that's exactly what it is. Abraham was eternally saved in Genesis 15. Abraham had his soul justified in Genesis 22, because he showed the ultimate act of obedience, because he had already believed the promise back in Genesis 15.

See your theology says he was justified in Genesis 15 and then he was really and truly this time justified in Genesis 22.

James speaks of the salvation of the soul plain and simple and you have to quit trying to cram two TOTALLY different subjects into the same message.

What a load of nonsense!

And that's pretty much the same way they treated the apostles who were indeed spreading the message of the kingdom, so I'm in some decent company.

I know it's a whole lot easier to just throw out silly statements like the one above when you can't deal with Scripture.

Jesus cannot rule in Jerusalem as King on the throne of David (Jer 22:28-30).

Are you serious? Jesus can not rule on the very throne He was prophesied to rule on. WOW. You are saying God's Scripture is lying. Well that just says it all. If you can't prove it with Scripture, just say Scripture is lying.

The church was not an afterthought to "tide man over" until Jesus comes again. It was part of the plan from before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4).

Absolutely!

The rejection of Jesus by the Jews was according to the "determinate council and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23).

Absolutely!

The church is not "Plan B".

Absolutely!

It is the kingdom over which Christ now reigns, which He received when He came "to the Ancient of Days" (Dan 7:13).

Absolutely NOT!

Good night.

Sleep tight and don't let the bed bugs bite. I hear they hurt :laugh:

 

[DHK]

bmerr,
I still think that if you were consistent with your doctrine that you would read only the New Testament in the Greek. What saith thou?
DHK

 

[Hope of Glory]

So should we then make a "ban" on everything we have today that we cannot find mentioned in the NT?

They certainly better not be wearing suits and ties to church, eh?

 

[Eric B]

Eric,
bmerr here. We should not "make a ban" on anything. God has already banned anything not authorized by the New Testament. It is for us to submit to His authority, and comply with His "ban".

Well, that's what I meant. Why not then declare that everything not mentioned by the NT is "banned" by it? But the last time we had this discussion (It may not have been with you yet, but the other CoC'ers), one of you then begins speaking of "expedience". So then the statement you have just made "God has already banned everything not authorized by the NT" is wrong, because expendience then is an additional criterion. The problem is, how to determine what is expedient, or even what is specified in a particular text, as we shall see.

Col 3:17 says, "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus..." God told Peter, James, and John, when they were presented with Moses (Law), Elijah (prophets), and Jesus, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him" (Matt 17:5).

Under the New Testament, Christ is the authority. What was given through the Law and the prophets is profitable for our learning (Rom 15:4), and was written for our examples (1 Cor 10:6), but they are not what we are to look for for authority in worship.

If we look to the OT for authority to use instruments in worship, what is to keep us from finding authority there to burn incense, or to have a priesthood? Where will we draw the line?

The burning of incense was specifically a type of ceremonial offering that denfinitely passed with the OC, as a shadow of Christ. Music is never said to be a shadow of Christ. You're trying to generalize these principles, but it doesn't even match.

Well, why not add ham and eggs to the Lord's Supper then? It's not forbidden by the NT, is it? Or how about dancing girls? That would draw a crowd, wouldn't it? Again, where does one draw the line?

As I noted earlier, the things written in the OT are for our learning and example, so we don't make the same kind of mistakes the Israelites did, like adding to what God had commanded, for example.

Anyone remember Nadab and Abihu? Lev 10:1-2. They offered strange fire which the LORD "commanded them not". God had not forbidden the fire they offered, had He? He simply had not commanded it. He had commanded something else. They offered that which God had not commanded, and they died before the LORD. It's an example we are to learn from.

Or how about Noah? If he had used any other kind of wood other than gopher wood, would he have obeyed God? God did not specifically forbid Noah to use pine, or balsa, or whatever. But He did command a specific kind of wood.

And singing, while a specific act, is not contrary to instruments, any more than it is contrary to reciting the words from a hymnal, projection, or anything else.
The so-called "strange fire" was connected with the incense, commanded in Exodus 30. God had commanded that the censer was to be filled with "sweet" incense (v.7), so any other type of incense would have been the "strange incense" (v.9) that would have made up "strange fire". So there is your "explicit command" in that instance.
Also, God's specifying of one wood to Noah excluded all others. Bread and wine are also specific foods.
You have to check the contexts of passages like these, not try to build some universal "principle" on it from a "silence" that is not even real!
So it's not even really "silence"! God gave an explicit command, and an incense that is not sweet, is not some possible alternative that God is simply "silent" on. He explicitly commanded the opposite! Nowhere is anyone punished like that for doing something that does not contradict God's explicit specification. They were not punished for using one type of incense that is sweet over another that is sweet.

In the NT, God has commanded a specific kind of music. Vocal music that can teach and admonish.

Though there are many styles of music, there are only two kinds. Vocal and instrumental. Will you not learn from Noah, Nadab, and Abihu, and just do what God says?

In Christ,

bmerr

The problem here is that you are making up that dichotomy, and then filtering scripture through it. The passage does not say "vocal music", it says "sing". Right there, you have changed the text, just a bit, but enough to get a different meaning. This does not describe the entire environment around the singing, just as it does not tell us the details of the rest of the "Church service", or organization, or whether they wear ties, and all that stuff.

There's where you leave off from the text, and go to interpretation, Charles. The text does not say "There will no flesh be justified by works of any kind", it, (or at least one applicable text) says, " Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight" (Rom 3:20). Gal 2:16 and 3:11 read similarly.

And I respectfully submit to you that you are missing what is written for your interpretation of the text. Where the text says "faith", you seem to read "faith only". Where the texts says "works of the law", you seem to read "works of any kind".

You seem to think that "the law" in those cases is only certain OC works associated with Israel which have passed in the NT, so of course no flesh can be justified by those. But the new "laws" we are given now (such as baptism), we ARE justified by keeping, working just the same as the old laws did. That is what we mean by "different testament, different laws, same mechanic", or "one work Torah". But the Law incuded even those universal or "perennial" moral commands such as killing and stealing that we know are still in effect today. Noone can be justified by trying to avoid those things, because we do not really avoid them, if not in the letter, than in the spirit. So trying to make those passages refer to "the OT Law" only, and exclude a supposed "NT Law" doesn't work.

Also, from before:

I won't pretend to be an "end times" expert. I know that Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36).

I also know that Jesus said, when the Pharisees demanded to know when the kingdom of God should come, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation; Neither shall they say, Lo here!; or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:20-21).

God never intended to set up a literal kingdom with Christ sitting on a throne in Jerusalem. If He had, and His plan was thwarted by the Jews when they rejected Jesus, what will stop them from rejecting Him again, when He tries to set one up in your millenial doctrine?

Some would, in the final rebellion in ch. 20 right before the judgment. (But there would still be countless others--us who did not reject Him).

One other thing I know before I go to bed is that if Jesus were to sit as king on a throne in Jerusalem, then God lied by the mouth of Jeremiah the prophet.

In Jer 22:28-30, we read,

28 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?

29 Oh earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD.

30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

"Big deal", one might say. Did you know that this guy is in the lineage of Christ? He is. Matt 1:12 records his name as "Jechonias". Check it out. Christ cannot rule on the throne in Jerusalem without making God a liar. It ain't gonna happen, folks.

That's a new scripture for this issue. But didn't someone recently debate that somewhere saying that that line (through Joseph) didn't affect Jesus as such because He was not phyically from Joseph? (I believe that was a debate between Jump and HP).

Last thing concerning 2 Pet 3:7 and 10. All I know is what the Bible says, Eric. If it doesn't mean what it says, the I don't know wht it means.

In Christ,

bmerr

So that means yes, the [Bible teaches] there will no more physical universe; only heaven and hell?

 

[BD17]

Actually it was me and HP that debated Christ's lineage. JJump helped out. And Bmerr is WAAYYYY of track using Jer.22:28-30 to say that christ cannot sit in the throne, you could read that thread Bmerr if you like it is titled the nature of Christ. I believe you will find it on th second page. Last entry July 7th.

 

[Darron Steele]

As a Church of Christ Christian, I just do not understand where we get the idea that everything outside the New Testament is banned. We do not even practice this: while the Old Testament was used in translation in New Testament times, the matter of translating the New Testament is not mentioned. Still, we use translations of the New Testament.

We also use books of hymns. We have individual persons leading songs. We have solitary people pray out loud with others agreeing with them for congregational prayer.

How do many justify these practices: "Necessary Inference" and these practices are "necessitated" by expediency. Who decides "expediency": mortals, and it is done according to the wishes or opinions of the mortal/s.

"Where Scripture speaks we speak; where Scripture is silent we are silent" is taught at 1 Corinthians 4:6. It records a New Testament church precept called what is literally translated "the not beyond what has been written" recorded at 1 Corinthians 4:6 (McReynolds, Word Study Greek-English New Testament). I see it meaning that we should not mandate or "advocate with enforcement" any belief or practice/non-practice outside of the Scriptures. In the Corinthian faction crisis, people were teaching that certain leaders of the church should be followed as opposed to others. In our churches, we typically demand non-practices where Scripture has not spoken -- again in violation of this passage.

The Bible indicates at Romans 14 and other passages that Christians get to make their own decisions on some things which Scripture does not mandate on. This is a feared doctrine, but the Bible teaches it and the Bible is the Word of God. To follow the Bible, we need to not bind where Scripture has not bound and let Christians make decisions where Scripture is silent.

 

[mman]

As a Church of Christ Christian, I just do not understand where we get the idea that everything outside the New Testament is banned. We do not even practice this: while the Old Testament was used in translation in New Testament times, the matter of translating the New Testament is not mentioned. Still, we use translations of the New Testament.

We also use books of hymns. We have individual persons leading songs. We have solitary people pray out loud with others agreeing with them for congregational prayer.

How do many justify these practices: "Necessary Inference" and these practices are "necessitated" by expediency. Who decides "expediency": mortals, and it is done according to the wishes or opinions of the mortal/s.

"Where Scripture speaks we speak; where Scripture is silent we are silent" is taught at 1 Corinthians 4:6. It records a New Testament church precept called what is literally translated "the not beyond what has been written" recorded at 1 Corinthians 4:6 (McReynolds, Word Study Greek-English New Testament). I see it meaning that we should not mandate or "advocate with enforcement" any belief or practice/non-practice outside of the Scriptures. In the Corinthian faction crisis, people were teaching that certain leaders of the church should be followed as opposed to others. In our churches, we typically demand non-practices where Scripture has not spoken -- again in violation of this passage.

The Bible indicates at Romans 14 and other passages that Christians get to make their own decisions on some things which Scripture does not mandate on. This is a feared doctrine, but the Bible teaches it and the Bible is the Word of God. To follow the Bible, we need to not bind where Scripture has not bound and let Christians make decisions where Scripture is silent.

God only accept true worship or in other words, worship in truth. (Jn 4:23-24). What is the source of truth? God's word (Jn 17:17). Since we are no longer under the old covenant, we are bound by the new covenant.

Therefore, we must have a command, approved example, or necessary inference, from the new covenant. That is not to say the old testament is of no value. To the contrary, it is of great value. It was given for our learning. Many of the things were a shadow or type of things today. It was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.

Since God's word is truth and He demands worship in truth, is it up to me how I should worship Him?

Your used an example of song books, of which the scriptures say nothing. It is fine to use song books? What is the command? Sing (Eph 5:19 and other places). The approved music is singing. How does one carry out that command? God did not specifically say, therefore, it is left to man's discretion. A song book would help in the execution of that command, but is not necessary, as one can sing from memory or by other means. However, adding another type of music, that God has not authorized, cannot be done in truth or even in faith, since the source of faith is also God's word (Rom 10:17).

God's command is to dress modestly, therefore, I wear appropriate clothes.

God's command is to assemble, therefore, that can be in a building, under a tree, or on the river banks, regardless, it is left to man's discretion.

An approved example is to partake of the Lord's supper on the first day of the week. We know that consists of unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. How it is distributed, in what container(s), etc., is left to the discretion of man. Man cannot add jelly to the unleavened just because he likes the taste better. That would not be according to truth nor could it be done in faith.

Man's discretion is limited to the carrying out of God's instructions, where no specific details are given. There is not a recipe given for the unleavened bread, therefore, it is left to man's discretion, as long as it does not violate the instruction. Man cannot add leaven, because he likes it. That could not be done in truth or in faith.

On a side note:

Bmerr - I admire your patience. I have been out for a while, and I don't know where to start. There have been so many posts, it is impossible to address them all. I noticed you tackled quite a few of them. My time for the remainder of the week is extremely limited. Keep up the good work.

 

[mman]

"For the remission of sins" turns on the little word translated as "for."

If you can understand the phrase "for the remission of sins" in Matt 26:28, then you can understand it in Acts 2:38.

It is the exact Greek phrase used in both places.

Men have gone to great lenghts to explain away the simple meaning of Acts 2:38.

Eis is used over 1750 times, yet it is never translated as "because of". Not one time. You cannot find one translation to support the meaning of "because of" in Acts 2:38, NOT ONE! Again, it is the exact same phase as used in Matt 26:28.

Now, for you to be consistent, you have to argue that Jesus' blood was shed because peoples sins had already been forgiven.

 

[bmerr]

DHK,

bmerr here. I'm sure you had a point in asking about using the Greek NT, but I didn't get it. Can you elaborate?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

Actually it was me and HP that debated Christ's lineage. JJump helped out. And Bmerr is WAAYYYY of track using Jer.22:28-30 to say that christ cannot sit in the throne, you could read that thread Bmerr if you like it is titled the nature of Christ. I believe you will find it on th second page. Last entry July 7th.

BD17,

bmerr here. I only have a few minutes, but I read over some of the posts you referred me to. Interesting. I haven't given the topic much thought, honestly.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make was not that Jesus cannot sit on David's throne, He's doing that now. My point is that Jesus cannot sit as ruler on David's throne in Jerusalem, which premillenialism demands.

Christ is now ruling from David's throne. he is ruling over His kingdom, the church. he received His kingdom when He came "to the Ancient of Days" (Dan 7:13-14). Premillenialism says He will receive His kingdom when He comes from the Ancient of Days in the Second Coming.

gotta run.

In Christ,

bmerr