We MUST have Bible AUTHORITY for ALL religious teaching & practice!

[Apollos1]

Matthew 21:23 – The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or from men?

In religion there are only two sources from which authority can come – God or man. Which is your source?

The question - Must disciples of the Lord have NT “authority” for all that is taught and practiced religiously by them today? Your serious consideration is requested.

1 Corinthians 2:10-13 - “…the things of God none knows, except the Spirit.”

Paul reveals how we can know the things of God. I did not wake up this morning and know what God wants. This applies to religious teaching and practices. Man does not know the mind of God (Isaiah 55:8-9). I can only know what God wants if the Spirit has revealed it. The Spirit has revealed what God wants combining spiritual things with spiritual words.

John 4:24 – “God is a spirit: and they that worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

What a concept – spirit and truth. Worshiping God with the right attitude (spirit) and the right information (truth) was coming. The woman at the well told in verse 20 that her fathers worshipped God in that mountain even though God said worship in Jerusalem. After all, the Law did not say “not to” and what could be “inherently sinful” about worshipping God anywhere?

Jesus’ reply to this was – “You know not what you worship”. Taking such liberties as freelance worship was condemned even under the old covenant. cf. Hebrews 2:1-4 and make application.

John 17:7b – “Thy word is truth.” God’s word is our source of truth today. There is no way to know that something is “true” if not found in God’s word. Truth is what "sanctifies" disciples of Jesus.

Romans 10:17 – “So then faith comes by hearing the word of God.”Is there, can there be any other source of truth for a true disciple other than the truth of God’s word upon which to build his faith? God’s word is requisite for matters of faith. Paul earlier in this chapter admonished the Romans in reference to some of Israel in that, even though those Jews had a zeal for God and attempted to obtain righteous in manners of THEIR choosing and design, these had not subjected themselves to the “doctrine” of God, and therefore failed.

As Paul admonished in 2 Corinthians 5:7 – “…we walk by faith, not by sight…”

Do you know what this means? Yet there are those with rationalizations and sophistry today who attempt to serve and worship God in their own fashion without appealing to God’s truth, His knowledge, or to matters of faith.

Matthew 28:18-20 states that Christ has ALL authority in heaven and on earth. This vested authority in Christ leaves none for you and me. Only Christ can authorize in all matters morally and spiritually. Only Christ can authorize a religious teaching or practice. Most today have been reared with a “democratic” mindset and struggle with the concept of a monarchy. They claim Christ as “Lord of Lords” and “King of Kings” yet ignore and discount His authority with teachings and practices of their own choosing.

Moses had long since prophesied that the time would come for the people of God when “Him shall you hear in all things whatsoever he shall say to you.” - Acts 3:22.
We take note early in Christ’s ministry of the authority that was (Mark 1:22), as well as was to be (Sermon on the Mount) when we read – “You have heard… …but I say unto you…” - Matthew 5:21,28,32,34,39,44. The time of Christ’s authority was at hand.

Hebrew 1:1-2 tells us that God speaks to man today through Christ, as confirmed by God’s own voice in Matthew 17:5 – “Hear ye Him…”.

There should be no confusion at this point that the OT retained no authority for anyone’s religious teaching and practice today and that disciples of Christ are to hear and follow Him in all things. The old covenant God had made before (only with the Jews – Deut 5:2-3, cf. Romans 3:2,29) had been:
-Nailed to the cross – Colossians 2:14
-Abolished – Ephesians 2:14-16
-Man had been discharged from it – Romans 7:1-6
-OT’s purpose had been served – Galatians 3:24-25 (cf. Romans 15:4, 2 Tim. 3:16).
All men were free from that “curse” to be a part of what Christ had for them in a new covenant – Hebrews 8:6-13. A “change of law” had taken place – Hebrews 7:12.

Silence Excludes:
Silence can not authorize and it can not prohibit, BUT the application of silence in scriptures shows that silence EXCLUDES.

Hebrew 7:14 - For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests.

The priesthood had changed - verse 12.

The writer’s point is Mose's silence on the matter of priests from the tribe of Judah would have excluded Christ from being a priest. Why? Because Moses was SILENT on that topic! Levites only were mentioned in the Law as being able to serve.

Moses was silent on the matter of those from the tribe of Judah serving as priests, and as such, this would have excluded Christ unless God changed something.

(Of course the major point the Hebrew writer is making here is that there was a change OF the law… not a change IN the Law, but a NEW law! And this change is what made it possible for Jesus to now be a priest even though He is from the tribe of Judah.)

-Cain – Genesis 4:1-7/Hebrews 11:4 – Cain’s sacrifice was excluded because it was not “of faith”.
-Nadab and Abihu Lev. 10:1-3 – Silence excluded all other sources of fire.
-Number 20:1-12 – Striking the rock was excluded by silence for Moses.
-Acts 15:24 – Silence excluded the authorization of the actions of these men.
See 1 Sam. 15:1-35, 2 Sam. 6:1-7, 1 Chron.15:2,12-13, 2 Chron. 26:16-23.

The point – As applied by the scriptures - >>>>>> Silence excludes!
These things were written for our learning – are we learning anything?

“The faith”, the “doctrine”, the “law of”, or the “will” of Christ is revealed (by inspiration) in the NEW testament. We are to contend earnestly for “the faith” which was delivered – Jude 3, and abide in that “doctrine” – 2John9. We are not to preach any other gospel (there is no other gospel) – Galatians 1:6-9. This NT is understandable – Ephesians 3:4, and it is complete – 2 Peter 1:3, 2 Tim. 3:16**, James 1:25. We have no authority and are not to alter it, add to it, or take away from it – Revelation 22:18-19… …1 Corinthians 4:6 ASV states it – “…we are not to go beyond the things that are written.”

**All scripture is profitable, but not all scripture authorizes. Considering God’s “application” of and attitude toward the old covenant (see Hebrew 2:1-4, cf. Deut. 12:32), to say it would be prudent to “give the more earnest heed” to the new covenant would be – an understatement!

God’s providence has provided man with ALL that he needs to live approved in His sight in the B-I-B-L-E. To say otherwise impugns the word, the power, the knowledge, and/or the love of God!

The context of Colossians 3…

This chapter is an exhortation to living as a Christian. When a Christian worships God, God has provided in His word that which the Christian needs to do - or the passages above are false. When a Christians worships, that worship can “rest” in or be “rooted” in Christ, or as some choose to do, their worship and the source of it can “rest” in themselves. (Some call this opinion.)

Colossians 3:17 states a clear Bible principle – “Whatsoever you do in word or deed do all in the name of Jesus Christ.” To do something in someone’s name is to act by their authority – cf. Acts 4:22. This doesn’t mean that when you do something you simply state that it was done “in their name”. Specifically it means you “rely” on the one authorizing the action that you do – your actions “rest” upon and your actions are “rooted” in Christ and all that His name encompasses.

Thayer – onomos – 2.e. “…used for everything which the name covers… rank, authority, interests, pleasures, commands, excellences, deeds, etc.) - “relying or resting on the name of Christ, rooted (so to speak) in his name…” as used in Col. 3:17, Eph. 5:20.

If religious actions and teachings are not based upon scripture, if all that a person teaches and practices in their religion is not done in the light of Christ’s revelation, you can not claim that your actions/teachings are “rooted” in Christ and “in His name”.

Religious teaching and practice therefore must be authorized by Christ – Col. 3:17. When a disciple speaks or ministers on behalf of God it is to be with that which God has supplied – 1 Peter 4:11-12. In this way and this way only can God be glorified. Anything done in religion without “Bible” fails to glorify God.

If you can do one thing without Bible authority, you can do everything without “Bible”. If not, why not?

To teach or practice in religion today without NT book, chapter, and verse in all things is to ignore the truth, act without faith, violate scripture, and to affront the authority of Christ. Such actions also reveal the “source” of your authority.

This is why Bible authority must be given for ALL that the true disciple teaches and practices today.

[Loveaboveall]

You make some thought provoking points... If I may just add one or two things:

The Old Covenant failed because the people tried to obey God through their own power. They knew what they should do to glorify God but they did not have the power within them to do it. (See Exodus 19)

This is explained to us in Hebrews 8 and then it tells us the New Covenant is better because the agreement is based, not on our power, but on God's power to save us. He says, "I will write" on their hearts and minds.

To exclude this power would be to be back under the old covenant of trying to obey the New Testament under our power and not the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Romans 2:13-15 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

It doesn't matter if we have authority to do certain things or not if we are trying to do things under our own power.

[Splayd]

Sincere thanks for putting this post up.

I'll read through it carefully and prayerfully before responding.

Peace

[crawfish]

Good post. I'll try to comment more as time permits. However, let me start with Matthew 5:17-20:

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Obviously, Jesus is referring to the OT here - the old covenant. Since we all would agree that the new covenant has superseded the old, I won't belabor that point - but we must discuss the implications of this verse. What does it mean that the law "will not pass away until the heavens and earth disappear", in light that we do not follow its conscripts? I take this to mean that the OT is not at all invalidated by the new covenant. Superseded by the NT? Yes. Fulfilled by Christ? Yes. But it is still valid.

In essence, Jesus is saying that God is unchanging; His fulfillment of the old law allows change into the new covenant - from a rote following of legal actions to a new gospel of grace. It allows those not saved through the old law to be saved through the new. The old law still represents the will and nature of God. It is still valuable for instruction and It is mankind that has changed, not God.

Which brings up the point: IF musical instruments could be pleasing to God in the old covenant, and the old covenant still speaks to us of the nature of God, then how can NT silence invalidate it?

Is NT-only silence true silence?

[Apollos1]

loveaboveall -

You said - It doesn't matter if we have authority to do certain things or not if we are trying to do things under our own power.

I believe you and I are discussing the essence of this point in the “HS Indwelling” thread. Let’s continue this discussion there…

[Apollos1]

crawfish –

Thank you for your kind response.

You offered for discussion Matthew 5: 17-20…

17Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to
fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle
shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.
19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall
teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and
teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Your question was - What does it mean that the law "will not pass away until the heavens and earth disappear", in light that we do not follow its conscripts?

By carefully reading just what Jesus says here we know that there are -2- “tills” in the passage. That means that one event is dependent upon the other to take place before that event can take place also.

So in order, Jesus says that it would take the passing away of heaven and earth TILL anything passed from the Law TILL all things were accomplished.

By accomplishing all things (see Luke 24:44) the Law was able to “pass away” – or as I showed in the original post above, also at the very point of “fulfilling all things” the Law was “nailed” to the cross – Colossians 2:14.

You said - I take this to mean that the OT is not at all invalidated by the new covenant.

Please explain how you can live under 2 covenants – or the provisions of 2 covenants??? Paul calls such “spiritual adultery” – Romans 7:3.

You said - Superceded by the NT? Yes. Fulfilled by Christ? Yes. But it is still valid.

“Valid” for what???

You said - In essence, Jesus is saying that God is unchanging; His fulfillment of the old law allows change into the new covenant - from a rote following of legal actions to a new gospel of grace.
Uh no – this passage says no such thing. This is what you want to “read into” the passage.
One thing this passage tells us is that until all things are fulfilled by Christ it is impossible for the Law to pass away. This passage does not address the “nature” of God.

Of course you did not address some very important and fundamental points I made in my original post…

The old covenant was made with only the Jews – HOW did Gentiles ever come to be under any part of it?
Was it ABOLISHED? Was it NAILED to the cross? Was it a curse?
Is it not true that you only seek OLD covenant statutes because therein you hope to find authority for your IM??? Hmmm?

You asked - Which brings up the point: IF musical instruments could be pleasing to God in the old covenant, and the old covenant still speaks to us of the nature of God, then how can NT silence invalidate it?
NT silence does not invalidate the OT. The authority of the New Covenant makes the OT null and void.

The NT is a totally separate and different covenant with provisions of its own – just as God planned it to be.

The OT is not the "doctrine of Christ".

The OT is not the "gospel" of Christ.

The OT is not the "will" of Christ.

The NT is the only testament that has authority today. It is a new set of “instructions”. Please read the instructions.

[Loveaboveall]

This is a very important discussion that is thought provoking with several points but I will start with one.






The old covenant was made with only the Jews – HOW did Gentiles ever come to be under any part of it?
Was it ABOLISHED? Was it NAILED to the cross? Was it a curse?
Is it not true that you only seek OLD covenant statutes because therein you hope to find authority for your IM??? Hmmm?


Was the old covenant really only for the children of Israel who were born into the tribe? Off the top of my head I can think of several "Gentiles" who became part of the children of Israel. Rahab, Nebuchadnezzar, Ruth. And I am sure there are more that I have missed. Was this covenant not with them also? What about today, is the new covenant for the whole world? Or just those who have accepted Jesus and become part of Israel(spiritually). The children of Israel were supposed to be a light to the world as we are today. They were supposed to take the message of who God was and that a savior was coming to the Gentiles! Does that mean then that the coveanant was not for the Gentiles?

Compare 1 Peter 2:9 and Exodus 19 and you will find something very interesting!

1 Peter 2:9 But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light

Exodus 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These [are] the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
Israel was supposed to evangelize the whole world as we are today

God's people today are the same as they were in the old testament with the same commmand. If the old covenant was meant only for the children of Israel with no hope for the gentiles than the new covenant today does not offer any more hope for the gentiles! The problem was the gentiles evangelized the Israelites instead of the other way around. Is this happening again today?

[crawfish]

By carefully reading just what Jesus says here we know that there are -2- “tills” in the passage. That means that one event is dependent upon the other to take place before that event can take place also.

So in order, Jesus says that it would take the passing away of heaven and earth TILL anything passed from the Law TILL all things were accomplished.

By accomplishing all things (see Luke 24:44) the Law was able to “pass away” – or as I showed in the original post above, also at the very point of “fulfilling all things” the Law was “nailed” to the cross – Colossians 2:14.

In light of the entire sermon on the mount, I have a different view of this, in a way. Throughout the sermon he gives an example of the old law - "and eye for an eye" - and then qualifies it by what it should mean if one has the proper heart behind it. He is challenging those who would "hold fast to the law" by showing them the true insufficiency of the law. I know I'd hate to live under the strictures of the SOTM without God's grace! I don't think any of us would make it.

In that light, the passage implies "the law is the law" - it will not pass away until ALL things are accomplished and the heavens and earth pass away. The implication - and I hope you won't get too hung up on this - is the unchanging nature of God's law. I'll complete this thought below.

Please explain how you can live under 2 covenants – or the provisions of 2 covenants??? Paul calls such “spiritual adultery” – Romans 7:3.

I imply no such thing. The "old law" has been fulfilled, and God, though the sacrifice of Christ, has paved a new way. We are no longer under the old covenant.

“Valid” for what???

The new covenant did not produce a new God, as the gnostics believed. God doesn't change.

Read Hebrews 11. The OT can still be used to see the nature of God. Each of those examples of faith is put forth as an example for us in our own faith. Certainly, this is enough authorization to look at the OT for examples of a spiritual nature?

The old covenant was made with only the Jews – HOW did Gentiles ever come to be under any part of it?
Was it ABOLISHED? Was it NAILED to the cross? Was it a curse?
Is it not true that you only seek OLD covenant statutes because therein you hope to find authority for your IM??? Hmmm?

I answered the first part earlier. The next part, below:

NT silence does not invalidate the OT. The authority of the New Covenant makes the OT null and void.

The NT is a totally separate and different covenant with provisions of its own – just as God planned it to be.

The OT is not the "doctrine of Christ".

The OT is not the "gospel" of Christ.

The OT is not the "will" of Christ.

The NT is the only testament that has authority today. It is a new set of “instructions”. Please read the instructions.

The crux of the matter is: silence. The NT says NOTHING about IM. We have scriptural authority to explore the nature of God through the OT; since we can assume He does not change, then if He did not specifically instruct us on an issue we can assume that the OT still speaks for Him.

It's not that we're under the new covenant. It's that the use of silence in this matter is a bit presumptuous since we can see God in full support of IM in the OT.

[Loveaboveall]

NT silence does not invalidate the OT. The authority of the New Covenant makes the OT null and void.

The NT is a totally separate and different covenant with provisions of its own – just as God planned it to be.

The OT is not the "doctrine of Christ".

The OT is not the "gospel" of Christ.

The OT is not the "will" of Christ.

The NT is the only testament that has authority today. It is a new set of “instructions”. Please read the instructions.

To better understand where you are coming from could you please, in a nutshell, describe to me what hebrews 8 is speaking of when it refers to an old covenant and a new covenant. Specifically, what is the old covenant and what is the new covenant. I think this might be at the heart of our different line of thinking.

[Apollos1]

loveaboveall -

>>>Was the old covenant really only for the children of Israel who were born into the tribe?
Yes... Deuteronomy 5:2-3.

Israel was supposed to evangelize the whole world as we are today...

No they were not. See a verse such as Acts 10:28.

[Apollos1]

crawfish –

Thanks for the continuing dialogue. It appears you agree we need authority from scripture. We just need to work on WHERE that authority will come from…

You said >>>In that light, the passage [Matthew 5] implies "the law is the law" - it will not pass away until ALL things are accomplished and the heavens and earth pass away.

This thought is not represented in the chapter. How do we know?
Verses 21, 27, 33, 38, and 43 – You have heard… …BUT I say unto you.
All of this was prep work for the change that was coming soon.

>>>The implication - and I hope you won't get too hung up on this - is the unchanging nature of God's law.

But this is not implied in the passage – see above. The very opposite is being presented by Christ here. Jesus was telling them that what once was is now changed. It is as simple as Moses said that – BUT the SON of God now says this!

>>>The "old law" has been fulfilled, and God, though the sacrifice of Christ, has paved a new way. We are no longer under the old covenant.

Then just “let go” of the OT. If you keep looking back you may turn into a pillar of salt!

>>>The new covenant did not produce a new God, as the gnostics believed. God doesn't change.

Of course the nature of God does not change, BUT His law did – Hebrews 7:12 as well as His placement of authority – Matthew 28:18-20. Before it was Moses, now it is Christ.

>>>Read Hebrews 11. The OT can still be used to see the nature of God. Each of those examples of faith is put forth as an example for us in our own faith

I have said earlier that 3 of the most important things that the OT teaches us is:
-God keeps His promises.
-How God deals with man.
-That God always provides a way for the faithful.

And I agree that the OT illustrates examples of faithfulness for us.
BUT examples of obedience in the OT do not authorize practices of worship under the NT.

>>>Certainly, this is enough authorization to look at the OT for examples of a spiritual nature?

They were faithful under the requirements God gave them at the time. We should be faithful today under the NT.

But you have never explained how Gentiles are ameniable to the OT – as God made this covenant with only the Jews.

I asked if it was not true that you seek OT “authority” or approval for IM because you know it is not in the NT?
Let’s ask this - Do you seek approval for ANY OTHER practice from the OT ???
Animal sacrifice?
Tithing?
Polygamy?

I believe the answer will be no. So why is IM the only one?

>>>The crux of the matter is: silence. The NT says NOTHING about IM.

THEREFORE:
IM is not IN the “doctrine of Christ”. You go outside to look for it.
IM is not in the “gospel of Christ”. IM is not part of the good news.
IM is not in the “will” of Christ. IM is not authorized by Christ.
HEAR YE HIM!!! Will you?

>>>We have scriptural authority to explore the nature of God through the OT; since we can assume He does not change, then if He did not specifically instruct us on an issue we can assume that the OT still speaks for Him.

“Explore the nature…” - this is vague. But I don’t care to “assume” anything with my soul’s salvation.

But I return once again to ask – The OT “speaks” for God in what way today???
The OT is “valid” for what today???

To see the “nature” of God? Ok.
To see examples of faith? Okay.
To know that God always keeps His promises? Certainly!

As a source of authority in religious teaching and practic today? No – nope – no can do! Why? CHRIST has ALL authority today.

[Loveaboveall]

loveaboveall -

>>>Was the old covenant really only for the children of Israel who were born into the tribe?
Yes... Deuteronomy 5:2-3.

Israel was supposed to evangelize the whole world as we are today...

No they were not. See a verse such as Acts 10:28.

Apollos I am really starting to wonder if you believe in the "Bible and the Bible alone" To suggest that the gentiles before Christ had no way to enter into a covenant with God for salvation is, well, completely against the character of God!

Think about what Paul says here:

1 timothy 2:3-6 For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

God made a plan for ANY man who would have faith in Jesus to be saved. Jew or Gentile. Exodus 12:48 sheds some light as to why the Pharisees of Acts 15:5 would want to require circimcision.

Exodus 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

A stranger is an equivalent of a gentile! If they were circumcised they could participate in the passover which...Pointed to their savior--- JESUS!

Did you read 1Peter 2 and Exodus 19 that I referenced? If you had you would see that we are commanded the same command that Israel was-- to be a royal priesthood, a holy nation so that those who do not believe will see Jesus in us and glorify Him in the day of His visitation! Why do you continue to deny this?

For further evidence that Israel was to be a light to the Gentiles lets go to Isaiah:

Isaiah 42:6,7 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, [and] them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

Isaiah 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

This was God's plan. The Jews did not follow through, thus through the ages they grew to view themselves as superior to the gentiles because they were God's people because God had commtted to Him his "oracles". Just becasue the Jews failed does not mean it wasn't the intent of God.

I am not sure how Deut 5:2,3 plays into this discussion. For the "fathers" spoken of were still Israelites!

Consider the relationship of the OT and NT Jews/gentiles.

Today We(jews) have a covenant with God that He will save us through faith in Jesus. The gentiles today are not under this covenant because they have chosen not to accept it. If they choose to accept it they are baptized (circumcision) and then accepted as a christia(Jews)

In the OT, the Jews were under a covenant with God that if they kept all of His commandments and continue in them they would be His people. Because they did not "continue in them" God set up the sacricifcial system designed to lead them to faith in a coming savior, Jesus. The gentiles were not under this covenant because they chose not to be. If a gentile chose to be he was required to be circumcised and then he could participate in the sacrificial system which was designed to lead him to ---JESUS!

You see a gentile today is no more under a covenant with God then the gentiles of old. Both have/had the ability to enter into a covenant with God unto salvation!

[Loveaboveall]

In light of the entire sermon on the mount, I have a different view of this, in a way. Throughout the sermon he gives an example of the old law - "and eye for an eye" - and then qualifies it by what it should mean if one has the proper heart behind it. He is challenging those who would "hold fast to the law" by showing them the true insufficiency of the law. I know I'd hate to live under the strictures of the SOTM without God's grace! I don't think any of us would make it.

You are absoutely right! God speaks all throughout the old testament of "circumcison of the heart"( Deut 10:16, Jer 4:4, 1 sam 15:22) but the people didn't get it. They put all kinds of "extra" laws on the people to make sure they didn't break God's law. They had lost the spirituality of the law and Jesus made a point to focus on it again. If anything Jesus reaffirmed the law! He did not say go commit adultery/murder, He said even if you think it in your heart you are breaking the law. Jesus cares about our hearts and calls all of us to "circumcise our hearts" which is what the new covenant is all about, the writing of the law on our hearts.

In that light, the passage implies "the law is the law" - it will not pass away until ALL things are accomplished and the heavens and earth pass away. The implication - and I hope you won't get too hung up on this - is the unchanging nature of God's law. I'll complete this thought below.

Malachi 3:6 For I [am] the LORD, I change not...:thumbsup:

I imply no such thing. The "old law" has been fulfilled, and God, though the sacrifice of Christ, has paved a new way. We are no longer under the old covenant.

That is why we have a new covenant because Jesus blood is shed for us not the blood of an animal.


The new covenant did not produce a new God, as the gnostics believed. God doesn't change.

Read Hebrews 11. The OT can still be used to see the nature of God. Each of those examples of faith is put forth as an example for us in our own faith. Certainly, this is enough authorization to look at the OT for examples of a spiritual nature?

If the new covenant is based on faith in God to save us, then is it possible that all these people of faith actually lived under the new covenant? something to ponder... the new covenant could actually be the oldest of covenants!

The crux of the matter is: silence. The NT says NOTHING about IM. We have scriptural authority to explore the nature of God through the OT; since we can assume He does not change, then if He did not specifically instruct us on an issue we can assume that the OT still speaks for Him.

For me, I could care less about IM, but you make a good point. I doesn't matter to God whether we sing or play music as long as our heart is in complete worship to Him.

[crawfish]

crawfish –

Thanks for the continuing dialogue. It appears you agree we need authority from scripture. We just need to work on WHERE that authority will come from…

I still believe what I said I believed before. We are given a "template", not a strict set of commands. Not having the time to explain this thoroughly (between work and other discussions), I decided to best way was to make an argument from your point of view. Perhaps I'll have the time to post this thought in full later. Let's just shelve that for now.

This thought is not represented in the chapter. How do we know?
Verses 21, 27, 33, 38, and 43 – You have heard… …BUT I say unto you.
All of this was prep work for the change that was coming soon.

I agree with this completely. Jesus is talking about the insufficiency of the law to save us; by expressing the law in its most extreme level (intent & heart were demanded from the Hebrews as well), Jesus shows how we cannot possibly hope to save ourselves through the law.

I know I wouldn't have any body parts left if I had to lop off the ones that caused me to sin. :)


But this is not implied in the passage – see above. The very opposite is being presented by Christ here. Jesus was telling them that what once was is now changed. It is as simple as Moses said that – BUT the SON of God now says this!

This I disagree with completely. I spoke to a professor of Judaism once who told me that SOTM was solid Jewish theology; as I said above, it was actually the full extent of the law; it was showing them what it meant to be perfect in the law. The text "but I tell you..." was a phrase commonly used by rabbis to indicate that they were going to explain the text in question. The professor I spoke of above said, in a lecture, that there are other examples of this in other Jewish literature of the time. (I don't have examples myself, though, and that was a long time ago.)

The everlasting nature of the law is certainly implied in the passage. Jesus was prepping them, indeed - not for the passing of the law, but for the new concept of God's grace. The law was and is insufficient.


Then just “let go” of the OT. If you keep looking back you may turn into a pillar of salt!

Wow. "Letting go of the old covenant" is a far cry from "letting go of the OT". I agree with the former, but not the latter. There is far too much we can learn from the OT to let it go.


Of course the nature of God does not change, BUT His law did – Hebrews 7:12 as well as His placement of authority – Matthew 28:18-20. Before it was Moses, now it is Christ.

Can't disagree with this.

I have said earlier that 3 of the most important things that the OT teaches us is:
-God keeps His promises.
-How God deals with man.
-That God always provides a way for the faithful.

And I agree that the OT illustrates examples of faithfulness for us.
BUT examples of obedience in the OT do not authorize practices of worship under the NT.

Sorry, but I think this trivializes the importance of the OT. We can derive a lot of things from the nature of God in the OT to our times. We can learn that God often works in ways that are unexpected; certainly, Christ was the most unexpected messiah imaginable. The Hebrews thought they were destined to be a great nation, but they were subject to the rule of greater earthly nations for all but a few dynasties. For this reason, I tend to laugh at all the various "millenialisms" out there today; God has a way of dashing our expectations in glorious ways.

They were faithful under the requirements God gave them at the time. We should be faithful today under the NT.

Instruments were never a requirement; they were mentioned, however, as pleasing to God. God is silent on a subject in the NT, which allows us to look to the OT to see how He felt about it. Silence does NOT equal negative authority in this case.

But you have never explained how Gentiles are ameniable to the OT – as God made this covenant with only the Jews.

I have explained that the OT is a viable and valuable tool for gentiles like myself to further explore the nature of God. It really doesn't go any farther than this in this case.

I asked if it was not true that you seek OT “authority” or approval for IM because you know it is not in the NT?

No. I look to the OT for guidance for a subject that the NT doesn't speak of, through an evaluation of God's nature revealed there. It has nothing to do with following the old law.

Let’s ask this - Do you seek approval for ANY OTHER practice from the OT ???
Animal sacrifice?
Tithing?
Polygamy?

I believe the answer will be no. So why is IM the only one?

IM is not the only reason I look to the OT. I look to it in understanding the unchanging nature of God, for one.

I believe tithing is still a good practice; in fact, it is probably a good starting point for a Christian giver. :) However, it is not a law that should be enforced. I don't imagine you assume that 10% is an unauthorized amount to give because the NT is silent on it?

For the other two, I think the NT is quite clear on addressing those subjects.

THEREFORE:
IM is not IN the “doctrine of Christ”. You go outside to look for it.
IM is not in the “gospel of Christ”. IM is not part of the good news.
IM is not in the “will” of Christ. IM is not authorized by Christ.
HEAR YE HIM!!! Will you?

That logic makes perfect sense. To someone trying to justify a spiritual stance against IM. It doesn't make sense to anybody else, though.

“Explore the nature…” - this is vague. But I don’t care to “assume” anything with my soul’s salvation.

But I return once again to ask – The OT “speaks” for God in what way today???
The OT is “valid” for what today???

To see the “nature” of God? Ok.
To see examples of faith? Okay.
To know that God always keeps His promises? Certainly!

As a source of authority in religious teaching and practic today? No – nope – no can do! Why? CHRIST has ALL authority today.

I've answered most of this above. I should mention - I am not trying to get you to worship with instruments. Romans 14 explains quite clearly that it would be a sin for you to, from the way you feel about it. Don't think for a second that your man-made restrictions have any bearing on the faith of others, though.

Yes, Christ has all authority today. That is not in question by any of us on the IM side of the issue. The real question is, is the restriction on IM valid? I have explained my logic. I understand yours. I will earnestly pray about this, I ask you to do the same.

[RefrusRevlis]

I look to the OT for guidance for a subject that the NT doesn't speak of, through an evaluation of God's nature revealed there.

What is missing from the NT so far as what we need to be pleasing to God?

:confused:
Refrus

[Loveaboveall]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apollos1 http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=35946462#post35946462)
This thought is not represented in the chapter. How do we know?
Verses 21, 27, 33, 38, and 43 – You have heard… …BUT I say unto you.
All of this was prep work for the change that was coming soon.

I agree with this completely. Jesus is talking about the insufficiency of the law to save us; by expressing the law in its most extreme level (intent & heart were demanded from the Hebrews as well), Jesus shows how we cannot possibly hope to save ourselves through the law.

I know I wouldn't have any body parts left if I had to lop off the ones that caused me to sin. :)

Is the law insufficient to save us because it is just too hard to keep, or is it insufficient because every single one of us has broken it? It is a subtle difference but is huge in the magnitude of who God is!

[crawfish]

Is the law insufficient to save us because it is just too hard to keep, or is it insufficient because every single one of us has broken it? It is a subtle difference but is huge in the magnitude of who God is!

It's insufficient because it's impossible for us to be perfect in it. "For all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God." This is why the saved don't have to sit an worry about our salvation every time we sin; because through God's grace, He is "making up" for our lack. This isn't to say that we can't lose our salvation - I do not believe that - but, losing one's salvation is more an act of willful rejection of God than of temporary defiance.

[crawfish]

What is missing from the NT so far as what we need to be pleasing to God?

:confused:
Refrus

I don't think you understand my argument. If something was pleasing to God in the OT, but not mentioned in the NT, would it follow that it was pleasing or displeasing?

[Loveaboveall]

It's insufficient because it's impossible for us to be perfect in it. "For all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God." This is why the saved don't have to sit an worry about our salvation every time we sin; because through God's grace, He is "making up" for our lack. This isn't to say that we can't lose our salvation - I do not believe that - but, losing one's salvation is more an act of willful rejection of God than of temporary defiance.


Is there anything wrong with the law that Jesus gave on the SOMT, which He expounded upon and in essence gave the right meaning to. Was there any fault with this law, or is the fault in us? Was this law changed to make it easier for us to keep or are we changed so that we can keep the law? You made the statement earlier that there is an "unchanging nature of God's law". What did you mean by this?

[RefrusRevlis]

I don't think you understand my argument. If something was pleasing to God in the OT, but not mentioned in the NT, would it follow that it was pleasing or displeasing?

It would be unnecessary. The N.T. tells of all Christians need to do.

Refrus

[crawfish]

It would be unnecessary. The N.T. tells of all Christians need to do.

Refrus

We're not talking about what it says. We're talking about what it doesn't say.

[crawfish]

Is there anything wrong with the law that Jesus gave on the SOMT, which He expounded upon and in essence gave the right meaning to. Was there any fault with this law, or is the fault in us? Was this law changed to make it easier for us to keep or are we changed so that we can keep the law? You made the statement earlier that there is an "unchanging nature of God's law". What did you mean by this?

God didn't give his law because it was sufficient. The world was not ready. The law made the Hebrews a unified and strongly differentiated people. It also made them rich ground from which God could produce the messiah.

"The law" - that is, the obedience to God's command - is unchanging and eternal. Meaning, if we are to live by the law then we are subject to its tenets, and liable to its punishments. God's new covenant is His grace - unearned salvation not based on what we do, but our obedience to His will.

[Loveaboveall]

God didn't give his law because it was sufficient. The world was not ready. The law made the Hebrews a unified and strongly differentiated people. It also made them rich ground from which God could produce the messiah.

"The law" - that is, the obedience to God's command - is unchanging and eternal. Meaning, if we are to live by the law then we are subject to its tenets, and liable to its punishments. God's new covenant is His grace - unearned salvation not based on what we do, but our obedience to His will.


are you suggesting we can now do what we want because we have grace? I believe Paul is clear in Romans 6 that just because we are under grace does not mean we can continue to sin! I agree we are no longer under the punishment of the law because we have grace, but that doesn't mean we can now break the law of God whenever we like. We are to strive to not sin, but if we do we have a savior. See 1 John 2:1

[crawfish]

are you suggesting we can now do what we want because we have grace? I believe Paul is clear in Romans 6 that just because we are under grace does not mean we can continue to sin! I agree we are no longer under the punishment of the law because we have grace, but that doesn't mean we can now break the law of God whenever we like. We are to strive to not sin, but if we do we have a savior. See 1 John 2:1
NO.

We do not accept His grace by continuing to sin - we do so through obedience. But rather than the obedience being the deciding factor, it is the grace.

Under the old law, obedience was a "do this" thing. Under the new covenant, obedience is a "be this" thing. It is, at the same time, both less restrictive and more demanding.

[Apollos1]

Crawfish –


You said - I still believe what I said I believed before. We are given a "template", not a strict set of commands.
Which is why I supplied…
-Cain – Genesis 4:1-7/Hebrews 11:4
-Nadab and Abihu Lev. 10:1-3
-Number 20:1-12 – Striking the rock by Moses.
See 1 Sam. 15:1-35, 2 Sam. 6:1-7, 1 Chron.15:2,12-13, 2 Chron. 26:16-23.
All scripture is profitable, but not all scripture authorizes. Considering God’s “application” of and attitude toward the old covenant (see Hebrew 2:1-4, cf. Deut. 12:32), to say it would be prudent to “give the more earnest heed” to the new covenant would be – an understatement!
You can’t find any type of a “template” application of scripture with God!<<<<<<<<<
Previously I said - This thought is not represented in the chapter [Matt. 5]. How do we know this?Verses 21, 27, 33, 38, and 43 – You have heard… …BUT I say unto you.
All of this was prep work for the change that was coming soon.

Your reply was - I agree with this completely. Jesus is talking about the insufficiency of the law to save us; by expressing the law in its most extreme level (intent & heart were demanded from the Hebrews as well), Jesus shows how we cannot possibly hope to save ourselves through the law.
You did not agree and Jesus is not talking about the Law’s insufficiency to save. Jesus is talking about what they had heard for so long – but now what they were to hear from Him!


You said - The text "but I tell you..." was a phrase commonly used by rabbis to indicate that they were going to explain the text in question.
Maybe – maybe not. But Jesus wasn’t just any rabbi” and His “explanations” transcended the Law. Jesus was saying the same thing God would affirm later – “Hear ye him!”

You said - The everlasting nature of the law is certainly implied in the passage.
What part? Which specific word? Which phrase “implies” this thought to you?

You said - Jesus was prepping them, indeed - not for the passing of the law, but for the new concept of God's grace.
And God’s grace is mentioned where? It appears to me that Jesus” prepping was notice for the spiritual application of mind and heart to serve Jehovah that was coming.

You said - The law was and is insufficient.
But good enough to find abstract “authority” for IM in NT church worship today – right?


You said - Wow. "Letting go of the old covenant" is a far cry from "letting go of the OT". I agree with the former, but not the latter. There is far too much we can learn from the OT to let it go.
I view this as a bit of “posturing”. You should know my position regarding the OT by now (Romans 15:4) and thus your remark is out of place. But to clarify should you not really understand my remark – you should let the OT go for any authority in NT worship today.


You said - Instruments were never a requirement; they were mentioned, however, as pleasing to God.
Give me just ONE OT passage that shows God licensed IM or that they were “pleasing” to Him… just ONE!

You said - God is silent on a subject in the NT, which allows us to look to the OT to see how He felt about it. Silence does NOT equal negative authority in this case.
How does silence “allow” us to look into the OT? Do you make this up as you go along? As far as silence I previously offered…
-Cain – Genesis 4:1-7/Hebrews 11:4 – Cain’s sacrifice was excluded because it was not “of faith”.
-Nadab and Abihu Lev. 10:1-3 – Silence excluded all other sources of fire.
-Number 20:1-12 – Striking the rock was excluded by silence for Moses.
-Acts 15:24 – Silence excluded the authorization of the actions of these men.
See 1 Sam. 15:1-35, 2 Sam. 6:1-7, 1 Chron.15:2,12-13, 2 Chron. 26:16-23.

The point – As applied by the scriptures - >>>>>> Silence excludes!
These things were written for our learning – are we learning anything?
I now return to a question I have asked you MANY times. That question is: But you have never explained how Gentiles are ameniable to the OT – as God made this covenant with only the Jews.

You replied - I have explained that the OT is a viable and valuable tool for gentiles like myself to further explore the nature of God. It really doesn't go any farther than this in this case.

Well let’s take it farther. The OT is a “tool” to “explore” the nature of God. Your double-speak is well rehearsed! But the truth is you can NOT explain HOW or WHY Gentiles should look to the OT for any authority for anything in the first place. You can NOT explain HOW or WHY IM can be introduced from the OT into NT church worship. Through your mystical and etherical language you want to imply and infer IM is okay today – but I ain’t buying!!! You haven’t proved a thing except you can talk your way all around the facts.
I asked you last time: I asked if it was not true that you seek OT “authority” or approval for IM because you know it is not in the NT?

You replied - No. I look to the OT for guidance for a subject that the NT doesn't speak of, through an evaluation of God's nature revealed there.
Really? Name a couple of subjects for me where you have looked for “guidance” through an evaluation of God’s nature – whatever that means.
Then I asked: Do you seek approval for ANY OTHER practice from the OT ??? Animal sacrifice? Tithing?Polygamy?

Your answer - IM is not the only reason I look to the OT. I look to it in understanding the unchanging nature of God, for one.
That did not answer my question! I asked what otherPRACTICE do you seek from the OT? And as I said, the answer is you seek no other practice from the OT. IM is the ONLY PRACTICE you seek from the OT “while exploring the nature of God”. While you may “recommend” tithing, you don’t seek it from the OT – you seek only IM.
My point is – You want IM so you go where you think you can get it! That is plain enough. So now we know why you go there. Be honest!
I previously said - THEREFORE:
IM is not IN the “doctrine of Christ”. You go outside to look for it.
IM is not in the “gospel of Christ”. IM is not part of the good news.
IM is not in the “will” of Christ. IM is not authorized by Christ.
HEAR YE HIM!!! Will you?

You said - That logic makes perfect sense. To someone trying to justify a spiritual stance against IM. It doesn't make sense to anybody else, though.
You made no attempt to refute any point. Wise choice.
But let’s see, you admit that IM can NOT be found in the NT, which is the “doctrine” and “will” of Christ. You admit you must go outside of the NT to the OT to (maybe) find authority for IM in worship. It is simple enough - you violate several scriptures in doing so!
“The faith”, the “doctrine”, the “law of”, or the “will” of Christ is revealed (by inspiration) in the NEW testament. We are to contend earnestly for “the faith” which was delivered – Jude 3, and abide in that “doctrine” – 2John9. We are not to preach any other gospel (there is no other gospel) – Galatians 1:6-9. This NT is understandable – Ephesians 3:4, and it is complete – 2 Peter 1:3, 2 Tim. 3:16**, James 1:25. We have no authority and are not to alter it, add to it, or take away from it – Revelation 22:18-19… …1 Corinthians 4:6 ASV states it – “…we are not to go beyond the things that are written.”

You then said - For the other two [animal sacrifice and polygamy], I think the NT is quite clear on addressing those subjects.
What?! And the NT isn’t clear on “abiding in the doctrine of Christ” and that Christ has ALL authority??? You do like to pick and choose don’t you?

You said - Romans 14 explains quite clearly that it would be a sin for you to [worship with instruments], from the way you feel about it.

Romans 14 addresses doing things that would otherwise be acceptable to do, but not doing them by faith. To eat meat offered to idols is okay, but questioning whether it was acceptable and doing that anyway is a sin because it was not by faith. When you show that IM is acceptable, then you can do so “by faith”. As it stands now, IM is a “faithless” practice that you already know is outside of the doctrine of Christ! Bon appetite!



You said - Yes, Christ has all authority today. That is not in question by any of us on the IM side of the issue.
You may not QUESTION it, but I know you do not give HEED to it – your practices reflect this.


You said - The real question is, is the restriction on IM valid?

Look at your approach to IM. You ask why “restrict” IM. I ask why “allow” it. Your approach is not from a view of Christ having all authority. You only ask WHY NOT? My approach IS from Christ’s authority… Does Christ permit IM? On this point you and I do agree…

Christ has NOT permitted it.

[RefrusRevlis]

We're not talking about what it says. We're talking about what it doesn't say.

It seems to me anything added onto the NT is to please the one who adds, not God...or the other alternative is that the NT is insufficient as a guide to what God wants from Christians and needs something added.

Just because God was pleased by something at one time does not mean it will always be pleasing to him. It depends whether or not the action in question is part of the current agreement (covenant). The authority of the OT is superseded by the NT.

Refrus

[Loveaboveall]

I respectfully disagree with this statement"

No "template" religion to be found in scripture...

This template is found in the OT and the NT...

And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

[crawfish]

Which is why I supplied…
-Cain – Genesis 4:1-7/Hebrews 11:4
-Nadab and Abihu Lev. 10:1-3
-Number 20:1-12 – Striking the rock by Moses.
See 1 Sam. 15:1-35, 2 Sam. 6:1-7, 1 Chron.15:2,12-13, 2 Chron. 26:16-23.
All scripture is profitable, but not all scripture authorizes. Considering God’s “application” of and attitude toward the old covenant (see Hebrew 2:1-4, cf. Deut. 12:32), to say it would be prudent to “give the more earnest heed” to the new covenant would be – an understatement!
You can’t find any type of a “template” application of scripture with God!<<<<<<<<<
Previously I said - This thought is not represented in the chapter [Matt. 5]. How do we know this?Verses 21, 27, 33, 38, and 43 – You have heard… …BUT I say unto you.
All of this was prep work for the change that was coming soon.

I started to address all this, but it was going to take far too long. I'll try to explain my position in a later thread.


You did not agree and Jesus is not talking about the Law’s insufficiency to save. Jesus is talking about what they had heard for so long – but now what they were to hear from Him!

Jesus was teaching him the full implications of the law. Taken in the context of Jesus' life, it was a preamble to the message He was about to deliver. To live completely by the law is harder than just following its rules and regulations; the heart matters. That is what Jesus is saying.



Maybe – maybe not. But Jesus wasn’t just any rabbi” and His “explanations” transcended the Law. Jesus was saying the same thing God would affirm later – “Hear ye him!”

So you're saying, Jesus didn't use the lingo of the time to communicate his messages? He wouldn't use figures of speech and terms that His audience would easily recognize?

I agree that he was more than just any Rabbi, but He also communicated in the standards of His time. We can use those standards to glean more accurately what He was talking about.

What part? Which specific word? Which phrase “implies” this thought to you?

The part that says "will not pass until the Heavens and Earth pass away"? That would be "for all time".

And God’s grace is mentioned where? It appears to me that Jesus” prepping was notice for the spiritual application of mind and heart to serve Jehovah that was coming.

You have to take the sermon in context of His life. You have to note the progression of His message and how it was delivered. You have to get rid of the microscope and use a telescope to see some truth. :)

But good enough to find abstract “authority” for IM in NT church worship today – right?

I would argue you're missing the point. The new covenant is different in nature than the old covenant - not so many rules and regulations of behavior, but more demands on our hearts and minds. Again, I'll get into this further with my "template" argument. If I can ever get to it. :o


I view this as a bit of “posturing”. You should know my position regarding the OT by now (Romans 15:4) and thus your remark is out of place. But to clarify should you not really understand my remark – you should let the OT go for any authority in NT worship today.

I know some CofCers who don't carry a bible with the OT with them. They use it for kids lessons and to argue for creationism. Obviously, I disagree with that.


Give me just ONE OT passage that shows God licensed IM or that they were “pleasing” to Him… just ONE!

Psalms 92:3. Psalms 33:2. There, you have two. And answer me this: why would God command that we sing "psalms" without instruments that had lyrics that supported the use of instruments?
How does silence “allow” us to look into the OT? Do you make this up as you go along? As far as silence I previously offered…
-Cain – Genesis 4:1-7/Hebrews 11:4 – Cain’s sacrifice was excluded because it was not “of faith”.
-Nadab and Abihu Lev. 10:1-3 – Silence excluded all other sources of fire.
-Number 20:1-12 – Striking the rock was excluded by silence for Moses.
-Acts 15:24 – Silence excluded the authorization of the actions of these men.
See 1 Sam. 15:1-35, 2 Sam. 6:1-7, 1 Chron.15:2,12-13, 2 Chron. 26:16-23.

The point – As applied by the scriptures - >>>>>> Silence excludes!
These things were written for our learning – are we learning anything?
I now return to a question I have asked you MANY times. That question is: But you have never explained how Gentiles are ameniable to the OT – as God made this covenant with only the Jews.

And I've answer this many times as well. You should know by now that the mere question shows that you don't understand my point.

You replied - I have explained that the OT is a viable and valuable tool for gentiles like myself to further explore the nature of God. It really doesn't go any farther than this in this case.

Well let’s take it farther. The OT is a “tool” to “explore” the nature of God. Your double-speak is well rehearsed! But the truth is you can NOT explain HOW or WHY Gentiles should look to the OT for any authority for anything in the first place. You can NOT explain HOW or WHY IM can be introduced from the OT into NT church worship. Through your mystical and etherical language you want to imply and infer IM is okay today – but I ain’t buying!!! You haven’t proved a thing except you can talk your way all around the facts.
I asked you last time: I asked if it was not true that you seek OT “authority” or approval for IM because you know it is not in the NT?

The OT is the word of God. God-breathed. God-inspired. Why would a Gentile not want to study it?


Really? Name a couple of subjects for me where you have looked for “guidance” through an evaluation of God’s nature – whatever that means.
Then I asked: Do you seek approval for ANY OTHER practice from the OT ??? Animal sacrifice? Tithing?Polygamy?

I've answered this more than once as well. And the very question shows that you don't understand my position on this very well, either. :)

That did not answer my question! I asked what otherPRACTICE do you seek from the OT? And as I said, the answer is you seek no other practice from the OT. IM is the ONLY PRACTICE you seek from the OT “while exploring the nature of God”. While you may “recommend” tithing, you don’t seek it from the OT – you seek only IM.
My point is – You want IM so you go where you think you can get it! That is plain enough. So now we know why you go there. Be honest!
I previously said - THEREFORE:
IM is not IN the “doctrine of Christ”. You go outside to look for it.
IM is not in the “gospel of Christ”. IM is not part of the good news.
IM is not in the “will” of Christ. IM is not authorized by Christ.
HEAR YE HIM!!! Will you?

You're very hung up on this "practice" thing, aren't you? You might have to think out of your box to understand my point of view.

You made no attempt to refute any point. Wise choice.
But let’s see, you admit that IM can NOT be found in the NT, which is the “doctrine” and “will” of Christ. You admit you must go outside of the NT to the OT to (maybe) find authority for IM in worship. It is simple enough - you violate several scriptures in doing so!
“The faith”, the “doctrine”, the “law of”, or the “will” of Christ is revealed (by inspiration) in the NEW testament. We are to contend earnestly for “the faith” which was delivered – Jude 3, and abide in that “doctrine” – 2John9. We are not to preach any other gospel (there is no other gospel) – Galatians 1:6-9. This NT is understandable – Ephesians 3:4, and it is complete – 2 Peter 1:3, 2 Tim. 3:16**, James 1:25. We have no authority and are not to alter it, add to it, or take away from it – Revelation 22:18-19… …1 Corinthians 4:6 ASV states it – “…we are not to go beyond the things that are written.”

I make no attempt to refute because the logic used above is inane. It is adding to the scripture what is not there - adding a RESTRICTION.

quote=Apollos1;36128537] What?! And the NT isn’t clear on “abiding in the doctrine of Christ” and that Christ has ALL authority??? You do like to pick and choose don’t you?[/quote]

Silence is NOT authority in all cases. I've explained this many times. Nice way to disregard my other arguments.

Romans 14 addresses doing things that would otherwise be acceptable to do, but not doing them by faith. To eat meat offered to idols is okay, but questioning whether it was acceptable and doing that anyway is a sin because it was not by faith. When you show that IM is acceptable, then you can do so “by faith”. As it stands now, IM is a “faithless” practice that you already know is outside of the doctrine of Christ! Bon appetite!

Do as you will. I know better.


quote=Apollos1;36128537] Look at your approach to IM. You ask why “restrict” IM. I ask why “allow” it. Your approach is not from a view of Christ having all authority. You only ask WHY NOT? My approach IS from Christ’s authority… Does Christ permit IM? On this point you and I do agree…

Christ has NOT permitted it.[/quote]

So, we start back at the beginning of the circle. Christ also does not permit songbooks. Or church buildings. Or four-part harmonies. Or a great number of things that we all do, every day. Yet most CofCers justify those in a myriad of ways while cherry-picking IM because it's consistent with their tradition.

Christ has freed us from the law and you would have us enslaved again. I can no longer hold to that position.

[Apollos1]

To finish out this thread…

The thought seems to be that Bible Authority is in fact NEEDED when it comes to religious matters, although I continue to believe that the topic gets more “lip service” than it is actually being put into practice. At the least, no one disputed in this thread any of the scriptures I utilized to confirm the NEED for authority in religious teaching and practice today.

While replete with examples from which to learn from, the Old covenant retained no authority – all authority was given to Christ. The old had served the purpose for which it had been given (Galatians 3:24) and Christ took matters from that point. While some remain behind to “explore” just what the OT might afford to their specific personal preferences religiously, if there is OT authority for any religious teaching and practice today, that authority certainly was not presented in the above discussions.

Men are “free” from the Law, but man is not “free” from the LAW of Christ to do and choose as he may please, especially in religious practices. We are to “abide” in His doctrine and contend for “the faith”. Any restrictions of practice have been imposed by Christ.

I used Hebrews 2:1-4 to show how the Bible interprets itself. The patterns and actions of the old covenant were dealt with precisely and justly. Because we have a better religious system today, we must give the “more earnest heed” to that which Christ has brought to us. The Bible is not a “template” or a guide “in the main” to just point us in some general direction. In God’s word we have “all that pertains to life and godliness”.

I am certain there are those who will continue with circular reasoning such as…

We have no authority for, say, songbooks, therefore we can have instrumental music.

This “logic” makes NO appeal to Bible authority. Those who make this argument are actually only saying this…

“Because YOU do not have authority for songbooks, we don’t need authority for instruments.”
“Because we have one thing without authority, we can have all we want without authority.”
(This basic premise is true within itself. If you can have ONE thing without authority, you can have as many things as you want without authority. There is no stopping point after the first item.)

But such “logic” violates a host of passages, that include Colossians 3:16, 2 John 9, and Jude 3. The practices of these thinkers are not “rooted” in Christ – these people want to use what appears to be an inconsistency (to them) in other people, to justify their own practices. But Christian will have Bible Authority – book, chapter, and verse – for ALL they teach and practice in religion today… IF… IF they are trying to follow the Bible – IF they are “rooted” in Christ!

I have established the NEED for Bible authority in this post.
I hope to post next week the HOW to establish Bible Authority.

[crawfish]

I am certain there are those who will continue with circular reasoning such as…

We have no authority for, say, songbooks, therefore we can have instrumental music.

This “logic” makes NO appeal to Bible authority. Those who make this argument are actually only saying this…

“Because YOU do not have authority for songbooks, we don’t need authority for instruments.”
“Because we have one thing without authority, we can have all we want without authority.”
(This basic premise is true within itself. If you can have ONE thing without authority, you can have as many things as you want without authority. There is no stopping point after the first item.)


I think you miss the point of the argument, which is: why you can justify some things without authority, but not other things. If your argument is to be valid, it must be internally consistent.

That argument does not "justify" IM at all. It simply shows the futility of your own argument. If you hold strongly to your "authority" argument, you simply cannot choose willy-nilly what things count and what do not. That thinking puts you down the slippery slope of churches dividing themselves as they challenge the authority of all sorts of things. I'm not sure there is a stopping point in that direction, either.

I "justify" IM by pointing out that something that was allowed in the OT but not countered or denied in the NT cannot possibly be against God's will. Silence does not equal a revocation.

[Apollos1]

Crawfish said - I think you miss the point of the argument, which is: why you can justify some things without authority, but not other things. If your argument is to be valid, it must be internally consistent.

But you continue to miss MY point – which is, I believe I have authority for ALL of those things.
YOU don’t believe there is authority for them but use them anyway! This makes any claim you may try to take about having authority either invalid or hypocritical.

You said - That argument does not "justify" IM at all. It simply shows the futility of your own argument.

Again, it does not make MY argument futile if I believe I have authority – and I do. Again, YOU don’t believe there is authority for many things that are used and yet… continue in them!

If you hold strongly to your "authority" argument, you simply cannot choose willy-nilly what things count and what do not.

I agree! I must be able to present some type of NT authority for ALL that I teach and practice. You will never be able to do this for IM.

You said - I "justify" IM by pointing out that something that was allowed in the OT but not countered or denied in the NT cannot possibly be against God's will.

I understand what you are saying here – I think the thought is invalid. I take note of HOW you attempt to justify IM from the OT with this rationalization. What YOU must do is demonstrate that this thought is valid for Christians today. What scripture will you use???
You must demonstrate from the NT – which is a separate covenant, a separate “agreement” if you please – that the NT allows such a “transfer” to take place and HOW such is done. You can not do this – no provision has been made for this.

If you re-finance your home, are you going to allow the mortgage company to “tag-along” all those items that are not specifically denounced in the new mortgage? I don’t think you will. WHY do you treat God’’s NEW covenant in such a strange manner? The New covenant is total and complete. You just want things brought in from the OT that you have a preference for.

And of course, are there any other practices you want to bring from the OT and observe with the New? Of course not. You may want to examine your motives at this point.

You said - Silence does not equal a revocation.

And I agree. But I have illustrated that silence is equal to prohibition using the Bible’s interpretation of itself – and you have not been able to deny or counter this point.

So let’s get on to HOW to establish authority next week and you will better understand that I think I have authority for ALL that I teach and practice… whether you agree with me or not.

[crawfish]

But you continue to miss MY point – which is, I believe I have authority for ALL of those things.
YOU don’t believe there is authority for them but use them anyway! This makes any claim you may try to take about having authority either invalid or hypocritical.

That would satisfy me, if you'd ever explained sufficiently why you have authority for those things. Or if the reasons didn't conflict with your reasons for denying IM.

Again, it does not make MY argument futile if I believe I have authority – and I do. Again, YOU don’t believe there is authority for many things that are used and yet… continue in them!

I have a different view of "authority". I don't think it is confined to the corporate worship service. I also don't think it's a comprehensive list of "do's" and "don't"s.

I understand what you are saying here – I think the thought is invalid. I take note of HOW you attempt to justify IM from the OT with this rationalization. What YOU must do is demonstrate that this thought is valid for Christians today. What scripture will you use???
You must demonstrate from the NT – which is a separate covenant, a separate “agreement” if you please – that the NT allows such a “transfer” to take place and HOW such is done. You can not do this – no provision has been made for this.

If you re-finance your home, are you going to allow the mortgage company to “tag-along” all those items that are not specifically denounced in the new mortgage? I don’t think you will. WHY do you treat God’’s NEW covenant in such a strange manner? The New covenant is total and complete. You just want things brought in from the OT that you have a preference for.

And of course, are there any other practices you want to bring from the OT and observe with the New? Of course not. You may want to examine your motives at this point.

You're thinking of it as "carryover law". I'm thinking of it as evidence of God's nature. Given that, the mortgage analogy doesn't work - I am using the OT to evaluate what God is like, and doing so, making inferences in the NT on things that are not mentioned.

You said - Silence does not equal a revocation.

And I agree. But I have illustrated that silence is equal to prohibition using the Bible’s interpretation of itself – and you have not been able to deny or counter this point.

Not to your satisfaction, at least. But I didn't expect that anyway.


So let’s get on to HOW to establish authority next week and you will better understand that I think I have authority for ALL that I teach and practice… whether you agree with me or not.

I look forward to it.

[Apollos1]

Hey crawfish -

While I am working on my next piece I noticed that you had responded here. Given that there was no need for anyone to respond and given the content fo your last post I am calculating that the reason you responded was that you needed the "last word".

But there was two minor things you said that have me curious...

You said - I am using the OT to evaluate what God is like, and doing so, making inferences in the NT on things that are not mentioned.

I am wondering if you have a scripture(s) that...
1.) Make you think this is a valid way to approach scriptures???
2.) Do you have any valid hermeneutic value or principle that you use or apply here???

It appears you continue to take a "free-lance" approach to what scripture(s) you take for use today and how you apply that scripture also.
<<<*>>>

Earlier I said that I have illustrated that silence is equal to prohibition using the Bible’s interpretation of itself – and you have not been able to deny or counter this point.

You said - Not to your satisfaction, at least. But I didn't expect that anyway.

Maybe I missed this. I reviewed your posts above and see no direct response to this point. Point out the date and place of that anwer in your posts above - okay?

Maybe it is that you rarely use scripture to answer. Why not address what I have had to say about Hebrews 2:1-4 and related as you can read above? My last two mentions of this can be found in my post of July 13th (the first one) and also on June 30, which has more detail. That way perhaps I can find some "satisfaction" with your response - although I would really rather have a straight answer instead.

:cool:

[crawfish]

I do not need the last word. ;)

[Apollos1]

I have completed by post on HOW to establish Bible authority.

It may be worthwhile for some to review above WHY we need Bible authority for all we teach and practice in religion - before reading my new post.

Thank you.