HOW to establish Bible Authority !

[sentipente]

Both of us regard the bible as God's voice, expressing His will and His authority. What we disagree on (and what prompted this thread) is exactly how that authority is expressed.

Your position is the most reasonable. To follow his reasoning only Jewish males from the first century would be allowed to participate. New people means new ideas.

 

[Apollos1]

Crawfish –
Too bad you are out of vacation… Oh, by the way, I’ll be taking mine starting next week.

I'm actually saying that entire section of 1 Cor - chapters 5 and 6 - is dealing with sexual sin.[/quote]

And everyone in this forum that has taken the time to read these passages is wondering how you overlooked the matter of pride in 1 Cor. 5:6, all those sins mentioned in 1 Cor. 5:11, and the underlying matter of “fellowship” Paul brings up in verses 6 through 13. Then into Chapter 6, verse 1-8 discuss a matter of taking a brother “to law”, while verses 9-10 give us quite a list of sins that prohibit inheritance of the kingdom. At this I am reading your quote above… My-my-my! Just “sexual sin”? I can read more better than that! Paul says “All things…”
Methinks you struggle mightily to make the context for 1 Corinthians 6:12 something that it ain’t!

Repeat - …the application of specific/generic authority is left untouched – I mean literally untouched in this exchange.

Repeat - You haven’t shown how my application of expediency and edification to religious practices failed… …as well as not making application of what Paul is talking about in reference to expediency, and then to edifiying. But you did offer this…

The truth is, I'm NOT applying them to this text.

Here is what Paul said –

1 Corinthians 10:23 - All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify.


Crawfish, there must be a reason you won’t apply Paul’s words to what he said here. Why is that? What are you
attempting to run from? HOW should these words be applied in this passage??????

That interpretation is made more evident by the fact that the pattern is repeated in Ch7-10. Again, Paul is wrapping up a similar argument, this time against food offered to idols. He uses the same introduction to sum up his argument.

Interesting – you are making MY point. You confirm above that Paul is NOT talking about “sexual sins” in Chapter 10, but Paul uses the SAME phrase again.
THEREFORE the context of Paul’s remark – “All things are lawful for me…” is NOT limited to just the CONTEXT of “sexual sins” in chapter 6 as you attempted to claim - unless you want to claim that Paul is saying something different in Chapter 10 than in chapter 6 in reference to “All things…”. Do you want to claim that?

I do have problems with a legalistic application of them to define what we can and cannot do.

You will probably deny this, but you are the one struggling here with what Paul is saying – not me.

Last time I queried… Are all hearts the same and of the same judgment. Are all “hearts” in line with the word of God? Do you really mean opinion instead of heart? All who read your reply knows that you never told us what you really mean when you use the word “heart”. It was all very vague and ambiguous. Perhaps you don’t really know what you mean. Do you?

Actually the bible might NOT be silent on the subject [of infant baptism]. Acts 16:34 claims that the jailer and his entire family was baptized; this might have included children.

Maybe they baptized the dog also… and the goldfish – LOL! You just gotta love that “door” that the improper use of SILENCE opens up! (btw - How do you baptize a goldfish?? Lol!)

But with the smallest amount of thinking, Acts 8:37 should dispense with such nonsense…
“If you believe with all of your heart you may.”

Hmmm… but what if our “hearts” tell us differently? What to do? Hmmm…

What is inside matters more than following the law. Perfect application is not required for salvation…

Oh the chest pounding of the “I follow the Bible” crowd who live without scripture for what they want to do and give lip-service to the Christ as King. But you are not doing the best you can if you are not following God’s word – if you do not “abide in the doctrine of Christ” huh?

No one has perfect application. I would say you can not APPLY that which you don’t even follow!

Who was it that said, ‘To OBEY is better to sacrifice, and the[listen to God] than the fat [sacrifice] of rams!” Oh yeah – Samuel. It is one of those things to “learn” from the OT. I am certain the people’s “heart” was in the right place when they spared some of Amalek. Apparently crawfish, what your opinion and your heart tell you is more important that what God is trying to tell you – through His word. And then, the world is full of such liberal visionaries as you who feel so good about what they want to do “for” God.

 

[Apollos1]

Hey holo-

The word of God is spoken, not written.

Several thousand words between Matthew 1:1 and Revelation 22:21 disagree with you.
I also like John 20:31… and Ephesians 3:4... with 2 Peter 1:3.

The Spirit is my guide, just as He is your guide and Paul's guide etc etc.

And how does the Spirit guide us? Only through the written Word that the Spirit inspired men to write.

The bible doesn't mention the bible as we know it. The new testament refers to the old, and some letters in the NT refer to other letters in the NT. However, the bible itself has no list of which books belong there or not. A valid question is "who do we believe?" - the catholics or the lutherans?

Maybe we should just trust the providence of God. God wnet to a lot of trouble to procure salvation for man – just to let it slip past man for lack of getting him the word.

And the bible doesn't portray itself as a rule book either. Rather, it points to the Spirit, who is to teach us "all things."

Which passage teaches this? Err… uh… can you use the written Word to prove a point about how the written Word points to the Spirit? Is that allowed?

The question is, what ARE His commandments?

Let’s start with the 27 books called the New Testament and start there. I think you will be surprised how many don’t follow much that is contained therein. I have found that the most trouble comes from those you don’t follow much of that word – if any.

As far as I'm concerned, His commandment to me is to believe in Him and to abide in Him.

Where did you learn this? Abide in Him? Wouldn’t that be He abides in us? I mean, we have to do nothing, right?

…Jesus isn't as religious about things as we are.

Those at John 2:15-16 and the women at the well in John 4:22 might disagree with you.

All in all, it's NEVER about me trying to express anything or perform or achieve or struggle or fight - the battle belongs to Him, the works are prepared by Him, my faith is a gift from Him, the love that I have is His love, my victory is a gift, my abilites are a gift. All I do is focus on Him.

The faithful list in Hebrews 11 disagrees with you. God said do, the faithful did! Our faith comes from His word (Romans 10:17).God prepares us for the battle with the word (see Ephesians 6:13-17) and it is we who fight for His cause. In kindness I say that what little you claim, you know from His written word.
What little you do, you spuriously abstract from His written word to please yourself and take just enough to feel comfortable in your “religion”. This approach in service to God has never been acceptable to Him. I doubt it is going to be now.

 

[Apollos1]

To sentipente -

Apollos1 believes that all worship practices must be either explicitly or implicitly allowed by the bible. Any worship practice that does not meet this standard - drama, IM, etc. - is against the will of God and should be prohibited.[/

quote] The scriptures authorize by command, example, and inference. As yet no one here in this forum has disagreed and no one has attempted to dissect this proposal. All I am getting is a lot of rhetoric.

I took Hebrews 2:1-2 and showed how God in the past has dealt with those that deviate from His word (transgressions and disobedience), and how the Hebrew writer warns “more earnestly” against such toward God’s word today. Again, no one has disagreed and no one has offered anything else for how we should approach and obey God’s word today. All I have gotten is alot of "Yeah, but..."

This passage and the examples I used with it show that SILENCE prohibits! Where is the response to this? There isn’t any!! Yet there are too many who are happy to stumble on in silence thinking that, somehow, it will be okay. The examples recorded in the scriptures by the HS show otherwise!!!

I am arguing that what the bible sets up is a "template" for building a Christian community.

While crawfish has offered this thought, he has not/has not been able to produce been ONE passage to back up the idea that this “template” authorization is a valid application for approaching God’s word and the authority therein today… not ONE!

It creates certain practices - singing, teaching, Lord's Supper, baptism - that are the basis that make this community unique and ties it together.

Are these practices to be “templates”. What would they be templates of? I guess that might be baptism = infant baptism or baptizing for the dead? Singing is, of course, the template for instrumental music beign introduced. The LS is the template for… what, BBQ’s and introducing kitchen facilities. And teaching – well this is a template to teach foreign languages, math, and social skills to needy children. Right?

All other things should be evaluated by purpose, long-term effects, and biblical/moral principles when used as worship devices (or in one's life - I don't differentiate).

I guess God didn’t do this, so man must do it for Him, right? That short-sighted God that liberals have needs help!

Both of us regard the bible as God's voice, expressing His will and His authority. What we disagree on (and what prompted this thread) is exactly how that authority is expressed.

Well said! I believe I am showing from scripture that my approach is the valid approach. But you must know that authority is NEEDED and you must have some design to establish that authority. Authoritative OPINION does not count.

 

[sentipente]

Apollos1, I believe that God, and not the Bible, is the ultimate authority for all mankind. The Bible is a record of His relationship with men at particular points in time past. He, on the other hand "takes into account that this man was born THERE."

 

[holo]

Hey holo-

Several thousand words between Matthew 1:1 and Revelation 22:21 disagree with you.
I also like John 20:31… and Ephesians 3:4... with 2 Peter 1:3.

John 20:31
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
This doesn't say that the bible=the word of God, though. The same goes for Eph 3:4.

A lot of things are written that we may believe, Billy Graham's sermons, for example.

And how does the Spirit guide us? Only through the written Word that the Spirit inspired men to write.

Well, the bible itself says otherwise. God guiding His children via the scriptures is extremely rare in the scriptures themselves. However, angels, dreams, visions, prophesies, writing on the wall, burnign bushes, thunder, miracles, even animals are just some of the means that God used to speak to men. And I'm certainly thankful that all the people from Adam and up to Paul didn't have the same attitude as christians today - that everything must be written down in a book beforehand!

Maybe we should just trust the providence of God.

That's what I do.

Which passage teaches this? Err… uh… can you use the written Word to prove a point about how the written Word points to the Spirit? Is that allowed?

John 14:26
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Let’s start with the 27 books called the New Testament and start there. I think you will be surprised how many don’t follow much that is contained therein.

The disagreement isn't so much on whether people should follow it or not, but rather how to interpret it and what is actually meant for us to follow. For example, some believe the bible instructs all male believers to have short hair, while others see it as a cultural thing that only applied to that church at that time and in that culture.

I have found that the most trouble comes from those you don’t follow much of that word – if any.

What trouble?

Where did you learn this? Abide in Him? Wouldn’t that be He abides in us?

I abide in Him, He abides in me.

Those at John 2:15-16 and the women at the well in John 4:22 might disagree with you.

I don't see your point here. Jesus drove the money changers and merchants out of the temple. How does that relate to me, you mean?

The faithful list in Hebrews 11 disagrees with you. God said do, the faithful did!

Did what? Am I supposed to do what they did? I'm not commanded to sacrifice my son or anything like that. God has called me to obedience, which means believing in His Son, not to perform some sort of work or acheive something - on the contrary, in my weakness I am strong. Or rather, HE is strong. IN me and THROUGH me.

Our faith comes from His word (Romans 10:17).

Yes. Nobody comes to the Father unless the Spirit urges them. God's word doesn't equal the bible. If so, you could say that "the bible is a two-edged sword", or "in the beginning was the bible, and the bible was with God and the bible was God" - the bible is just a book. If God speaks, though, something happens. His word creates what they say. The bible doesn't have that power. But God may of coruse USE the bible, just as He may speak through donkeys or visions or angels or whatever.

God prepares us for the battle with the word (see Ephesians 6:13-17) and it is we who fight for His cause. In kindness I say that what little you claim, you know from His written word.

Sure, I know a lot of the bible, and I treasure it and thank God that I have it - in my own language, even! - But reading the bible doesn't equal God speaking to me.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

important footnote :
"A lot of things are written that we may believe, Billy Graham's sermons, for example."

From the late 40's early 50's right up to last year grhm showed himself false, and was exposed by ministers of God's Word who first went to him to urge him to repent and grhm refused to turn back to God and grhm refused to honor God and to obey His Word. (grhm , and his son, never never repented [yet] )
Most obviously, grhm went along with the nwo and owc both of which are violently opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and both of which are actively persecuting and killing those who love the Truth around the world.

 

[crawfish]

And everyone in this forum that has taken the time to read these passages is wondering how you overlooked the matter of pride in 1 Cor. 5:6, all those sins mentioned in 1 Cor. 5:11, and the underlying matter of “fellowship” Paul brings up in verses 6 through 13. Then into Chapter 6, verse 1-8 discuss a matter of taking a brother “to law”, while verses 9-10 give us quite a list of sins that prohibit inheritance of the kingdom. At this I am reading your quote above… My-my-my! Just “sexual sin”? I can read more better than that! Paul says “All things…”
Methinks you struggle mightily to make the context for 1 Corinthians 6:12 something that it ain’t!

You miss the point. The letter has many arguments; each is logically built up. There is an argument that starts in 5:1 and is summarized in 6:18-20. Each element in between is a logical step used to build to the conclusion.

Even the break for dealing with legal issues between believers is a part of this argument. Paul doesn't say, "OK, moving on...now about suing your brother in public court". He has discussed an internal matter where a brother was committing a vile sin (incest), and telling them how to deal with it internally. He then adds that they should NOT take such matters publicly, but handle them internally in the church. He mentions that he's heard (presumably from the house of Phoebe) that members have done just that, and he condemns it. But it is all in support of the logical case he is building that ends at the end of ch. 6 (and for that matter, ch. 10).

There is also an overall theme to chapters 5-10, which is on the issue of "rights" versus "responsibilities". The entire section discusses two specific topics, but can be generalized to apply to many topics. True, 6:9-10 lists a number of sins that separate one from God's inheritence; but DO NOT ignore verse 11. Paul is saying, "that is who you were. But you are now God's and you should be better than what you were before". That is the point of the list - not to provide an exhaustive list of sins, but to point out the change that has taken place in their lives because they have accepted Christ.

I completely agree that we should extend the message of these verses to include more than just those two specific sins. However: what is that message? Is Paul giving us a law that states how we are us his words to authorize worship practices? I don't believe that's the case. He is giving us a template for how to handle sin within the church, how we need to behave towards our fellow Christians, and that we need to sacrifice our rights for the good of the Christian community.

Crawfish, there must be a reason you won’t apply Paul’s words to what he said here. Why is that? What are you
attempting to run from? HOW should these words be applied in this passage??????

I AM applying them to my argument. The Corinthians were saying "all things are lawful for me"...Paul is saying, "but not all things are good for the body of Christ". Look at some alternate translations:

"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything.

All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.

Just because something is technically legal doesn't mean that it's spiritually appropriate. If I went around doing whatever I thought I could get by with, I'd be a slave to my whims.

You say, “I am allowed to do anything”—but not everything is good for you. And even though “I am allowed to do anything,” I must not become a slave to anything.

"I have the right to do anything," you say—but not everything is beneficial. "I have the right to do anything"—but I will not be mastered by anything.

To derive a law about worship practices from this passage is a gross misuse of it.

Interesting – you are making MY point. You confirm above that Paul is NOT talking about “sexual sins” in Chapter 10, but Paul uses the SAME phrase again.
THEREFORE the context of Paul’s remark – “All things are lawful for me…” is NOT limited to just the CONTEXT of “sexual sins” in chapter 6 as you attempted to claim - unless you want to claim that Paul is saying something different in Chapter 10 than in chapter 6 in reference to “All things…”. Do you want to claim that?

You seem to think I'm making a different argument than I really am. Yes, the term "all things" refers to more than sexual sin; the Corinthians seem to believe that they aren't limited in what they can do with their physical bodies: "all things are lawful for them". But Paul's argument in the passage is saying, "technically yes, but spiritually no". In the context of what it is saying, it is being used in the logical buildup of the argument's conclusion in the end of ch. 6 and 10.

You will probably deny this, but you are the one struggling here with what Paul is saying – not me.

I think you're the one not understanding my argument.

All who read your reply knows that you never told us what you really mean when you use the word “heart”. It was all very vague and ambiguous. Perhaps you don’t really know what you mean. Do you?

I told you exactly what it means.

"Heart"simply means a desire to do what God wants; the love to be obedient, the humility to change, the desire to grow.

God is more concerned with how we obey Him on the inside rather than on the outside. Of course, the former will lead to the latter; but the opposite cannot be said. You can be technically right but spiritually dead.

From Matthew 5 to Romans to most of the NT, the overall message is moving from a belief where what you DO matters, to a faith where what one FEELS is what is important. The law states do this, do that; but it is worthless without faith.

Maybe they baptized the dog also… and the goldfish – LOL! You just gotta love that “door” that the improper use of SILENCE opens up! (btw - How do you baptize a goldfish?? Lol!)

Perhaps you can use that Greek dictionary to determine what they would've meant by the term "and his house". I doubt it means they dunked the whole thing, but I have read from scholars that it would refer to the his wife, their children and their servants.

But with the smallest amount of thinking, Acts 8:37 should dispense with such nonsense…
“If you believe with all of your heart you may.”

I think I admitted that the baptism of those that didn't believe or were too young to make the decision would not have been a "saving" baptism. However, the implication is that they were baptized nonetheless.

Hmmm… but what if our “hearts” tell us differently? What to do? Hmmm…

Strawman. My argument doesn't presume that our hearts can decide what is right and not, but that the inside is more important to God than outward expression. The latter is nothing without the former. It also tells us that God is leading us away from a strict "law" of many prohibitions, like you attempt to derive through silence.

Oh the chest pounding of the “I follow the Bible” crowd who live without scripture for what they want to do and give lip-service to the Christ as King. But you are not doing the best you can if you are not following God’s word – if you do not “abide in the doctrine of Christ” huh?

I agree, and I follow it to the best of my understanding. I've explained why that understanding does not include IM prohibitions and such. I'm sure that over the days, months and years ahead I'll explain other things. I am open to change through reading the word; if I've been in error then I want to alter that part of my life. I am not so arrogant to think that I have come to perfect understanding of God's will and that everybody who doesn't agree with me is wrong.

I do the best I can with what God has given me, and I'll let God sort the rest out.

No one has perfect application. I would say you can not APPLY that which you don’t even follow!

Who was it that said, ‘To OBEY is better to sacrifice, and the[listen to God] than the fat [sacrifice] of rams!” Oh yeah – Samuel. It is one of those things to “learn” from the OT. I am certain the people’s “heart” was in the right place when they spared some of Amalek. Apparently crawfish, what your opinion and your heart tell you is more important that what God is trying to tell you – through His word. And then, the world is full of such liberal visionaries as you who feel so good about what they want to do “for” God.

I suppose Saul would have been more likely to obey if God hadn't implied His orders through silence.

My "heart" argument IS what God is telling me through the scriptures. It's what He is telling me through 1 Cor 6:12. It's what He is telling me through Matthew 5. It's what He is telling me through Romans 10.

Legalism is a response to the need for some to feel shackled because they can't handle the freedom that God has given us. It adds to God's word because it adds restrictions that God didn't intend and penalties that God doesn't inflict.

 

[Apollos1]

Having now answered above...

May we get back to the topic thread???

There are OTHER AREAS for those that worship the sabbath day to plead their spurious case.

Thank you!

 

[Apollos1]

Holo –
This has been a special discussion. Unless I think it is going somewhere I may not continue. You continue to be vague with what you want to say and don’t really have much to offer.

This doesn't say that the bible=the word of God, though. The same goes for Eph 3:4.

How about 1 Cor. 14:37?

A lot of things are written that we may believe, Billy Graham's sermons, for example.

At last check, Graham is NOT inspired.

Well, the bible itself says otherwise.

Where was this? Book, chapter and verse please…

John 14:26 - But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Do you trust this verse? It is God’s own word? How do you know it is accurate and trustworthy? (My point being: You seem to pick and choose which verses you will use and which you will trust and discard the remainder. How convenient for you! Which leads right into the next point&#8230

The disagreement isn't so much on whether people should follow it or not, but rather how to interpret it and what is actually meant for us to follow.

I have found that very few differ on interpretation. Most people I have talked to offer NO Bible for what they teach and practice. I have found it is their OPINION that they follow and this is cause for disagreement.

I abide in Him, He abides in me.

HOW do you know???

I don't see your point here

[John 2:15-16, John 4:22]. Jesus drove the money changers and merchants out of the temple. How does that relate to me, you mean?

You said people today were “too religious” because they might want you to follow scripture. Weren’t the “moneychangers” meaning well. They were supplying that which was needed for sacrifices weren’t they? Jesus drove them out! Was Jesus too strict? Too… religious?
The woman at the well said her people worshipped there in the mountain even though the Law stated they must worship in Jerusalem. Jesus told her “You don’t know what you worship”. That Jesus, there he goes being “religious” again by expecting people to act within the requirements of what God set forth. Jesus is just too… “religious”, huh?

Did what? Am I supposed to do what they did? [the faithful of Hebrews 11]

They did what God required.

God has called me to obedience, which means believing in His Son…

Says who, says what?

Yes [our faith comes by the word of God – Romans 10:17].

So – how do YOU get the “word” of God??? What YOUR source of getting it?

But reading the bible doesn't equal God speaking to me.

Methinks you have created a convenient dichotomy for your own gratification.

 

[Apollos1]

Crawfish –
Thanks for the continued discussion…

You miss the point. The letter [1 Corinthians] has many arguments; each is logically built up.

You are the one that has been missing the application! When we started this discussion you were dealing with the context of the letter. I was already dealing with the application of the verse – “All things are lawful…” You wanted to say that the context was just “sexual impurities”. From the start, YOU have wanted to limit the context of the verse to as little as possible. It has taken this many posts to get you to come around and “ease” into the reality that NO the verse is not just about “sexual impurities” – this passage does speak about other matters! Because it speaks on other matters YOUR original inference was wrong! Because you context was wrong, then “All things…” is referring to more than “sexual” things. Now WHAT does “All things…” refer to? Could it actually be that Paul is referring to… ALL THINGS?

I completely agree that we should extend the message of these verses to include more than just those two specific sins.

Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding!!!

However: what is that message?

You are just continuing your attempt to limit what the verses say! The verses read “All things…”. So do you think that Paul did some things which weren’t “lawful” ? And would these “things” be in the realm of worship?

Is Paul giving us a law that states how we are us his words to authorize worship practices? I don't believe that's the case. He is giving us a template for how to handle sin within the church, how we need to behave towards our fellow Christians, and that we need to sacrifice our rights for the good of the Christian community.

So your application of the verse does not allow you to extend any thought into how we relate to our fellow Christians in WORSHIP ??? 1 Corinthians 6:13 and 10:23 are restricted from such thoughts, right? As I have said previously, you have struggled mightily to limit that which can not be limited.

To derive a law about worship practices from this passage is a gross misuse of it.

Now you are limiting MY application of the verse – “ALL things…” means ALL things – doesn’t it? Are you saying worship shouldn’t be lawful? Or it shouldn’t be expedient? Or it shouldn’t edify? How can you claim such? Paul speaks about how he lives! Paul life was lawful, expedient, and it edified. Are you saying we should do less in our lives? In just our WORSHIP?

You seem to think I'm making a different argument than I really am. Yes, the term "all things" refers to more than sexual sin…

Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding! I know what you have been attempting to do and that was to limit the context of “All things…”. Chapter 10 places even MORE into the context of “All things…” You admission is long overdue!

…the Corinthians seem to believe that they aren't limited in what they can do with their physical bodies: "all things are lawful for them". But Paul's argument in the passage is saying, "technically yes, but spiritually no".

I don’t think Paul even consented to the technical part. However, Paul uses the Corinthian rationalization to make a much more sweeping point than they were attempting to make. His was a sweeping statement of spiritual impact! What Paul said was BIGGER than the immediate context that surrounded it. Paul used what the Corinthians said to show the bigger spiritual picture! Paul is saying that - Whatever he did was lawful, he never succumbed to the control of anything. Paul said lawful things should be expedient, and he said things must edify… Paul did not say lawfulness, edification, and expediency applied to “these things”. Paul remark was to All things…! Now HOW does the context EXCLUDE any spiritual matters out of this?

God is more concerned with how we obey Him on the inside rather than on the outside.

I wanted to ask which specific passage(s) makes you believe this? I always question such “pretty” statements.

Strawman. My argument doesn't presume that our hearts can decide what is right and not, but that the inside is more important to God than outward expression.

Actually you have not convinced me at all that the “heart” is not directly involved in you decision making process when it comes to what Christians should practice in worship.

The latter is nothing without the former. It also tells us that God is leading us away from a strict "law" of many prohibitions, like you attempt to derive through silence.

This is what you want to believe because it makes you comfortable in your “religion”. Whether you like it or not these is still a “strict law” of prohibitions (see Galatians 5:19 and 1 Cor. 6:9) and “Silence” prohibits as well – as I have abundantly illustrated through Hebrews 2:1-2. You have offered but rationalizations for the use of silence to authorize the things you desire.

I do the best I can with what God has given me, and I'll let God sort the rest out.

God has given you an inspired, Spirit given, totally complete, all spiritually life empowering WORD to guide you to the gates of heaven… and it is not enough for you. You want to add a few things – you want to operate outside of it directions. What aspect of God do you discount.. His power, His knowledge, or His love? You have no more respect for God than you show for His WORD !!!

I suppose Saul would have been more likely to obey if God hadn't implied His orders through silence.

You and Saul have much in common. The point remaining for us is that Saul didn’t do what God said (with silence prohibiting) and Saul following his “heart” proved to be a “fatal error”. It really is not hard to see this.

My "heart" argument IS what God is telling me through the scriptures.

Fair enough – and this is what brings us to discuss the scriptures and their application as we are here.

Legalism is a response to the need for some to feel shackled because they can't handle the freedom that God has given us. It adds to God's word because it adds restrictions that God didn't intend and penalties that God doesn't inflict.

Is it? I don’t relate to legalism. And I have seen God’s word restricted by those that can not distinguish between generic and specific authority. (Some demand specific authority for everything and this will certainly bind where God has not.) But liberalism thrives to go beyond the things that are written to include what God “forgot” – both in teachings and practices. Silence is no thwart to liberalism – it is its catalyst on many fronts. Oh for those who desire to “abide in the doctrine of Christ” !

 

[FreeinChrist]

I am closing this for review.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Ok...sorry this took as long as it did. The posts regarding the Sabbath have been moved.
This is reopened.
So can we get back to topic?

 

[holo]

Holo –
This has been a special discussion. Unless I think it is going somewhere I may not continue. You continue to be vague with what you want to say and don’t really have much to offer.
How about 1 Cor. 14:37?

That doesn't say that the bible is the "word of God". The bible quotes God from time to time, some of the writers say they are delivering a message from God, etc etc. But for the most part, the bible is the word of Moses, of Paul, of a host of unknown writers, it's poetry, song, prayer, personal letters, Paul's own opinions (according to himself), genealogies and so forth. Some places it even quotes satan! God's word is what God says, just like my word is what I say.

At last check, Graham is NOT inspired.

Maybe not, that's another discussion, but replace Graham with any speaker/writer you DO believe is inspired. Or just look at these forums, a lot of stuff here is written that we may believe.

Where was this? Book, chapter and verse please…

The bible doesn't mention the bible at all. And it most definately does not say that God guides us "only through the written word" - in fact, that's more like an exception than a rule in how God communicates with people.

Do you trust this verse? It is God’s own word? How do you know it is accurate and trustworthy?

Because I experience it.

I have found that very few differ on interpretation. Most people I have talked to offer NO Bible for what they teach and practice.

Could you give an example of what you mean?

HOW do you know???

Because I experience it. I see Christ in myself and in others.

I remember after coming to Christ as a suicidal drug-addicted wreck of a man. I just seeked God, without knowing exactly how to do it, or who He is. But as I did, I was surprised, even scared, to see the drastic changes in myself. First, I began loving people I used to hate. I would spontaneously start praying for them. Then, I began being happy in the mornings. I thought I was going insane! Later, peace began growing in me. And so forth, drugs lost their power over me, I kept changing (through none of my own effort) and improving in many ways. Only much later did I read in the bible that this was also Paul's experience; "the fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace..." I experienced it, in that very order. Therefore I know those verses are true. If I hadn't experienced it myself, it would only be theory.

You said people today were “too religious” because they might want you to follow scripture. Weren’t the “moneychangers” meaning well.

I think they were more greedy than well-meaning.

They were supplying that which was needed for sacrifices weren’t they? Jesus drove them out! Was Jesus too strict? Too… religious?
The woman at the well said her people worshipped there in the mountain even though the Law stated they must worship in Jerusalem. Jesus told her “You don’t know what you worship”. That Jesus, there he goes being “religious” again by expecting people to act within the requirements of what God set forth. Jesus is just too… “religious”, huh?

Even though He was under the law, and teaching from the law to jews under the law (we're not under the law, with all its religiosity), Jesus wasn't too religious. He worked on the sabbath and stuff, and He didn't deny people like the religious people did. He was so unreligious as to supply MORE wine when the party had run out, for example.

If Jesus wasn't more religious than that, under the law, I see no reason why WE should be religious about anything at all.

They did what God required.

Yes, and so do I.

Says who, says what?

Says Paul, for one. And says I. And says Christ Himself.

So – how do YOU get the “word” of God??? What YOUR source of getting it?

God Himself, of course. Nobody has ever heard the voice of God unless God Himself has spoken.

 

[Apollos1]

It is vacation time...

If I can get to a computer you may hear from me.
If not, I "see ya" in about 10 days....

Caio!