Why don't Baptists observe Lent?

[blackbird]

Failure to participate in the various religious holidays or the revelry leading thereto will have a serious effect on the profit margins of the merchants--worldwide. They will not allow it--nor will the holy see, although they did stop the mortal sin penalty for eating meat on Friday. The wonders of ex-cathedral are still with us.

The sellers of bunnies, chickens, eggs, bonnets and flowers, etc., will go out of business if we stop doing Easter, another pagan holiday. Strange, we have a consumer economy which is largely dependent on pagan holidays and credit cards to survive(?)

What is in your wallet?

Selah,

Bro. James

Whats in my wallet is not the question----rather the question should be---whats in my heart??? My heart/mind controls my wallet!!! Thats the whole problem with the wallet---the mind!!!! My wallet obeys my mind!!!!

 

[Bro. James]

Good point

Would you care to answer your introspection?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[saturneptune]

Would you care to answer your introspection?

Selah,

Bro. James

I will answer it. The Bible says the love of money is the root of all evil. It does not say money is the root of all evil. Rabbits, eggs, tooth fairies, Santa, and three winged parakeets are not the problem. It is the worship of them. There is a big difference, and to establish a set of rules based on such is flawed.

Selah or adios

 

[rstrats]

David Lamb,

re: "...we do read in the bible that the early Christians met for worship on the first day of the week because it was the day He rose."

I’m not aware of any scripture that says that because the resurrection occurred on the first day of the week, people met for worship. Nor for that matter am I aware of any scripture that says that people met on the first day of the week for worship. Nor am I aware of any incontrovertible scripture that says that the resurrection occurred on the first day of the week. What do you have in mind?

 

[Linda64]

David Lamb,

re: "...we do read in the bible that the early Christians met for worship on the first day of the week because it was the day He rose."

I’m not aware of any scripture that says that because the resurrection occurred on the first day of the week, people met for worship. Nor for that matter am I aware of any scripture that says that people met on the first day of the week for worship. Nor am I aware of any incontrovertible scripture that says that the resurrection occurred on the first day of the week. What do you have in mind?

rstrats--

Here is some biblical information on the "first day" of the week---which is commonly called "Sunday" on our calendars"

Christ rose on the "first day" of the week:

Matthew 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Mark 16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

Mark 16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

Luke 24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.

John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

On the first day Jesus blessed the disciples:

John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

On the first day the Holy Spirit descended (Acts 2:1). Pentecost was on the 50th day after the sabbath following the wave offering (Leviticus 23:15-16). Pentecost is always on a Sunday, the first day of the week.

Leviticus 23:15 And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete:

Leviticus 23:16 Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD.

Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.


The Christians met to worship on the first day (Acts 20:6-7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). Sunday is "the Lord's Day" (Revelation 1:10)

Acts 20:6 And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days.

Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

1 Corinthians 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

Revelation 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

 

[rstrats]

Linda64,

Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, and John 20:1 do not say when the resurrection actually took place. As regards Mark 16:9, most good study Bible versions in their notes question whether Mark wrote verses 9-20 as opposed to them being added at a later date. But even if verse 9 were authentic it could just as well be translated with the comma being placed after the word "risen" (past tense) instead of after the word "week". As you know, punctuation marks were not in the early writings and had to be determined by the translators according to their subjective understanding of the text’s meaning. Several versions that place the comma after "risen" are "The Centenary Translation", "The Sacred Scriptures-Bethel Edition", "The Contemporary English Version", "The Montgomery Translation", "The Expositors Greek Testament" and "God’s New Covenant-A New Testament Translation".

re: "The Christians met to worship on the first day (Acts 20:6-7; 1 Corinthians 16:2)."

Acts 20:7 could simply be saying that the disciples got together to eat a meal on this particular first day of the week . The phrase, "to break bread", does not have to refer to a religious service - unless it is specifically stated - but to dividing loaves of bread for a meal. "It means to partake of food and is used of eating as in a meal...... The readers [of the original New Testament letters and manuscripts] could have had no other idea or meaning in their minds" (E.W.Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 839,840.

When Paul was shipwrecked on the voyage to Rome, the sailors had been fasting out of fright. But "Paul urged them all to take some food, saying, 'Today is the fourteenth day that you have continued in suspense and without food, having taken nothing. Therefore I urge you to take some food; it will give you strength...' And when he had said this, he took bread, and giving thanks to God in the presence of all he broke it and began to eat" (Acts 27:33-35, RSV). Here Paul broke bread to give to unconverted sailors who were hungry. It was hardly the Lord’s Supper.

But even if "breaking bread" did always refer to the Lord’s Supper, Acts 2:46 says that the believers broke bread every day. In this case the need for any specialness being placed on the first day because of breaking bread would be eliminated.

As for 1 Corinthians 16:2, there is nothing in the verse that indicates a gathering for worship. The text merely says that everyone should "lay by him in store" on the first day of the week. The New Swedish and Norwegian Bibles read: "At home by himself." The Wemouth reads: "Let each of you put on one side and store up at his home". Ballantine’s Translation reads: "Let each of you lay up at home". The Syriac, on this passage reads: "Let every one of you lay aside and preserve at home". And the New Catholic Edition of the Bible reads: ".......let each one of you put aside at home and lay up whatever he has a mind to". This verse says nothing about going to church on Sunday or even assembling together on Sunday.


re: "Sunday is ‘the Lord's Day’ (Revelation 1:10)."

Revelation 1:10 does not identify the "Lord’s Day" as the first day of the week.

 

[Linda64]

rstrats,

In other words, I see that you don't believe that Jesus rose on the first day of the week, as Scriptures states--nor do you believe that we should go to church on Sunday, which is the "Lord's Day". Is this what you believe?

If you don't believe that Sunday is the "Lord's Day" or that Jesus didn't rise from the dead on the "first day"...on what day of the week is considered the "Lord's Day" and on which day did Jesus rise from the dead?

Since the days of the apostles, the vast majority of Christians have always met to worship on the Lord's day. They do this in honor of the resurrection of their Savior. Christ was in the tomb during the sabbath, and rose as the firstborn from the dead on the first day. The sabbath signifies the last day of the old creation (Genesis 2:2). Sunday is the first day of the new creation.


BTW, I am KJV and I don't accept what the modern translators say about verses 9-20 of Mark 16. I believe that they were always there and taken out of the modern versions. Leaving those verses out leave the apostles in fear:

Verse 8 states:

Mark 16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

Of what were they afraid?

It also removes the Great Commission

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

 

[rstrats]

Linda64,

re: "In other words, I see that you don't believe that Jesus rose on the first day of the week, as Scriptures states..."

I didn’t say that. It may very well have been the first day depending on when the crucifixion took place. I was merely commenting that I was not aware of any incontrovertible scripture that places the resurrection on the first day. The only scripture that says anything about the day of the resurrection is Mark 16:9 (as it is translated in the KJV ) and that verse is not incontrovertible.

re: "...nor do you believe that we should go to church on Sunday..."

I never said that. But since you brought it up, there is no scripture that dictates the first day of the week as a special day for rest and worship.

re: "...on what day of the week is considered the ‘Lord's Day’...?"

As far as scripture is concerned, the phrase "Lord’s Day" is never identified as a specific day of the week. However, if it were to use that term for a day of the week, Mark 2:28 seems to indicate that it would be referring to the Sabbath day.

re: "Sunday is the first day of the new creation."

I’m not aware of any scripture that says that. But even if there is, there is no scriptural admonition to observe the first day as a special day of rest and worship.

 

[Armchair Scholar]

This is a great error because look how many people we could witness to during lent. We could take advantage of the warm, fuzzy feelings of the season and spread the love of Christ to the world. Why do we let the Catholics get the advantage over us? Are we so narrow minded that we can't just esteem those days above others in the name of Christ?

The Apostle Paul made frequent mention against the doctrines of the aesthetics, who abstained from meats and certain foods, etc. as a way to beat their bodies to try to become holier and closer to God. "Doctrines of demons" are mentioned and an example given of what they are is found in 1 Timothy 4:1-6. Paul never mentioned practicing anything like Lent. If a person wishes to practice it on their own, that is their call, but it should not be a practice that is laid on a church and must be observed. Scripture makes it clear that we are not made any holier by abstaining from foods or activities or by adding something to our lifestyle. A person cannot be made any holier than they are made when they call upon Jesus Christ to be their Savior and rely on Him to save them and get them to heaven.

 

[David Lamb]

David Lamb,

re: "...we do read in the bible that the early Christians met for worship on the first day of the week because it was the day He rose."

I’m not aware of any scripture that says that because the resurrection occurred on the first day of the week, people met for worship. Nor for that matter am I aware of any scripture that says that people met on the first day of the week for worship. Nor am I aware of any incontrovertible scripture that says that the resurrection occurred on the first day of the week. What do you have in mind?

I was thinking of Mark 16.9:

Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons.



​

I am told that the time element "first day of the week" could apply to "He appeared" or to "He rose". Robertson says in his "New Testament Word Pictures":

It is probable that this note of time goes with "risen" (anastav), though it makes good sense with "appeared" (efanh).

​

But suppose, for the sake of argument, we agreed that He appeared on the first day of the week, rather that He arose on that day. That still would not be an argument in favour of observing a "liturgical year", with Lent, Advent, one particular day each year on which to celebrate the resurrection, and so on.

 

[David Lamb]

The Apostle Paul made frequent mention against the doctrines of the aesthetics, who abstained from meats and certain foods, etc. as a way to beat their bodies to try to become holier and closer to God.

I'm really not trying to be pedantic, but did you perhaps mean "ascetics"? (people who "choose austerity and self-denial as personal or religious discipline," as my dictionary has it), instead of "aesthetics" (a set of principles about art and beauty)?

 

[Armchair Scholar]

I'm really not trying to be pedantic, but did you perhaps mean "ascetics"? (people who "choose austerity and self-denial as personal or religious discipline," as my dictionary has it), instead of "aesthetics" (a set of principles about art and beauty)?

Yes, that's it. I had the right word but the wrong spelling. Thanks!

 

[J.D.]

The Apostle Paul made frequent mention against the doctrines of the aesthetics, who abstained from meats and certain foods, etc. as a way to beat their bodies to try to become holier and closer to God. "Doctrines of demons" are mentioned and an example given of what they are is found in 1 Timothy 4:1-6. Paul never mentioned practicing anything like Lent. If a person wishes to practice it on their own, that is their call, but it should not be a practice that is laid on a church and must be observed. Scripture makes it clear that we are not made any holier by abstaining from foods or activities or by adding something to our lifestyle. A person cannot be made any holier than they are made when they call upon Jesus Christ to be their Savior and rely on Him to save them and get them to heaven.

Extraction from your post:

but it should not be a practice that is laid on a church and must be observed

For clarity, I am not for observing Lent. But let me pose this question as the "devil's advocate" for the sake of anyone reading this: Where does the Bible say that we CANNOT observe Lent as a church? And if the Bible does not expressly forbid the observance of Lent, then are we sinning if we are critical of people, churches, or denominations that choose to observe it?
And, if the observance IS "laid" on a church by majority vote, aren't we by extension then required to observe it against our consciences?

 

[Bro. James]

Modern Church discipline

If a Church is unable to maintain proper Church discipline, it may be time to come out from among them and touch not the unclean thing.

We are commanded to reprove, rebuke and exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. If they do not repent, we are commanded to put them outside the fellowship of the body. Looking the other way is sin for sure. The Church at Corinth had discipline problems--it was tearing them apart. This discipline thing has become so watered down that proper discipline is nearly impossible to enforce. If you are on the short end of the majority rule,
you conform or you leave.
Considering the paganism involved in the forty days prior to Easter, a pagan goddess of fertility, not participating would not be sin; but socially devastating nonetheless. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

The Lord knows them that are His.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[rstrats]

Linda64,

re: "Mark 16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid. Of what were they afraid?"

re: "It also removes the Great Commission. Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."


I’m afraid I don’t understand the point you are making. Could you elaborate, please?

 

[Linda64]

Linda64,

re: "Mark 16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid. Of what were they afraid?"

re: "It also removes the Great Commission. Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."


I’m afraid I don’t understand the point you are making. Could you elaborate, please?

What's the last word in Mark 16:8? The end of that verse leaves the apostles in fear. Why would the Great Commission be removed? The real problem here is this: Why question the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 in the first place?

THE ENDING OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK

Mark 16:9-20 is omitted or separated from the rest of the Gospel with a footnote questioning its authenticity in most modern versions. This originated with critical editions of the Greek text developed in the 19th century and popularized by the Westcott-Hort Text and the English Revised Version of 1881. The ERV separates Mk. 16:9-20 from the rest of the text and has a footnote saying, “The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from v. 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.” The Westcott-Hort Greek Text (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1925) separates these verses from the rest of the text with double brackets. The NIV separates this passage from the rest of the text with a line and a blank space and a note reading, “The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.”

In spite of these assaults, we know that that this passage is inspired Scripture. The following brief study reveals the error of questioning its authenticity.

THE MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE WITNESSES TO THE AUTHENTICITY OF MARK 16:9-20. The following is from The Future of the Bible by Jakob Van Bruggen:

“One of the most discussed passages is Mk. 16:9-20. In the New American Bible (NAB), three possibilities are given successively in the translation: ‘The Longer Ending,’ ‘The Shorter Ending,’ and ‘The Freer Logion,’ a manuscript from the fourth or fifth century. In this way, the suggestion is raised very strongly that Mark 16 originally ended at v. 8 or that the original sequel to verse 8 was lost. The NAB creates the impression that the majority textual tradition was rather bold to complete the chapter. This procedure throws doubt on the Majority Text and raises the question of how often additions occur in other passages that cannot be traced.

“The notes in the NAB, however, correct this impression. The ‘Freer Logion’ occurs in only one Greek manuscript (fourth to fifth century). The ‘Shorter Ending’ is found only in a few late Greek manuscripts. The normal ending (Mk. 16:9-20), however, seems to originate from the first century and seems to be accepted as genuine in the majority of manuscripts. The NAB translators really objected to this ending only because the vocabulary and style of Mk. 16:9-20 are said to deviate from the rest of Mark. Yet such objections have nothing to do with the determination of the text, but rather with the question of how one judges the text.

“With regard to the normal ending of Mark 16, W.R. Farmer concludes: ‘In fact, external evidence from the second century for Mk. 16:9-20 is stronger than for most other parts of that Gospel’ (W.R. Farmer, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, p. 31). Jerome knew that there were manuscripts in his time that omitted Mk. 16:9-20, but he was personally convinced of the authenticity of these verses. There are only three known Greek manuscripts that end at 16:8, and one of them [Codex Sinaiticus] has a large open space after verse 8. All the remaining Greek manuscripts contain verses 9-20 after Mark 16:1-8, and most of them do not have a single note or insertion of other data. Mk. 16:1-20 has both the authority of the Majority Text, as well as the authority of the oldest text. If it still remains uncertain whether Mk. 16:9-20 is well attested textually, then very little of any of the text of the New Testament is well attested” (Van Bruggen, The Future of the Bible, pp. 130,131).

THE DOCTRINE OF PROVIDENTIAL PRESERVATION POINTS TO THE GENUINENESS OF MARK 16:9-20. It has been in the Bibles used by God down through the centuries. Mark 16:9-20 was in all English translations preceding the ERV of 1881. It was in the Bibles that were carried to the ends of the world during the great revival/missionary era of the last four centuries. And it is wickedness and folly to question its authenticity because of two unreliable manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) which were hidden away for centuries in the pope’s library and in an eerie monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai.

THERE IS ALSO THE INTERNAL WITNESS THAT TESTIFIES TO THE AUTHENTICITY OF MARK 16:8-20. Every truth of Mark 16:9-20 is confirmed by other portions of Scripture. There is nothing heretical or spurious there. To end the Gospel of Mark at 16:8 leaves the disciples amazed and afraid. On the other hand, to end the Gospel at verse 20 leaves the disciples in this condition: “And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, confirming the Word with signs following.” Who would want to remove such a portion of Scripture from the Bible? I believe the devil would.

Questioning the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20

 

[naschol]

Extraction from your post: For clarity, I am not for observing Lent. But let me pose this question as the "devil's advocate" for the sake of anyone reading this: Where does the Bible say that we CANNOT observe Lent as a church?

Matthew 6:16-18. I believe that we are not forbidden to observe Lent, but that if we do, we should do it in private.

 

[RLBosley]

 

[Bronconagurski]

I have never understood lent, nor how some people fast either. To me, fasting or lent is not about us giving up something we like. That smacks too much of trying to manipulate God imo. To me, fasting has the purpose of communion with God to seek His face for service or for problems in your personal life or family. But one does not have to fast or give up anything to do that. We are told that we can approach the throne of grace boldly to obtain mercy and grace in time of need.

Jesus did fast 40 days and 40 nights to prepare Himself for His public ministry. I do not see where he repeated in the few years he had left upon the earth. I am not saying we can't fast, I am just saying it should be with prayer for a specific purpose, not just to gain favor with God. And it should be anytime we need guidance or strength from God, not just at lent.

 

[MB]

Hi JD;
You wrote;

For clarity, I am not for observing Lent. But let me pose this question as the "devil's advocate" for the sake of anyone reading this: Where does the Bible say that we CANNOT observe Lent as a church?

Because the Bible doesn't mention lent specifically does not mean it's ok. I consider the Catholic Church and all their practices as false. Christ Him Self was not supportive of traditions and spoke out against them. The Catholic Church as far as I'm concerned is just another part of the world adn we are not to be part of the world

And if the Bible does not expressly forbid the observance of Lent, then are we sinning if we are critical of people, churches, or denominations that choose to observe it?

I have always been critical of the Catholic Church. It is nothing more than Satans tool as a false chruch. It has deceived millions of people with it's lies. It's Priest molest Children and use there office to seduce the wives of the men in their congregations.

And, if the observance IS "laid" on a church by majority vote, aren't we by extension then required to observe it against our consciences?

No the Church is not a congress that it can make new laws.
MB