posted
The truth of our freedom in Christ is a reoccuring theme that continues to surface in many, many threads in this cafe. But some appear to paint the reality of this truth as though it allows anything at anytime. They seem to throw out corporate worship, planned worship, submission, and organization all together.
So, perhaps these folks who advocate this type of freedom could elaborate in a concise manner yet with few words so as to make is easily digestible. I, for one, would like to hear the gist of their belief on this subject.
I'll start with a brief intro of how I see our freedom in Christ.
Freedom in Christ, very simply, is the possibility of doing that which we would choose to do if we had the foresight and power to do so.
Paul said in Romans 7 that the things he hated he did, and the things he loved he did not. At last he cried out, "Who will deliver me." Jesus said that his ministry was "to set the captive free." The writer of Hebrews states that Jesus became flesh just like man so he could taste death for every man and "deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage."
So what, then, is our bondage. Where is mortal man held captive? We were locked up in the house of the enemy, servants to sin. And, if not for God's grace through the cross of Christ we would have remained in captivity. It is only by the cross of Christ that we a given a choice (if you will) to accept the freedom Christ offers.
But Christ's freedom extends further. It removes the limitations circumscribed by men. Men will make rules to augment God's perfect law perhaps thinking they are helping define the boundaries of God's freedom. Yet, they only serve to limit the righteousness that we may partake of from the presence of God.
Jesus demonstrated this principle while on earth. He taught the spirituality of the law. Yes, the law is spiritual. As Paul wrote in Romans 7, "We know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin." Jesus said that the time would come that all would worship God in spirit and in truth. True worship of God is to love him. We cannot love God unless we keep his law. Anyone who says they know or love God and does not uphold his law is a liar. Hey, I didn't make that up. (see 1Jo 2:4) "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."
The law was not made for righteous men but it certainly does condemn transgressors. The law limits evil while grace abounds. There is no law against doing right. Doing good has no limit. There is a law against doing evil.
Yes, we are no longer under the law with its condemnation if by grace we walk in the spirit of God. But, neither grace nor faith make the law void.
Ro 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Ro 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
So, that is my scriptural dissertation on freedom in Christ. If you disagree then please present your scriptural arguement. Please keep it short.
posted
I agree with you that freedom in Christ does not give us the right to do evil or, we might say, to break God’s laws. The problem is people have different ideas of what is evil, what are his laws, and what God’s will is. Men often make up their own rules and expect all to follow. That is not freedom in Christ, but the same old clergy laity system of some over others.
Recently there has been much discussion of the passage declaring we are not to forsake assembly and so will be my example. Some would say, thou must go to church on Sat. Others would say, thou must go to church on Sun. Some would say you must meet weekly or daily, or in large groups, or etc. …….. All these would say those who do not do it in these ways are forsaking assembly. Is that really the case? Where is the command of God that is being broken by gathering 2 or 3 at irregular intervals? Can you show that command?
Hebrews 10:22-25 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. [23] Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) [24] And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: [25] Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
In Heb. 10, I see nothing about not forsaking going to church on Sat. or Sun. according to custom. I see nothing about not forsaking a large meeting versus a small meeting. I see nothing about not forsaking certain religious customs. I see nothing stating it is a sin to go to the mountain or lake to be alone, or to visit those who are alone, or to mow the widow’s lawn or whatever is not sin , on Sat. or Sun. or any other time.
I do see we are to draw near to God with a true heart in assurance of faith, that our hearts and bodies are cleansed. I see we are to keep the faith and provoke each other to love and good works. I see that we are not to forsake assembling. No requirements are given here as to what constitutes an assembly. I see no specific regulations on exactly how these things are to be done or that not doing (doing church) these things in the traditional religious customary way of the organizations is sin.
While it is true the scripture mentions large gatherings of Christians, specifically the Corinthians. They certainly are not a good example of how things should be done. Rather, like the Israelites of the OT, they serve as examples of what not to do. Even so, there are no passages stating that all gatherings must be big or must be every week or whatever custom you’d like to toss in.
Other times scriptures mention small families meeting. Other times one person meeting with another. Other times couples taking in one to mentor. Other times evangelical meetings are held for the public. Other times the close knit family (disciples) of Christ meet privately.
At any of these times, have any of these people broken any command to meet in a certain way?
Well, the ones who stand out were the Corinthians as they were chastised for the way they were meeting. And so they were to change what they were doing making the large gathering orderly. But each thing they were chastised for is not a command for us every time we meet. Rather they are only pertinent if when we gather, we do some of the un orderly things they were doing.
(BTW, I find it interesting that it was the large group of new Christians that had to be called down. Reminds me of what is needed in the IC today. I guess it is peer pressure or herd mentality that causes large crowds to get out of hand.)
Another example which stands out is the Jewish believers who wanted to require the Gentiles to do things in the customary Jewish way. Some of the Jewish customs were still ok for the Jews to observe; but it was wrong for the Jews to command the Gentiles to do so. Customs are not commands of God. The only customs which it would be a sin not to observe would be customs God required.
God did not command the customs of how to meet. He said if we meet in his name, he is there. He specified it only takes two to be a meeting. To demand anything else is to add to. I am not saying any of the other examples of meetings are wrong; only they are not commanded as so many people claim.
Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
So the question is, if some one meets with another or three or more, at any time the Lord gives the opportunity, has that person forsaken meeting with others?
Freedom in Christ is freedom from men’s rules and regulations about how to be in Christ. Everything written in the scripture is not a rule for us to follow. The Bible is full of examples of how various people lived and how they did things in various situations. Your situation is not the same as someone else’s. Therefore, why judge him because he doesn’t do things exactly as you do?
Freedom in Christ is the freedom to do what you should in your own unique situation. It is the freedom to be who Christ wants you to be regardless of men’s ideas of what you should do. As long as it is not sin, it is OK and no excuse is needed.
Since Cor. Is so popular regarding this subject I thought of this passage.
1 Cor. 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
While it is lawful for me to meet on Sat. or on Sun. or weekly or daily or in large groups or in small groups, it is not always expedient . It is not commanded that I do all these; and I will not be brought under the power of any of them by the customs of men who try to force me to do it their way. I am free in Christ to meet with others as he sees the need.
I’d like to add, that over the years there have been times of regular weekly meetings, sometimes on the same day of the week and other times which day worked out. There have been times of daily meetings. There have been times of meeting with just 2 and other times with more. There have also been times of aloneness with God which is always much needed for growth. There have been times of physical ministry to others with no spiritual meetings as such. Other times physical ministry and spiritual have gone hand in hand. To say I have forsaken assembly because I don’t sit in a pew or on a couch every week is very dangerous for those who demand it. It reminds me of those who demanded circumcision of the Galatians bringing them into bondage.
Galatians 2:3-4 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: [4] And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
BTW, we can exhort one another daily with ease today by way of the internet. Though it may not be expedient for each single one of us to exhort every one of us every day. And thus, how much exhortation goes on here, there, and everywhere that we don’t see each day? Same principle as meeting. A lot goes on you don’t see; but that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening or isn’t God’s will.
Hebrews 3:13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
-------------------- 1 Thes. 5:21 (KJV) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Can you to include some scripture to support your position. The scripture references used seemed to raise more questions rather than support your point. But since you did mention the forsaking of assembling together as an example, here are some points for you to consider.
1. Wasn't the book of Hebrews written to the church rather than a single household? The letters certainly were passed around. So when he talks of not forsaking the assembling of yourself he is speaking to the church as a whole. Granted, some may have met together more than others.
2. Since it admonishes the church not to forsake assembling together there must have been a concern that some were separating themselves from the group to meet alone or not at all. (Hints of false piety, too. Perhaps they felt superior to the others.)
3. The word assembly seems to transcend the idea of 2 or 3 meeting together. Why use such a large word for such a small group if he was speaking of or condoning smaller groups.
4. Why would a smaller group want to meet apart from the larger body? (Hints of separatism or a schism.) Why would they call a meeting and only invite 2 or 3 people out of an entire church?
5. Why not have regularly scheduled meetings at times when all that wish to attend and are able can do so? Even the world realizes that meetings should be regularly scheduled so that people can plan. If you have small groups meeting perhaps it is because you do not take a moment to plan. The plan should include everyone else, you are not promoting freedom but rather exclusion. The weekend is typically the best time since the majority of working people still have either Saturday or Sunday, or both, off.
6. Why didn't God set aside a day for worship so that the whole body of believers could meet together--all that are able to attend. Why have Paul exhort us to not forsake the assembling of ourselves together and then not make some provision for our success? In the business world we accuse such poor planning on the part of managers as a setup for failure. This is frowned upon in the business world. Should we set an even worse example?
7. Was Jesus right when he said the world was more diligent in the execution of their beliefs than Christians? Should the world work harder to promote its agenda than Christians do? Should we never plan? Should we avoid all organization?
8. Why would anyone who loves the church not want to meet with the greater body as far as lies in their ability. (Realizing that some would have to travel great distance.)
Well, after you ponder these questions perhaps you could write again just on the subject of the freedom Christ extends to us. To my mind, the freedom you described sounds like carnal apathy. It wreaks of disorganization, irregularity, inefficiency, and a disfunctional family. Somehow I think that is what Christ came to free us from. Don't you think? So, try again.
quote:To my mind, the freedom you described sounds like carnal apathy. It wreaks of disorganization, irregularity, inefficiency, and a disfunctional family. Somehow I think that is what Christ came to free us from. Don't you think? So, try again.
I guess you are glad you are not carnal, apathic, disorganized, irregular, inefficient and dysfunctional like me. However, it is in my disorganized, inefficient and dysfunctional carnality that the Lord works his will, his ways, his plans, his timing. I am amazed when he delivers me from myself to his purpose.
I remember many other carnal & dysfunctional men of God. David a man after God’s own heart, very carnal and his family very dysfunctional. Samson. Moses. Paul. And yet they all had the faith and ran the races set before them by God.
In answer to Point 2. Or perhaps they felt those trying to lord over them in superiority and trying to place them in bondage again. I’ve been there, done that and won’t do it again!
Matthew 7:1-2 Judge not, that ye be not judged. [2] For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
-------------------- 1 Thes. 5:21 (KJV) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
You can relax; as in put down your guard. I don't think anyone here is trying to convince you to return to IC corporate worship. And, I know where you stand on that issue. The recent issue was the assembling of God's church. I don't think you are opposed to that are you? And, I don't believe anyone is trying to tell you exactly when or how to do that except the Lord. So there is no man-made rules.
BTW, item #6 should have had a comma placed after the word WHY. It should have read, "Why, didn't God set aside a day for worship..." The obvious answer is, He did. It's called the Sabbath. Lev 23:3 explains that the 7th day was to be a Holy convocation. All during the week there would have been family worship where 2 or 3 or more gathered together. But on the Sabbath day, which was set aside in the Garden of Eden, there was to be a special assembly, of a religious nature, of believers.
Regarding carnal apathy, disorganization, irregularity, inefficiency and dysfunctionality; I don't think there is a single person who does not share these common fleshly characteristics with you. But Jesus does not posses them. I am glad you have times when God delivers you (frees you) from them for his purpose. This is certianly entailed in the freedom he offers us. Peter writes that we are partakers of his divine nature. Do you believe this? Do you believe it only occasionally? Only on Sunday, or Sabbath? Or, do you believe it 24X7?
Earlier you wrote, "I agree with you that freedom in Christ does not give us the right to do evil or, we might say, to break God’s laws." What you are saying is that freedom in Christ does not give us the right to sin. But did you know that any imperfection of character is sin? That's right. All righteous attributes of character dwell in God as a perfect, harmonious whole, and every one who receives Christ as a personal Saviour is privileged to possess these attributes. Thus, if we do not possess them, if we cling to our carnal traits, then in that respect we prove that we are not in harmony with God's spirit. It shows that sin is still cherished in our heart. And we give witness to the world and universe that we are opposed to God's government and put Christ to an open shame.
You mentioned that many of the Biblical stories involved dysfunctional families. This is true. But it is apathy that leads us to settle back and accept the same for our families today using their example as our excuse. If God allows us to be partakers of his divine character, and he did no sin, then why should we not believe this and take him at his word? If we do not accept the naked promises of God then we cannot by faith truly receive Christ. We remain carnal. It is our privilege to enter into his rest. Who was it that he swore would not enter his rest? It was the disobedient and unbelieving. (See Heb 3 & 4).
Now, am I to wait until I feel holy? Or, am I to ask in faith and then believe I have received the promise? Feelings and emotions have nothing to do with faith for faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. You may experience an abiding peace when you take hold of his promises by faith, but feeling is no indication of condition. We cannot allow our unstable emotions to dictate our faith. We are to rely solely on the word of God. As the song goes... "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it for me!" If we trusted to feelings we would be all over the map.
But, we should know the conditions upon which God forgives and justifies sinners, right? We can't be presumptious. Adam and Eve remained in the garden by condition of obedience and they were expelled by condition of their disobedience. It seems like such a little matter--to eat a piece of fruit. Yet, that small act was born of mistrust of God. The pair put more credence in the serpant's words than in God's. The seed of rebellion had been planted. They trusted the serpant who promised them gain through transgression rather than God who had provided all things good and needful.
So, then, we should not consider little, besetting, sins as inconsequential. They are an avenue for the tempter to gain entry to our minds.
Ok, then, we agree that freedom in Christ excludes sin. Not that the freedom to commit sin has been removed, but rather we have been given power to overcome by virtue of Christ's divine nature which he gives to all who will receive him. And how do we tell if someone has received him? Their life will tell.
But do we agree that character imperfection is also sin? If sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4) then which law does that refer to? Just the 10 commandments? Just the Royal Law? How about natural laws? Physical laws. Health laws? Social laws? Let's not set our aim too low. After all, Christ has set the standard which is perfection. Let's set our goal to become the best we can through Christ--in charity, mercy, forgiveness, righteousness, submission, and obedience--"forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, [Let's] press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." (Phil 3:13,14)
We are saved by grace through faith, not by works, lest any man should boast. (Eph 2:8,9) Yet, the grace of God that brings salvation of which Ephesians speaks teaches us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world. (Titus 2:11,12)
So this is the freedom in Christ that we may receive--freedom from all sin, even now in this world. But we will never enjoy it if we continue to doubt the word of God in this regard.
Something else Christ frees us from is our little god, our bellies. We should eat to sustain life and to be healthy so as to maintain our energies to serve God. We should not eat purely to satisfy the flesh. Many things we eat have no real value to the body but serve merely to satisfy the appetite. The same is true for addictive substances like alcohol and tobacco. These serve no useful purpose but have a proven record of causing illness and death. Anyone still a slave to alcohol or tobacco can ask God to free them from that too. Our body is the temple of God. So it is perfectly in God's will that we should ask to be freed from overeating, hurtful snacking, alcohol, tobacco, and any other habitual practice. Are these man-made rules? No.
Can you think of anything else? There are tons of things Christ frees us from. Freedom in Christ is absolutely not the freedom to do what we want to do when we want to do it. It is probably just the opposite--to do what we ought to do all the time. Christ frees us from the fleshly lusts and allows us to partake of his nature. We are privileged to receive the divine nature so that we may overcome this world.
quote:I don't believe anyone is trying to tell you exactly when or how to do that except the Lord. So there is no man-made rules.
Thus, how can you say the way the Lord has provided for me to gather is apathic, disorganized, carnal, etc. The Lord is the one who provides it. It is not my choice, it is the way he chose for me in answer to much prayer. You are the one who believes God says thou shalt worship on Sat. I do not see scriptures that prove that. Rather he said we worship in spirit and truth and not at a certain place or time as customary in the OT.
quote:BTW, item #6 should have had a comma placed after the word WHY. It should have read, "Why, didn't God set aside a day for worship..." The obvious answer is, He did. It's called the Sabbath. Lev 23:3 explains that the 7th day was to be a Holy convocation. All during the week there would have been family worship where 2 or 3 or more gathered together. But on the Sabbath day, which was set aside in the Garden of Eden, there was to be a special assembly, of a religious nature, of believers.
You seem to contradict yourself. You are not trying to tell me when or how to, except you think it must be on Sat. and in some other context than the way I do it, which is so disorganized.
Can you show absolute passages that state the "special assembly, of a religious nature, of believers" in the garden on Sat.? (How many could have assembled anyway? Adam & Eve & God. 2 or 3! and one of them God!) As I understand it God rested, not instituted some "religious assembly". Resting in Christ is what I do today. Resting in him is worship, but not as men see it.
Can you show passages that state where God actually set aside the Sabbath for “worship” and exactly what that entails? You seem to think my 24/7 approach is disorganized etc. However, I see no scriptural proof for the way Sabbath keepers keep the Sabbath.
Jesus said regarding the customs of sabbath keeping that he was accused of breaking,
Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
That is how I regard the sabbath, made for me, not to burden me with men's silly rules of how to worship. I see no command in Christ's words to do any ritual or customary "worshiping" in that passage. Do you?
It all boils down to what you consider worship. I don't consider worship doing churchy things like going to hear a sermon, sit in a pew, enjoy the greetings of men, praying, singing, and tithing on cue. I consider worship loyalty to the Lord ,my king, and doing what he requires at the time regardless of my plans.
So many in churchanity, regardless of size, are like the Pharisee traveling down the path to go to church every time the door is open. Should they see a poor neighbor with needs on their prescribed day of "worship", they would pass on by and do their organized duty by filling the best seats at the customary service. However, those who actually do the will of God have no need to grace the seats for they are busy living life and helping those who need it when they need it.
I’ve been just where you are Jeff. Not specifically in the SDA, but in the same type of situation of men with commands telling me if I didn’t worship the way they translated the word, I was doomed. Christ delivered me from these bonds. I am free in him. He lights my path, not some preordained custom of men.
-------------------- 1 Thes. 5:21 (KJV) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
I keep trying to bring this topic back around to defining liberty in Christ but you persist in making the main discussion that of assembling together. I've already read the lengthy discussion on that subject between yourself and others in this cafe and they did not seem to lead anywhere. I think you have a point to make and were not through discussing this issue when the topic was closed. But this is not the place to continue that discussion.
Regarding the Sabbath scriptures, there are plenty in the Bible and I am sure you have seen a good number of them. Plus we have the example of Jesus and the apostles which you excuse away. So I see no point in rehearsing that again. But if you really would like to see them again I would be happy to present them--just not under this topic.
When you say you rest in Christ just exactly what do you mean? Do you mean you have perfect peace with Christ or that you are trusting in him? Is it physical rest or spiritual, or other? Does it have to do with freedom? Can you touch on the minor questions and expand on the freedom? I don't believe you have clearly stated just what freedom you expect to experience in Christ. Try to remove all the other clutter and just focus on the freedom so that I can grasp what you are saying your freedom in Christ consists of.
BTW, are you calling me a Pharisee or assuming I lack charitableness? Do I need to address those accusations? You made some very broad generalizations about other Christian people? Wasn't it you who reminded us not to judge just a few posts ago? Sorry to say but your last post sounded a little like the Pharisee. It was as if you were saying, "Lord, I am glad I am more obedient, following closer, more charitable, and generally better than your other so-called children." Read it again and see for yourself. You sound very smug and impressed with yourself.
Do you also realize that many who disagree with you are far more charitable than you or I will ever be? I am thinking of Bill Gates who gives $10,000,000,000.00 in charity. Or Warren Buffet who gave $38 Billion ($38,000,000,000.00) to Gate's charitable foundation. In fact, many who are of no faith are very charitable. But that will not save them. Wasn't Martha charitable while Mary sat at Jesus' feet listening to his sermon?
Perhaps the most charitable person that comes to my mind is Mother Theresa, a Catholic Nun. Think of that! She's part of Babylon for sure. Her chuch is The Great Whore. Isn't that what we've been saying. Yet, look at the love in the heart of this gentle, compassionate, woman. How can these things be? She is part of the largest IC in the world!! Surely, she will rise up in the judgment and condemn us.
Faith wrote, "I’ve been just where you are Jeff. Not specifically in the SDA, but in the same type of situation of men with commands telling me if I didn’t worship the way they translated the word, I was doomed. Christ delivered me from these bonds. I am free in him. He lights my path, not some preordained custom of men."
Well, I'm not in a situation in the IC where men are telling me I am doomed if I don't worship as they translate the word. I have seen more of that in some here in this cafe. There are some pretty strong opinions here and some can be very dogmatic. So, while I know these things do happen in some churches I am not living that experience.
Yet, you and I may have trod similar paths. In my early days, just after receiving Christ, I got connected with a group of people who had a very bitter past. They were very critical of organized religion (specifically SDA) and weren't shy about how they felt. During this period I got caught up in their spirit and I too began looking for fault in everyone else but myself. In my self-righteousness I would stand up in church, during services, and condemn the pastor(s). Once I even openly criticized a visiting preacher. (Now you might be cheering me on, but read on!)
Now, this pastor had some serious character flaws. But as I look back on my situation I can clearly see that I was not doing the Lord's will but rather I was the Devil's advocate--doing his business. But because I felt so pious it was difficult for me to see that I was anywhere but right in the middle of the Lord's will. That is the deception of the flesh.
Maybe this pastor had flaws that needed to be addressed but he was building a church of Spanish-speaking believers wereas I was just simply attempting to discredit him and thereby topple his "kingdom"--what I considerd his kingdom. Now I ask you, if he was trying (in his defective flesh) to lead sinners to Christ and all I was doing was watching for the mistakes and flaws of the pastor and others around me, who was doing the Lord's work and who has doing Satan's work? Here is a hint: Jesus came to reconcile and forgive; Satan is known as the accusser of the brethren. Jesus forgives sin in his great pity and compassion while Satan leads men into sin and then accusses them before the Lord and the angels.
It is a difficult and delicate work to lead a sinner to renounce sin and love the Lord. It takes skill, patience, determination, and hope--all gifts of the Spirit. It takes no talent to criticize. Jesus said, "Woe to those who place stumbling blocks" in the pathway of the sinner on his way to Christ. By my attacks on the pastor in front of his congregation I was placing stumbling blocks in their pathway by taking their eyes off of Jesus and placing them on faulty man. By accusing the pastor I could cause them to doubt his intentions and make them stumble. It would be better for me in the judgment to have a millstone hung about my neck and to be cast into the sea.
Even Jesus, when contending with the Devil, did not cast a railing accusation but simply replied, "The Lord rebuke you, Satan." If Jesus had began criticizing the Devil he would have placed himself on the same ground with him. So we too must be careful not to sink to those lower means. If we see that a brother has wronged us or has faults we should go to him in private and set the matter straight in a spirit of Christian love. "Love covers a multitude of sins." This would put the matter quietly to rest. But instead, we like to open the matter up to everyone who will sympathize with our side of the situation. Thus, we spread sin around rather than squelching it.
Well, anyway, that is a short version of my early experience. I am in great distress over those things but have repented and asked God to forgive me. Yet, continually I have to guard (pray and watch) so as not to fall back into that groove. Yes, groove! Because the more we repeat a thing the more it becomes a part of who we are. It becomes a deep groove in the record of our life. So we can't even get close to that cavernous edge lest we fall in and have difficulty getting out.
The reason I share this is to hopefully help you see your situation should you also be going through a similar thing as I went through. We are, after all, to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith.
This too is freedom in Christ. Freedom from the shame and reproach that we bring on ourselves by our fleshly deed and words. But Christ is willing to bear that for us. What a shame if we continue to pile it upon him--him who knew no sin, who alone is Righteousness. Only he could bear it! I am glad he was willing. I am glad he loved me enough!
posted
Liberty (and bondage) are ideas now, for the most part, lost in translation. Instead of adopting the apostolic view, circa AD 60, Christians have frequently adopted the mentality of the me, my, and I, 60's culture. They believe that freedom is what I want to do rather than what I should do. Freedom is what's true for me - forget the rest.
Throughout Scripture, sin is associated with bondage and having Satan as one's master rather than God. Freedom is walking in the Spirit according to the ways of the Spirit, the perfect law of liberty.
"Freedom" got the same hatchet job, several decades ago, which "love" got. Among most youths today, it just means sex.
Jesus answered them, Truly, I say unto you, Whosoever commits sin is the servant of sin. John 8. But if the Son set you free you are free indeed - free to obey and to live.
quote: I keep trying to bring this topic back around to defining liberty in Christ but you persist in making the main discussion that of assembling together.
That’s funny. I was using the example of assembly to discus liberty; not because I was not finished discussing the issue else where. I thought the closed one was about being. Though assembly may have been mentioned as an example, I forget.
quote:BTW, are you calling me a Pharisee or assuming I lack charitableness? Do I need to address those accusations?
My comment was :
quote:So many in churchanity, regardless of size, are like the Pharisee
Do you see your name? Did I mention you? If you consider your self part of the ‘many in churchanity” that’s between you and God, not me.
quote:You made some very broad generalizations about other Christian people? Wasn't it you who reminded us not to judge just a few posts ago?
Generalizations about large groups of professing Christian’s is not judgment of specific individual people. Do you judge the RCC organization? Do you judge each and every person in that organization? I personally judge the organization as false; but do not judge the people. God will judge each individual not me.
quote:Sorry to say but your last post sounded a little like the Pharisee.
Do I need to address this? Or maybe I need to address the other post in which you called my worship carnal, dysfunctional, etc. Who is judging?
As for Mother Theresa and others who have given more than I, so? I do not judge her for the Lord knew her heart and will judge her. As for her good deeds, that is no guarantee of anything, any more than going to church or not is. Matt. 7:22-23
quote:When you say you rest in Christ just exactly what do you mean? Do you mean you have perfect peace with Christ or that you are trusting in him? Is it physical rest or spiritual, or other? Does it have to do with freedom? Can you touch on the minor questions and expand on the freedom? I don't believe you have clearly stated just what freedom you expect to experience in Christ. Try to remove all the other clutter and just focus on the freedom so that I can grasp what you are saying your freedom in Christ consists of.
Often our problem in understanding things differently is that we read too much into a passage because of what we have heard it means. We all do this at times for we all have previous baggage to get rid of. That is why I wanted to point out that not forsaking assembly does not say so many things that men claim it says. It does not say one must assembly any certain way. Now I am not back on the subject of assembly for the sake of discussing it; but it comes up in dealing with liberty and freedom in Christ. What do they mean? What is liberty? Liberty from what? Freedom from what or to do what?
I believe the most important bond that Christ has removed is the death penalty. He has removed my debt and freed me from my sin. We see the Lord freeing the captives and giving them liberty in Luke 4:18. The word used is aphesis 859 meaning release from bondage, prison or forgiveness or pardon of sin. Thus, the Lord frees us.
That leads me into rest in Christ. I am secure in him. I am a member of the kingdom and have the promise of eternal life which is the final rest spoken of in Heb. 3&4. The main word used for rest in Heb. Is , katapausis, 2663 meaning putting to rest, calming winds, resting place or more specific to these passages , the place where God dwells and he has promised to the persevering believers. In other words the blessed hope, eternal life in the heavens where he is.
While we enter into this rest by faith now, we enter into it totally in the life eternal when we receive the promise. It is a rest given only to believers and not given to the Sabbath keeping Jews who rejected Christ. Thus, Sabbath keeping is not the rest spoken of in this instance. Resting in Christ is the rest spoken of. Salvation is that rest.
In Matt. 11:28-29 I note one can be physically & mentally tired & exhausted with burdens of rites or unwarranted precepts as well as labor. I also note that a yoke is bondage to troublesome laws especially the Mosaic law. Rest is to recover, collect strength, and refresh one; which can be good for both physical and mental states. It is also a calm and patient expectation as we hope in faith for the eternal. So to rest in Christ, covers both our bodies and spirits. For clarity here are the strong’s numbers to check the meanings of words in this passage. Laden was especially interesting. Labor Kopiavw, Kopiao, 2872; Laden fortivvzw, phortizo 5412 ; Rest ajnapauvw, anapauo 373; Yoke sugov, sugos, 2218
In verse 29 the word for rest is anapausis, 372 , an intermission or rest or even recreation. I have often said the Sabbath was given to man for rest. Regarding liberty, I must say if I find sleeping, hiking, or mowing a widow’s lawn more mentally and physically refreshing than going to a church service, shouldn‘t I refresh myself? If I must work to feed my family, I have the liberty to do so as Jesus who picked corn. Didn’t Jesus say we could do good? Are any of those things sins? Do any of those things keep one from the kingdom? Wasn’t Jesus accused of breaking the law and sinning when he did things in uncustomary ways?
Christ has told us his burden is light. If I am heavy laden with rites or unwarranted precepts, he promises to lighten the load. He promises not to give me more than I can bear. Maybe “churchy meetings” refresh you; but I find them very tiring and too much busyness for a day of rest. Christ promises we won’t be heavy laden with customs, rituals.
We know that some tried to command the Christians to keep the law of moses and to entangle them with the yoke of bondage. And Paul told them not to be entangled. Acts 15:5, 10; Gal.5:1-4
Believers, the children of God , are said to have a “glorious liberty” in Rom. 8:21. The word eleutheria 1657 is used which means “liberty to do or to omit things having no relationship to salvation”
This is the liberty which gives us the liberty to either do or not do things that have no relationship to salvation. Any thing that is not a sin which keeps one out of the kingdom, we have liberty to choose to do or not. Therefore, if one does not meet in a prescribed customary, ritualistic way, are they sinning?
I have tried to show this principle with assembly, with the Sabbath and now, another example would be the Lord’s supper. Some do it weekly, some daily, some once a year. Some use wine, others juice. Some use unleavened bread, others wafers or even crackers. Some have a symbolic thimble cup and bite of bread. Others have full meals. Some many cups, some one cup and on and on and on.
The real issue of the Lord’s supper is not the bread and wine; but to remember the Lord. I wonder how could a group of Christians assemble anytime and not remember the Lord’s sacrifice for us. He is the very reason we are Christians and able to gather at all in any form or fashion. Can we stop judging the small stuff and each remember him. Can we love each other without petty ritualistic differences getting in our way?
BTW, Jeff,
quote:It is a difficult and delicate work to lead a sinner to renounce sin and love the Lord. It takes skill, patience, determination, and hope--all gifts of the Spirit. It takes no talent to criticize. Jesus said, "Woe to those who place stumbling blocks" in the pathway of the sinner on his way to Christ.
I agree. I also think you might reread your post to me describing how you feel about my non traditional way of worship. You insulted me, my family, and most important, you insulted my Lord who led me to the uncustomary path.
Peace and liberty in Christ to all.
-------------------- 1 Thes. 5:21 (KJV) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
posted
Oh really, Faith, is this what you believe about liberty in Christ - ughhhh, I mean going to meetings? You've only hijacked the last I don't know how many posts to remind us as you did here. Now you're insulted. You foist your system of "being vs doing" (shown to be a dichotomy of the erroneous variety) upon us, while pretending that even having a system is a sure mark of the IC whore.
You stated that yours wasn't a system because you didn't impose it. Well, very few of the IC's do either if you haven't noticed so that answer doesn't really work. By 'system' I mean your 'way' - your ideas about church as revealed in hundreds of your posts hosted on this website, often calling others wrong for not doing it, seeing it your 'way.'
Listen, if there are no ordained directives about how to meet, then no one - be it the RCC or the SDA - can do it wrong in any way. Can we get that far? If people desire once in a blue moon, to light candles in the attic, to sip beer out of a boot, and take turns sitting on each other's lap and call it church, who are you to question it and by what possible standard? Have you really thought your assumptions through, sister? No standards mean that all preferences about church are equally "Spirit-led," legitimate, and valid. Period. For you to have any further concern about "doing church" is like fearing that your missing child will drown in the Sahara Desert.
Jehovah is a God of purposeful order, not confusion, incoherency nor self-contradiction. Thus the apostles are said to have set things "in order." See Titus 1. How natural. Families have rules, churches also. WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL? Why does this blow people's minds? Are there no set rules of order in your home, Faith? Did you line your children up each morning and tell them to "just be?"
Church order is just a means to an end - not an end in itself. Charity is that end. 1 Timothy 1:5. Therefore, unlike some, I am charitable to other Christians in other expressions of church, choosing to win them rather than to perpetually insult them with the most vicious names I can come up with. Actually, the rules are few in number and do nothing but promote mutual respect and order as opposed to chaos. WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL, PEOPLE? Furthermore, as I've explained several times, agreement on the rules isn't criteria for having true fellowship in the Lord.
Today, would someone mind explaining why one of the heaviest NT warnings follows the command to assemble, which Faith trifles away to mean irregular, unscheduled, unplanned happenings? (If 'unplanned' were the case, the writer of Hebrews wouldn't have, couldn't have referred to it as a 'manner' to miss such stated meetings. The word for 'manner' is usually translated as 'custom.' Ooops. The meetings here were indeed of a customary sort, then. This, of course, wouldn't rule out unplanned or spontaneous meetings. We all agreed a l r e a d y that they have their proper and invaluable place.)
Hebrews 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the MANNER of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
Hebrews 10:26 FOR if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins
The conjunction "FOR" appears in the original as it does here in the KJV. It is a connecting word. No chapter nor verse divisions existed when this letter first went out. The writer is tying together the thoughts of vs 25 to vs 26. This looks to be a pretty stiff penalty for not participating in unplanned and amorphous gatherings occurring on a nebulous basis. Does it not?
Speaking of not having chapter divisions, why do you, Faith, accept 1 Corinthians 13 about love as enduring but not chapter 14 which contains the HOW to's of meeting? I don't recall your answer when I asked before. Paul capped off this 'how to meet' section with a "thus saith the Lord" in view of those who would come along later to discredit his words. Sure enough, they came.
The Hebrews ALREADY had a long, long history of meeting regularly and needed no reminder any more than they needed to be reminded to eat regular meals to sustain their health. No disagreement there and no need to reinforce that which was already accepted. When the writer of another letter commanded certain women to bear children - he didn't have to explain how the process occurred. Same idea, Faith. Papyrus was difficult to write on and expensive - you didn't waste words. As to one's understanding of how 'regular', that's an entirely different question with room to differ.
In the mouth of witnesseS things are established. Can you show us a published Christian author, scholar, historian, linguist, commentator, translator etc who maintained that the NT meetings were irregular in frequency and unprescribed in nature? Certainly, no writer of Scripture did which is why you can only argue from silence and false dichotomies. If not, we'll have no choice but to dismiss your theory as a probable 'one owner' theory. If it's a 'one owner' I hope you'll just make that admission and quit relentlessly bringing up your unproven theories as if they were facts so that we can proceed to other things of interest.
Please explain this: 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the TRADITIONS which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
And from 1 Timothy 3 after a lengthy section on elders and deacons, that is, church order: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know HOW thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
If the meetings of the NT were irregular, unpremeditated, hit or miss, why 1 Corinthians 14:26: How is it then, brethren? when you come together, everyone of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying." Sure doesn't sound like bumping into another Christian on the street corner to me.
Peace to your house, Faith. Prove all things, as you say. :-)
I did not fully understand your remarks when you wrote:
quote:[Faith:]I agree. I also think you might reread your post to me describing how you feel about my non traditional way of worship. You insulted me, my family, and most important, you insulted my Lord who led me to the uncustomary path.
I had to search for a while but finally came to this remark I made earlier:
quote:[Jeff:]Well, after you ponder these questions perhaps you could write again just on the subject of the freedom Christ extends to us. To my mind, the freedom you described sounds like carnal apathy. It wreaks of disorganization, irregularity, inefficiency, and a disfunctional family. Somehow I think that is what Christ came to free us from. Don't you think? So, try again.
It occurs to me that perhaps you may have misinterpretted "family" to mean your immediate family which in your frame of reference is your church. I apologize for not being more sensitive to this earlier. I had thought about changing the word to "body" but that just didn't seem to fit as well. The family spoken of in this context actually refers to the picture of "the body of Christ" which you painted. So it refers to the picture of a "family of God" which operates as you described. (I am not sure we are making progress here because that may still be limited to your immediate family, if, as you suggest, your family is the only one worshipping with you in what you called a "non-traditional way of worship".)
After hearing of your offense I can now see how you may be thinking your immediate family since it may be that they are the only ones that comprise your concept of assembly. However, it was not my intent to offend you or your family. I was merely remarking that the portrait of this "family" which you described in many paragraphs brought to my mind those descriptive words. And, the "dysfunctional family" referred to the limited size of the group. Take two or three body parts and put them together and your left with a lot of essential parts missing. Thus, it would be difficult for such a body to function properly.
Believe me, I have nothing against your family but I do take issue with you advocating your own personal worship style as a standard for all Christians. If you continue to be so dogmatic in your approach you are going to be challenged.
I'm trying to walk a thin line here of being sensitive to your feelings without condoning your teachings. My suggestion is to use scripture. Then if someone disagrees they will be arguing with the Word of God rather than your personal opinions/interpretations. Then you won't need to take it so personally and therefore will not be offended when someone challenges you. I am not personally offended by your disregard of the Sabbath commandment even though to me it is very important. I am passionate about telling others that it is part of the Ten Commandments and therefore a direct revelation of God's will. But since it is His commandment and not mine I have no need to be personally offended when someone attacks it. I didn't lay down the law, I just try to tell others about it. Since God said it, it must be important.
Yet, I am sure the Lord is offended. Obedience is our way of showing we love Him. "If you love me, keep my commandments." "He that saith, I know him [as in an intimate love relationship], and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." Jesus was the embodiment of the law. Jesus asked John to baptise him to fulfil all righteousness. A short time later he taught the people that he had not come to destroy the law but to fulfil it. As the living Word of God he lived by every word of God and thus magnified the written word through his righteous life.
In speaking of living by every word of God, Moses instructed the people that in obeying God's commandments they were choosing life. But in disobedience they were choosing death. Adam and Eve faced this same choice in the Garden of Eden. Obey and live, or disobey and die. Today, Jesus calls us into his rest by extending to us that same choice. Obey and live or disobey and die. But today we have the example of his perfect life which far exceeds the law. Yet in every aspect Jesus' obedience in fulfilling the law is our call to walk as he walked by receiving his life of perfect conformity to the law.
This is the essence of our freedom in Christ. By receiving his righteous life and surrendering our will to his we can find rest. And, the rest Jesus offers is freedom. Freedom to live in a manner which brings us true happiness without bounds and yet permits the same limitless freedom to every creature of God. We live free from the yoke of bondage yet yoked with Christ under a light burden. And why is the yoke of obedience to Christ a light burden? It is because of love. Our reciprocal love for Jesus makes obedience to all his laws a joyful duty. And so what might be a burden to those struggling to obey in the flesh becomes a joy to perform for those who live by a faith that works by love.
We are freed from the bonds of hatred and enter into the limitless realms of love. We are freed from guilt and enter into boundless joy. We are freed from condemnation and enter into eternal life. Yet, we cannot have this eternal life unless we receive Jesus' life. In Him is life. We do not posses life apart from God. Thus we must receive him. And all may--for it is a free gift by faith. Ours for the asking. But how will the life of Christ manifest itself in us? Well, if we receive Christ then we will reflect his life. And his life was perfect obedience to all his Father's commandments. If we receive Jesus into our hearts then the law which he fulfilled will be written in our hearts and on our minds according to the new covenant promise and in the same degree as our love for him.
This is freedom in Christ. Oh, what a privilege!
Now, what do you do when you ARE personally offended? Well, the more I contemplate this the more I wonder if mature Christians are EVER offended. Oh, I am sure some try to offend them but I wonder if they even recognize it or consider it. Here's why.
Jesus commanded us to love our neighbor as ourself. (Now, why would Jesus tell us to do something he knows we cannot do? Well, it is because all of his bidings are enablings. When he speaks things happen. When he commanded, 'Let there be light', there was light! When he told the lame man to arise and walk, he did--by faith! Thus, when he speaks to us 'Do not lie' he is speaking virtue into our lives. Virtue we only receive by faith in his word. Why only by faith? Because God wanted it to be a free gift so that every person, regardless of their weaknesses, could receive it. It could not have been thus had the condition been the exercise of our unaided will. The elements do not exercise faith. They obey God unconditionally. But God created man in his own image and gave to man free moral agency. This meant that man could now choose. While we may choose to follow Jesus we cannot perform it unless we accept power from God through faith. Our wills are ours to command but we are constantly amazed at how little command we actually have over our own wills. But if we choose to serve God then he will enable us to fulfil our choice by imparting to us of his own Divine Nature thereby strengthening our wills to do right without removing our liberties.) Now, where were we? Oh, yes. Let's start again.
Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors. The very good picture of love is recording in 1 Cor. 13. Notice that is says, "
posted
Jeff, It doesn’t matter if you meant my family or the church body family. Whatever God gives us is what we have to work with. If he led us away from big organizations, then that is exactly where we are to be. God uses the weak, and foolish to confound. What most think works is not necessarily what God uses. I have been through the body issue before and how the foot isn’t doing the same thing as the hand ; but both are doing just what they should under the head of Christ. They don’t necessarily have to understand each other. They meet in Christ not in the same shoe.
Romans 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
Romans 14:6 shows us how we should regard each other and our differences. You are trying to be sensitive without condoning how I do things. However, it is not your place to condone it or not. That is between me and God. This is liberty in Christ. I am under him, not you, your belief system, or anything or one else. I know you disagree and that is between you and the Lord to work out how you should regard things you do without holding me to your standard. I am under the standard the Lord has set for me.
Just because God had some people in one city doing something, does not mean he had all people in every place doing the same thing. The attitudes toward the unconventional, here at what is supposed to be a “radical” café, are the very reason I do not search for meetings, but wait on the Lord. I to not feel love in many posts by some. I do not feel regard for the freedom to do things the way my conscience is led.
Some keep demanding for me to explain the traditions in 2 Thes. 2:15. I and another, who left because of the ill will toward them, asked for someone to please explain just what those traditions are. No one did. So why do they keep demanding it of me?
In the context of the passage I see the mention of the gospel “to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. I posted a study on the Apostle’s doctrine to see if I could locate these traditions that we are to be following. I found the Apostle’s doctrine to be the preaching of the gospel. If these 2 Thes. 2 traditions are something to do with how we meet, as some suppose, will they please show scriptural proof instead of demanding it of me? (BTW, this was not you Jeff; but others.)
Btw, after what David said to me, that boot full of beer and a warm lap (hubby’s of course) sound mighty inviting. The publicans and sinners are looking mighty inviting about now.
Matthew 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.
Oh, I’m not offended by insults, I expect them just as Christ and his followers have always received from the religious organization of the day.
-------------------- 1 Thes. 5:21 (KJV) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
quote:Some keep demanding for me to explain the traditions in 2 Thes. 2:15. I and another, who left because of the ill will toward them...
Ill will - you're kidding, right? Claire Bennett, who's been all over the internet for years with the same song and 2-step dance, chose to play the ole Samson card, trying to pull everything down on her way out rather than acknowledging the bare truth. But, hey, that acknowledgement would have conflicted with her paper trail.
Can we handle the truth or will we resort to personal attacks and pity mongering? Wasn't it Jesus, the Truth, who preached that the truth would set us free?
2 Thess 2:15, itself, contains an explanation of apostolic traditions: Thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the TRADITIONS *START HERE* which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." The stuff after the *START HERE* is it.
Why, pray tell me, is it an 'insult' to be asked to give an answer for your beliefs? Your signature reminds us to prove all things. That's all we're trying to do. Can we calmly continue? Could we comply with the two posts per day limit so that others can participate before the thread becomes too large to navigate? Thank you.
posted
Thank you David. You finally gave an answer to 2 Thes. 2:15 However, I do not see the words “start here” in the passage, I ’m not sure the following are those famous traditions, we are hunting for. He prays for them in the conclusion of the chapter.
In the 3rd chapter he asked them to pray for him. His use of the word ‘finally,” suggest the following things are separate from the previous things and in addition to. So I don’t think these are necessarily the traditions either.
I see commands given beginning in 2 Thes. 3:6. They are withdrawn from the disorderly who do not follow the traditions we are trying get to the bottom of. They tell them they should know how to behave, they do not tell them a lists of rules to do or not in this passage. To walk orderly would be to love God and neighbor doing good and not harm. Basic morality as in Christ’s expanding the 10 commands is the law written in our hearts as Christians, though would we call them traditions or commands? Some of the things the Corinthians were corrected for could fit here under disorderly things. However, I suspect a study of the Thesalonians is in order to see what they were taught or corrected for to fully understand the traditions mentioned in chapter 2. They were also told not to be busybodies but work and eat their own bread and do good which seems to point to staying home as good. Still nothing is said about meeting regularly or any other such tradition. So the ball is back to you to prove the traditions they were talking about had to do with regular meetings and how often regular was. This was the point of contention in discussions. If I am not at liberty to meet as I do, then the burden of proof is to you to show me the specific commanded traditions I am breaking.
quote:Why, pray tell me, is it an 'insult' to be asked to give an answer for your beliefs? Your signature reminds us to prove all things. That's all we're trying to do. Can we calmly continue?
That was not the insult. However, to ask one to answer a question that they had already admitted they did not have the answer and wanted you to answer is strange. The insult was the entire attitude of your beer in the boot post. How helpful was it?
As for ill will, I’m not going back to look at who did what for that only brings up strife. I do remember a couple of times I thought TL was too sensitive and a couple of times I thought others were too insensitive. And thus ill will ensued. I also noticed a distinct change in your attitude toward me during that discussion. No need to do that because you disagree. I can see you evidently have some longstanding hard feelings toward a certain person. That should not play a part in how you react to me.
If you think I am really so disorderly because I don’t do things the way you do, then maybe I should just withdraw myself to hang with the other unchurched folks I know.
posted
What were we talking about today? Oh yea... same ole same ole... :-)
FYI, I don't have "longstanding hard feelings toward a certain person." Much less would I take it out on another.
Well, here is, to me, an interesting aspect of the apostolic letter writing method:
1Thessalonians 1:8 For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we NEED NOT to speak any thing.
1Thessalonians 4:9 But as touching brotherly love you NEED NOT that I write unto you:
The common denominator is that the writer to the Thessalonians NEEDED NOT to communicate certain elements. Now, look up "congregation" "convocation" "assembly" and you'll get hundreds of hits. When the letter to the Hebrews turned up in the mailbox, the readers as did the penman, regarded its content from a culture which had thousands of years of regular group meetings at regular and definite intervals. Ergo, the apostles NEEDED NOT to remind them again and again. It isn't that complicated is it?
The early Christians didn't throw out the OT when they were converted. It was the scripture profitable for doctrine, reproof, etc. 2tim 3:16 Are you taking the OT contextual environment into account as far as the background for gatherings? These were Hebrews, right?
Leviticus 23:3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.
Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath (not holiday) and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
My point for now in citing these two texts is not about the sabbath but about the regularity of the meetings Hebrews were acCUSTOMed to.
Hebrews 10:25-26 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more as ye see the day approaching. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.
Another clue that these were regular and not sporadic assemblies was the use of the double negative. He didn't just remind them to assemble - he emphatically told them not to fail to do so. I, of course, don't rest my case on that alone.
You did a superb job of evading my simple questions from the day before, sister. Would you please reply asap? The ball is still in your court where you left it. Let's wrap this up and move on.
posted
Pardon me, I’m not sure what questions, I got confused with the attitude and the boot full of beer.
I do think the church should have rules like families do. I don’t have to tell my children to just be because they already are part of my family. That is who they are regardless of what they do. Just so being the church (not a group meeting, but part of God’s family) is who I am in Christ regardless of when I gather, etc.
I think belivers’ gatherings should be just like a family gathering. Parents in charge of their own children. Each family having it’s own ways of doing things; but yet a common way too.
Just like when our extended family gets together. There is no list of rules each person must obey. It is common sense. There was no one person or persons who are telling everyone what to do. Each person just pitched in. Examples:
When we all gathered at grandma’s house, the men folk would take it upon their selves to check to see if she needed any handiwork done. Some might decide to go to town and buy nails, boards and paint to repair the porch. Another might mow the yard, etc.
When she started to get a meal ready, the women headed for the kitchen. One might make a pie. One might chop the salad, another make biscuits or tea or whatever. Finally, the younger girls might set the tables or pour the drinks. Another would help with the dishes.
If grandma wished she had some black berries for a pie, all the cousins would head out to pick them cause they knew how good the pie would be.
If a child misbehaved, usually it’s parent would step in.
There were no hard fast rules. They just did what needed to be done at the time. I might add that mone person might make the tea one way and the next day another person made tea differently. We survived the small differences and customs of each family for we worked together on the big picture.
Sure the early Hebrew church was used to meeting on Saturday. What of the Gentiles? Very little was explained to them as to what was needed because they did not need to adhere to the Hebrew customs; but were required to give up some customs dealing with pagan worship. We are Gentiles. Therefore we do not have to go back to the Jewish customs. Customs are customs and not commands. Traditions of the Apostle’s have more to do with keeping the right teachings regarding the gospel than exactly how each meeting should be.
There is nothing wrong with the corrections they gave the Corinthians. They were doing some things wrong. However, just like a parent corrects the child doing wrong, that doesn’t mean the other child has to do things exactly the same.
At Corinth, they were all wanting to talk, sing, prophesy at once. They were told to do it orderly. However, that does not mean each and every person has to talk or sing or prophesy. Some may do one or the other or even all three, at times and in order. Some may not do any of these things at times. Some may never do any of these things. Can the mute talk, sing or prophesy out loud? And yet the mute is just as much a part of the church as any one else.
There fore we are free to gather with family, with friends, with small groups, with large groups, daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, when ever and where ever, according to the situation at the time. These situations change as the seasons of life change.
I still see the situation like kindergarden children told by their teacher at recess, When I am not with you, look both ways and cross the road. Therefore, when she steps out of the class a moment, they all get up, go out to the road and follow her directions. Situation and context are really very important.
So when the church gathers, it must always be in large groups like Corinth and everyone must talk, sing, etc. regardless of circumstances. And it must be weekly because the Hebrews had a custom. NOT
BTW, how often did the Christians meet under Nero and other such dictators who persecuted the early church? Was it always on the same day or same place or using the same customs on cue?
-------------------- 1 Thes. 5:21 (KJV) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Faith, you seem to stumble on the idea that order somehow squelches spontaneity. Don't think that regular meetings prevent spontaneous ones. They don't.
In your example of grandmother's house was there ever a time when you needed to instruct your children as to what was proper or improper at grandma's house? Or, did they instinctively know from birth? Of course not! The fact that the children behave correctly and that everyone pitches in to do what is necessary reflects upon their earlier training. Or, perhaps upon arrival you admonish them with words like, "Now don't let the cat outside." Or, "Be sure to listen to grandma and do what she asks of you." I am certain you don't tell your kids to just do what they feel like doing when they want to do it regardless of any adult authority. Well, even young Christians need some guidance at first. You don't feel the need for it now because you feel you already know what to do or not to do. Be that as it may there is always room for learning and growth.
When Paul left the brethren at Jerusalem the only words of admonishment they sent with him were, "abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." But it is interesting to note the reasons why James gave this advice. First, they were Gentiles and were not laiden down with Jewish customs, and second... well, let's read it from scripture.
"For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." (Acts 15:21).
You see, even the Gentiles partook of the Hebrew custom of attending regular Sabbath meetings. And, at that time Moses was read to them. Typically, we think of the books of Moses as the books of the law. So these Gentiles heard the law of Moses each week. There was no need to remind them of those things but it seemed needful to put emphasis on refraining from some of their pagan rites which may have been particularly difficult to let go of.
Also, if there ever was a time for a spontaneous meeting it would have been when the Gentiles pleaded with Paul to preach the gospel unto them. But what happened instead? In Acts 13 Paul stands up and delivers a moving gospel sermon. When the service was over and the Jews left the Gentiles besought Paul to preach these words to them the next Sabbath (v42). Paul could have said, "No, the spirit calls me to do it right now," but he didn't. He waited until the next regulary schedule Sabbath meeting. It was a planned event and appears to have allowed the news to get around. Because... "the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." (v44).
So planned events are good and scriptural. But there is still a time and place for spontaneity.
BTW, Acts 13 is a good example that the early church was not meeting on Sunday but rather still observing the Sabbath. If it were not so, then Paul would have said to the Gentiles, "No need to wait until next Sabbath. I will preach to you tomorrow on Sunday. See you there!" But he didn't because it wasn't until much later that Sunday worship caught on.
Well, enjoying the exchange. It makes me dig! But, hope we can make some progress and come to some agreement.
I'll say it again - nobody is attempting to rob you or your personal joy or liberty in Christ nor to discredit your meetings. I am responding to what you have posited on this forum about church issues. Please do not mention again that you think you don't meet my/others approval. You don't have to. Jesus said: the word I have given you - it shall judge you.
In and only in the context of your assertions that 1.) regular meetings are not required and 2.) there exist no meeting protocols, please reply to the missing questions, recopied from above. These 2 items are the only ones being entertained for the present.
Would you mind explaining why one of the heaviest NT warnings follows the command to assemble, which you take to mean irregular, unscheduled, sporadic, unplanned happenings? (Methinks: If 'unplanned' were the case, the writer of Hebrews wouldn't have, couldn't have referred to it as a 'manner' to miss such stated meetings. The word for 'manner is usually translated as 'custom.' The meetings here were indeed of a customary sort, then. Yes or no? This, of course, wouldn't rule out unplanned or spontaneous meetings. We all agreed a l r e a d y that they have their proper and invaluable place.)
Hebrews 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the MANNER of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
Hebrews 10:26 FOR if we SIN wilfully (not accidently) after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins
The conjunction "FOR" appears in the original as it does here in the KJV. It is a connecting word. No chapter nor verse divisions existed when this letter first went out. The writer is tying together the thoughts of vs 25 to vs 26. This looks to be a pretty stiff penalty for not participating in amorphous, mostly "family only" gatherings occurring on a nebulous basis. Does it not?
Why, in this text is failing to assemble as a custom (manner) called SIN?How could something uncommmanded and merely optional, according to you, be a sin if neglected?
Speaking of not having chapter divisions, why do you accept 1 Corinthians 13 about 'love' as enduring but not chapter 14 which contains several HOW to's of meeting? I don't recall your answer when I asked before. Paul capped off this 'how to meet' section with a "thus saith the Lord" in view of those who would come along later to undermine his words.
Email this page to someone.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
If you consider your self part of the ‘many in churchanity” that’s between you and God, not me.