Liturgical Worship - Do you like it?

[Hoovie]

I enjoyed some liturgical worship today at the local Missouri Synod Lutheran church.

There are aspects of a liturgically structured service that I enjoy very much and others not so much. Like our own Pentecostal services, it's apparent there is plenty tradition - be that good or bad.

[Ron]

Liturgical? By that do you mean Hymns?

[Michael The Disciple]

Yeah is there a video example?

[Hoovie]

Liturgical? By that do you mean Hymns?

Actually the entire service. Very formal, alternate readings of scripture, a few candles... Reciting the Apostles creed... etc. (no incense, Holy water or icon busts of saints though)

[Ron]

Actually the entire service. Very formal, alternate readings of scripture, a few candles... Reciting the Apostles creed... etc. (no incense, Holy water or icon busts of saints though)

I wouldn't say that I prefer that mode of worship, but I will let you in on secret----I do enjoy those same Churches and thier Christmas Eve Carols by candle light!:whistle

[A_PoMo]

I enjoy visiting high church worship services that feature ritual and contemplative prayer. There are some things I like about it, there other things I don't like. Same as our low church worship style. I'd like to see a blend of both, that'd be cool.

[mfblume]

An interesting side note is that liturgical worship is allegedly patterned after scenes in Revelation with the incense etc.

[ILG]

I enjoyed some liturgical worship today at the local Missouri Synod Lutheran church.

There are aspects of a liturgically structured service that I enjoy very much and others not so much. Like our own Pentecostal services, it's apparent there is plenty tradition - be that good or bad.

I generally do not like liturgical worship. I probably had my fill of that growing up Catholic.

[Antipas]

I enjoy liturgical worship. The readings and responses keep the congregation grounded in the Word via the reading. The homilies are short and to the point, very little ranting, rambling, or drifting from topic to topic. If I remember correctly liturgical worship evolved in the first century church because there wasn't a "Bible" that each member brought to church. The appointed bishops and elders of a church often had the Scriptures and as NT letters were compiled they would read them aloud and the congregation would repeat the reading for both learning and memorization.

I have a close friend who is Catholic and she's invited me to come to Mass with her sometime in the near future. She lent me a Catechism, which I've been studying, and I'm looking forward to the service.

[mfblume]

Liturgy is not for me! :)

[TRFrance]

That stuff is too close to Catholicism for me.

[ReformedDave]

In our church we have a liturgy but not a 'high' one. Most of our music is comtemporary along with hymns but a definite pattern is present. Kind of nice not to worry about what comes next......

[Sister Alvear]

:shockamoo is what comes next...ha...:hanky


In our church we have a liturgy but not a 'high' one. Most of our music is comtemporary along with hymns but a definite pattern is present. Kind of nice not to worry about what comes next......

[Sister Alvear]

:dancing:choir:preach am headed out to our service...
It is going to be great!
We have about 20 more getting ready for baptism.

[Sister Alvear]

Thought I´d put in some sign language in case you wonder what we do in church! ha...

[ReformedDave]

:shockamoo is what comes next...ha...:hanky

Probably not:whistle

[Praxeas]

I enjoyed some liturgical worship today at the local Missouri Synod Lutheran church.

There are aspects of a liturgically structured service that I enjoy very much and others not so much. Like our own Pentecostal services, it's apparent there is plenty tradition - be that good or bad.
Even many of our Pentecostal services are structured worship and honestly...I hate it. I think we need to make time to just wait on God to move instead of rushing through our program

[Hoovie]

Even many of our Pentecostal services are structured worship and honestly...I hate it. I think we need to make time to just wait on God to move instead of rushing through our program

I have very mixed feelings on this.

I find aspects of the formality to be reverent and respectful of God and the place of assembly. For example reciting (and praying) the Lords Prayer in unison is generally a very sacred and moving thing to me. As is confessing our sins, together, out loud... a deliberate and specific admission of our need followed by the reassurance that the payment was made for once and for all.

I think the idea that a planned and structured service is by definition contrary to the anointing and God's will is erroneous.

[mfblume]

Can people honestly picture the early church running a liturgical service? Incense, ominous, funeral-like hymns?

[mfblume]

Even many of our Pentecostal services are structured worship and honestly...I hate it. I think we need to make time to just wait on God to move instead of rushing through our program

That is true, but there must be order as well.

[Hoovie]

Now I don't think I could go along with some of the other practices found in these liturgical churches...

In the case of the Lutheran Missouri Synod there seems to be a very close attachment of forgiveness of sins and communion - which is a weekly practice. However, I have similar reservations regarding the Pentecostal custom of altar calls for saints and shockamoo as a "sign" of connecting to God.

[El Predicador]

Actually the entire service. Very formal, alternate readings of scripture, a few candles... Reciting the Apostles creed... etc. (no incense, Holy water or icon busts of saints though)

Sure, schedule a formal move of God.

[Hoovie]

Can people honestly picture the early church running a liturgical service? Incense, ominous, funeral-like hymns?

Not in the extreme - no. But neither do I believe the early church was rock'in out to "Jesus on the Mainline" or a typical Pentecostal revival service.

[Margies3]

You know what? I've been around the barn a few times. Ok, maybe more than a few. I grew up in a semi-formal church that didn't worship the liturgy, but certainly used enough in their services to be considered a liturgical congregation. Then I moved to an Apostolic Church for many years. And now I am back in a church that is probably less liturgical than the church I grew up in, but liturgical still-the-same.

I used to think "Catholic" or "Lutheran" when you said the word liturgical. I've changed that. Now when I think liturgical, I think of following a familiar form in worship.

In that sense, I have to tell you that I would probably find MOST, if not all, Apostolic Churches to be liturgical in their own ways. Even those who don't follow a familiar formula for most of their services do something that I consider liturgical: when things don't seem to be "working", they return back to the familiar - to what has worked in the past.

So do I like liturgical worship? I guess you could say I do :) I don't like things like a high mass or something like that. But I do like the familiar where I can feel most comfortable and just relax and worship my God without worrying that I'll get busy worshiping and the service will take a sudden turn, leaving me behind and embarrassed. LOL

[ReformedDave]

Even many of our Pentecostal services are structured worship and honestly...I hate it.

I used too.....

[ReformedDave]

Sure, schedule a formal move of God.

Pentecostals do. It's called a 'revival'.

[Praxeas]

That is true, but there must be order as well.

Thats why I say we need to make time. I believe we should have ordered services, but not so tight that we have to rush through programs.

We used to spend a lot more time between songs in just worship

[Praxeas]

I used too.....
What I mean is, when the entire services is so structured that you are going from one program to another...structured. It becomes mechanical when you are not allowed to just spend time freely worshiping

[El Predicador]

Pentecostals do. It's called a 'revival'.

The dates are scheduled to have special services.

Not the same

Revival may or may not occur.

I assume this was in jest.

[ReformedDave]

I assume this was in jest.

Not really......

[Sister Alvear]

Well, I just got in from a wonderful service and I am exhausted! We had an awesome time...WOW...
Those young people got with it tonight...I saw even some kids talking in tongues...

[marthaolivia]

Even many of our Pentecostal services are structured worship and honestly...I hate it. I think we need to make time to just wait on God to move instead of rushing through our program

I love spontaneous worship services. I love to feel the presenceof God.

[Hoovie]

I love spontaneous worship services. I love to feel the presenceof God.

This is sort of what I was saying earlier... much of this subjective... There was very little spontaneity involved this morning, but I very much felt the presence of God and His comfort.

[ReformedDave]

I love spontaneous worship services. I love to feel the presenceof God.

Lest we forget, it's primarily about Him...we're secondary.

[steve p]

Does it have to be either / or?????? I participate in many "types" or "styles" of worship.
Worship really isnt about what I "like". Blessings!!!

[Hoovie]

Does it have to be either / or?????? I participate in many "types" or "styles" of worship.
Worship really isnt about what I "like". Blessings!!!

You are right it does not have to be either/or. I can appreciate various styles.

I guess the point is well taken that it's not about us and what we like... but somehow I can't imagine a worship experience that is desirable to God but loathed by the worshiper.

[tstew]

I don't think I could take it for too long or on a regular basis.

[steve p]

You are right it does not have to be either/or. I can appreciate various styles.

I guess the point is well taken that it's not about us and what we like... but somehow I can't imagine a worship experience that is desirable to God but loathed by the worshiper.

I wonder what Paul and Silas would have to say about the topic..
Blessings!

[marthaolivia]

Lest we forget, it's primarily about Him...we're secondary.

I understand that. I was only answering the question "Liturgical Worship - do you like it?" :)

[Hoovie]

I wonder what Paul and Silas would have to say about the topic..
Blessings!

Yeah, I understand.

[Antipas]

Can people honestly picture the early church running a liturgical service? Incense, ominous, funeral-like hymns?

I don't see the early church using incense. But the "ominous hymns" are largely because ancient music was written in the minor key. Just as worship music today follows after popular modern trends, early church music followed the popular trends of the day...so yes...they were probably "ominous hymns" or chants in the minor key, especially among ancient Judean Christians. It's funny how we impose our modern mindset on the ancient church. And honestly, since Scriptures weren't easy to come by, the liturgy was a way of communicating and teaching the entire church Scripture when gathered in one place. They definitely didn't take two short Scriptures and preach for an hour on them...the recited Scripture and had brief commentary on ethical Christian living. Oh, one more thing, the early church did this in humble homes, caves, and catacombs, long before church buildings, robes, and incense came into the picture. ;)

[Antipas]

What I mean is, when the entire services is so structured that you are going from one program to another...structured. It becomes mechanical when you are not allowed to just spend time freely worshiping

I completely understand what you're saying. But on the flip side, I've seen time taken to whip people up into an emotional frenzy that has little to do with real "worship". I've seen people emotionally stir themselves up into "worship" that was just emotional outbursts...not real "worship".

[Antipas]

Something that tears me up inside sometimes is how the Apostolic Pentecostal church claims to be filled with the Holy Ghost...but if one visits 10 different Apostolic churches they will see 10 different interpretations of Scripture on standards etc. Not only that...but all 10 churches might be at serious odds with the other nine.

The true church certainly wasn't obscure down through history, it's the church. Also, the true church would echo the same worship, standards of doctrine and holiness rather you went to a church in California, New York, Europe, Africa, or Asia.

But hey....some things I'll never understand. lol

[mfblume]

Not in the extreme - no. But neither do I believe the early church was rock'in out to "Jesus on the Mainline" or a typical Pentecostal revival service.

I agree. Paul preached all night and one kid fell asleep and out of the window and died! Not very much ruckus going on in that service!

[mfblume]

I like what one preacher I heard recently said... Churches engender their own favoured "culture". One church likes a scripturally shallow and energetic church service and preaching, while another likes a slow-paced deep service, and still another enjoys concentrating on faith all the time, while another emphasizes miracles and healings. They are more what the preacher or founder PERSONALLY ENJOYS more, than actually finding what God expects us to be concerned with.

What church meeting does GOD want us to have? A meeting that we personally THINK God prefers, since it coincidentally happens to be OUR favourite style of service? I think not.

The KINGDOM of God is not about what we personally favour for church, or prefer. It is what God prefers.

We need to learn what God prefers and expects, and then work towards that, regardless of what we carnally or traditionally prefer.

[A_PoMo]

I agree. Paul preached all night and one kid fell asleep and out of the window and died! Not very much ruckus going on in that service!

Yeah, true. Early church documents attest to a pattern of worship in the early church that was similar to synagogue worship, not exactly brush arbor campmeeting stuff. They'd pray, have long readings of OT scripture and letters from apostles (if available), someone from the congregation would intereprete the scripture, they maybe sang a simple hymn or two, took communon and that was about it. Communion and baptism were a part of the services too but that tradition morphed dramtically even in a short period of time. Some records show that they'd meet early in the morning and pray and make oaths to each other to be honest, work hard, and not cheat anybody during the day and take communion together.

It was a far cry from the stuff that we call worship and worship services today. Much more somber, quieter, smaller, more intimate, and less "exciting". It seems to have been just as much about community as it was 'worship'.

[Sept5SavedTeen]

No I don't like liturgical worship, and neither does GOD. Why would we want to pattern ourselves after, or put ourselves in a place, where we worship like the heathen? We're apostolic- we're different. I don't want to worship like a Catholic, Episcopalian or Lutheran, and I've been to all those places, and I'll do you one better, I've been to the Orthodox (spent almost a year there) and that was super-high church liturgical. The spirit is not allowed to move in those places, and of course most of those places are trinitarian.

-Bro. Alex

[Sherri]

I'm not a fan of liturgical worship, but I do believe that God is present in those services if people are seeking Him with a sincere heart. I know some people who actually feel God more in that setting than in a typical Pentecostal service.

[Hoovie]

I'm not a fan of liturgical worship, but I do believe that God is present in those services if people are seeking Him with a sincere heart. I know some people who actually feel God more in that setting than in a typical Pentecostal service.

No comment.

[Antipas]

No I don't like liturgical worship, and neither does GOD. Why would we want to pattern ourselves after, or put ourselves in a place, where we worship like the heathen? We're apostolic- we're different. I don't want to worship like a Catholic, Episcopalian or Lutheran, and I've been to all those places, and I'll do you one better, I've been to the Orthodox (spent almost a year there) and that was super-high church liturgical. The spirit is not allowed to move in those places, and of course most of those places are trinitarian.

-Bro. Alex

The book of Revelation follows the pattern of a Heavenly liturgy....complete with sensors and incense. ;)

[Sept5SavedTeen]

The book of Revelation follows the pattern of a Heavenly liturgy....complete with sensors and incense. ;)

A liturgy is a form of ritual. We don't see what the apostles did in Acts and the epistles as being liturgical. When we get to the time spoken of in Revelation, GOD will orchestrate worship as HE desires, but for this current time where the Church is GOD's plan, we see no liturgy.

-Bro. Alex

[mfblume]

The book of Revelation follows the pattern of a Heavenly liturgy....complete with sensors and incense. ;)

This is symbolism. :) Incense is prayers, etc. We do not carry through symbols, but the actualities. It's not an actual view of how angels worship.

[mfblume]

I'm not a fan of liturgical worship, but I do believe that God is present in those services if people are seeking Him with a sincere heart. I know some people who actually feel God more in that setting than in a typical Pentecostal service.

I agree. God is drawn to any sincere God-seeking soul, regardless of surroundings. But that does not mean God endorses those surroundings.

[Antipas]

A liturgy is a form of ritual. We don't see what the apostles did in Acts and the epistles as being liturgical. When we get to the time spoken of in Revelation, GOD will orchestrate worship as HE desires, but for this current time where the Church is GOD's plan, we see no liturgy.

-Bro. Alex

Bro. Alex....John was caught up into Heaven and witnessed the Revelation unfolding before him. The symbolic visions depicted future events...but the activities of Heaven were taking place real time before him.

[mfblume]

Bro. Alex....John was caught up into Heaven and witnessed the Revelation unfolding before him. The symbols depicted future events...but the activities of Heaven were taking place real time before him.

Like an actual lamb with seven actual eyes and seven actual horns? That represented atonement with the high priest. The visions were not actualities in and of themselves, though.

[Antipas]

A liturgy is a form of ritual. We don't see what the apostles did in Acts and the epistles as being liturgical. When we get to the time spoken of in Revelation, GOD will orchestrate worship as HE desires, but for this current time where the Church is GOD's plan, we see no liturgy.

-Bro. Alex

It might also prove valuable to understand the worship services of the Temple and synagogues.

[Antipas]

This is symbolism. :) Incense is prayers, etc. We do not carry through symbols, but the actualities. It's not an actual view of how angels worship.

Prove it. ;)

If John saw angels bowing down and pouring out incense....that's what John saw.

[Antipas]

Like an actual lamb with seven actual eyes and seven actual horns? That represented atonement with the high priest. The visions were not actualities in and of themselves, though.

No silly. lol John literally saw Jesus, the eyes and horns are symbolic. But nevertheless...John saw Jesus. Are you saying that he didn't?

[mfblume]

No silly. lol John literally saw Jesus, the eyes and horns are symbolic. But nevertheless...John saw Jesus. Are you saying that he didn't?

Anything symbolic represents a physical actuality. So if John actually saw in the vision a lamb that represents Jesus, then what He actually saw was only symbolic. He did not see Jesus as a man with brown hair and brown eyes about 5'6". He saw a lamb. So whatever He saw in the rest of the visions, by the same token, was not actually occurring in Heaven, but symbolized what actually occurred. That means we cannot take anything from Revelation and say those sightings actually occurred in Heaven as John saw them.

I already noted that incense was said in Revelation to represent prayers. So when John saw incense in the vision, He did not see what actually occurred. INcense does not exist in Heaven. What actually occurred was prayers rising to God that cannot be physically seen.

[mfblume]

Prove it. ;)

If John saw angels bowing down and pouring out incense....that's what John saw.

Right. What he SAW was only symbolic, though.

He also saw a Lamb with 7 eyes and horns. But you know that is not what Jesus ACTUALLY looks like.

Notice the placement of the term ACTUALLY in my point here: John ACTUALLY saw a lamb, but what was ACTUALLY in Heaven was not a lamb. It was Jesus.

But what he saw was SYMBOLIC, like the Lamb. What actually occurred is not what John saw. He saw a symbol of what actually occurred.

[Antipas]

Anything symbolic represents a physical actuality. So if John actually saw in the vision a lamb that represents Jesus, then what He actually saw was only symbolic. He did not see Jesus as a man with brown hair and brown eyes about 5'6". He saw a lamb. So whatever He saw in the rest of the visions, by the same token, was not actually occurring in Heaven, but symbolized what actually occurred. That means we cannot take anything from Revelation and say those events actually occurred in Heaven.

I think you have to remember that this is apocalyptic literature. It was purposefully written by John using symbols to preserve it's truth...for the day was at hand. Rome would have destroyed the book...but to the Romans it appeared to be merely a fairytale.

I contend that John was caught up in the Spirit on the Lord's day and indeed was transported before the very throne of God. There he saw Heavenly events as they transpired and visions of what was to soon come to pass.

[mfblume]

I think you have to remember that this is apocalyptic literature. It was purposefully written by John using symbols to preserve it's truth...for the day was at hand. Rome would have destroyed the book...but to the Romans it appeared to be merely a fairytale.

I contend that John was caught up in the Spirit on the Lord's day and indeed was transported before the very throne of God. There he saw Heavenly events as they transpired and visions of what was to soon come to pass.

Then you have to say that Jesus was actually a lamb in heaven at that point in time, not symbolically so, and that is simply not true.

Bro., the book says, itself, that the incense was actually prayers, and that incense was therefore not actually in existence in Heaven.

[Antipas]

Then you have to say that Jesus was actually a lamb in heaven at that point in time, and that is simply not true.

Bro., the book says, itself, that the incense was actually prayers, and that incense was therefore not actually in existence in Heaven.

Not necessarily. John saw a vision which he described in vivid symbolism.

If you're right, John wasn't really in heaven, really didn't see what he said he saw....maybe it was just something John ate. lol

[mfblume]

Not necessarily. John saw a vision which he described in vivid symbolism.

If you're right, John wasn't really in heaven, really didn't see what he said he saw....maybe it was just something John ate. lol

The you have to say Jesus was actually a lamb with seven eyes and horns.

Can't have it both ways.

[Antipas]

Then you have to say that Jesus was actually a lamb in heaven at that point in time, not symbolically so, and that is simply not true.

Bro., the book says, itself, that the incense was actually prayers, and that incense was therefore not actually in existence in Heaven.

Incense accompanied prayer in the OT Temple....which was a an earthly mirror of a heavenly reality.

Do you believe that Heaven is REAL or do you believe in a bright light at death?

[Antipas]

The you have to say Jesus was actually a lamb with seven eyes and horns.

Can't have it both ways.

Yes I can have it both ways.

John saw Jesus...and described him using vivid symbolism.

[mfblume]

Yes I can have it both ways.

John saw Jesus...and described him using vivid symbolism.

Now you know better than that.

[Antipas]

Now you know better than that.

So you don't believe that he saw Jesus?

[mfblume]

Incense accompanied prayer in the OT Temple....which was a an earthly mirror of a heavenly reality.

He saw incense in HEAVEN. So why would an earthly mirror be in Heaven? The reality in heaven is prayer. Not incense. Since John saw incense in heaven, He saw the a symbol of what is actually in Heaven, and not what is actually there, itself. Incense does not exist in Heaven. The reality is prayer alone.

Do you believe that Heaven is REAL or do you believe in a bright light at death?

Heaven is real, but John did not see movies of what actually is in Heaven. He saw only symbols of it. The realities were translated into symbols.

[mfblume]

So you don't believe that he saw Jesus?

He did not directly see Jesus, but saw a SYMBOL OF JESUS. Just like seeing One on the throne, when no man has ever seen God, which was reported by John, himself, in 1 John 4.

You actually believe Jesus was physically a lamb?

[Antipas]

He saw incense in HEAVEN. So why would an earthly mirror be in Heaven? The reality in heaven is prayer. Not incense. Since John saw incense in heaven, He saw the a symbol of what is actually in Heaven, and not what is actually there, itself. Incense does not exist in Heaven. The reality is prayer alone.

John saw a Heavenly worship service and he described elements of it in vivid symbolism. There were breaks in this Heavenly worship service wherein symbolic visions of what was to soon come to pass were unfolded before John. I don't believe that John is describing a "non-event". It was a very REAL event taking place before him.

Heaven is real, but John did not see movies of what actually is in Heaven. He saw only symbols of it. The realities were translated into symbols.

You're right....John didn't see movies. He saw an actual reality taking place before him...events that are even taking place as we speak.

Revelation 4:7-9
7And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle.
8And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, LORD God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
9And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever,

The worship is taking place as we speak...the incense is burning as we speak...the angels cry, "Holy!", as we speak. Also, the prayers of the saints are offered before the throne of Heaven, as we speak. ;)

Heaven is REAL.

[Antipas]

He did not directly see Jesus, but saw a SYMBOL OF JESUS. Just like seeing One on the throne, when no man has ever seen God, which was reported by John, himself, in 1 John 4.

You actually believe Jesus was physically a lamb?

John saw Jesus and described him in vivid symbolism.

[mfblume]

John saw Jesus and described him in vivid symbolism.

He described a LAMB with seven eyes and horns, and that was what he saw in a vision. That is not what Jesus actually looked like at that time in heaven. John actually saw a lamb. He did not see a man with speak poetic words of purposeful symbolism concocted by John. He saw a lamb.

[mfblume]

John saw a Heavenly worship service and he described elements of it in vivid symbolism. There were breaks in this Heavenly worship service wherein symbolic visions of what was to soon come to pass were unfolded before John. I don't believe that John is describing a "non-event". It was a very REAL event taking place before him.



You're right....John didn't see movies. He saw an actual reality taking place before him...events that are even taking place as we speak.

Revelation 4:7-9
7And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle.
8And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, LORD God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
9And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever,

The worship is taking place as we speak...the incense is burning as we speak...the angels cry, "Holy!", as we speak. Also, the prayers of the saints are offered before the throne of Heaven, as we speak. ;)

Heaven is REAL.


Please do not put words in my mouth as though I am saying Heaven is not real. John did not see what actually occurred in Heaven. He saw symbols of what ACTUALLY OCCURRED. Heaven is real but the realities are not incense and a seven-eyed lamb. The actualities are prayers and Jesus Christ.

There is worship in Heaven as we speak, yes. But it is not actually involving incense, but the incense represents the actual prayers rising from saints to God in heaven.

Heaven is real. But what John saw was not really Heaven. Heaven is not a la-la land of symbols. Real events occur there as we speak. John saw symbols of what is actually in Heaven. Like I said, and you missed it, John saw one on the throne and John also said no one has ever seen God at any time. He SAW SYMBOL of God, because God is omnipresent and cannot be actually seen.

[Antipas]

John used symbolism as lead by the Holy Ghost.

[Hoovie]

This thread is proving quite interesting now! FURTHERMORE I just got a whiff of something... incense perhaps? :)

[mfblume]

John used symbolism as lead by the Holy Ghost.

He saw what he said he saw. A lamb. He did not say He saw a human-formed Jesus and thought to relate it to us by referring to Him as a lamb with seven eyes and horns in poetic inspiration. HE SAW A LAMB WITH 7 EYES AND HORNS, because he was seeing visions.

[mfblume]

This thread is proving quite interesting now! FURTHERMORE I just got a whiff of something... incense perhaps? :)

And we all know you were speaking figuratively, and did not physically smell incense, right? lol :D

[Antipas]

Please do not put words in my mouth as though I am saying Heaven is not real. John did not see what actually occurred in Heaven. He saw symbols of what ACTUALLY OCCURRED. Heaven is real but the realities are not incense and a seven-eyed lamb. The actualities are prayers and Jesus Christ.

There is worship in Heaven as we speak, yes. But it is not actually involving incense, but the incense represents the actual prayers rising from saints to God in heaven.

Heaven is real. But what John saw was not really Heaven. Heaven is not a la-la land of symbols. Real events occur there as we speak. John saw symbols of what is actually in Heaven. Like I said, and you missed it, John saw one on the throne and John also said no one has ever seen God at any time. He SAW SYMBOL of God, because God is omnipresent and cannot be actually seen.

What do you believe Heaven looks like Bro. Blume? Do you believe there is a throne with angels, worship, song, incense, etc? Or do you believe there's just a big bright light with amorphous glowing globes of light floating around doing "worship" like glowing globes do? lol

[mfblume]

What do you believe Heaven looks like Bro. Blume? Do you believe there is a throne with angels, worship, song, incense, etc? Or do you believe there's just a big bright light with amorphous glowing globes of light floating around doing "worship" like glowing globes do? lol

You ask me what I believe, and do not respond with your own beliefs. Do you believe John saw God or not (According to Rev 4's vision of one on the throne), knowing that the same writer said no man has ever seen God?

I have no clue what Heaven looks like! I do believe there is an actual throne and Jesus actually sits on it. I believe angels are there and worship. But I have no idea what it actually looks like. Revelation only gives symbols of it all.

Bro., if you want liturgy THAT MUCH, enjoy it! Whatever you want. But you are arguing a weak argument if you're saying liturgy is correct because Heaven actually uses incense according to Revelation.

[Antipas]

He saw what he said he saw. A lamb. He did not say He saw a human-formed Jesus and thought to relate it to us by referring to Him as a lamb with seven eyes and horns in poetic inspiration. HE SAW A LAMB WITH 7 EYES AND HORNS, because he was seeing visions.

John wrote....

Revelation 5:6-7
6And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
7And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

First John says that he saw one who "stood". Lambs don't stand. He uses the symbol of a lamb, for Christ was the Lamb of God. John saw the nail scared hands, the pierced side, and the shredded brow of the Savior, and describes him appearing as a lamb that had been slain. John then speaks of the seven eyes, he is all seeing and knowing. John then speaks of his seven horns, he is all powerful. John then states that this "Lamb" (Jesus) walked up and "took the book out of the right hand of him who sat on the throne", that requires walking and hands. John saw Jesus and described him using vivid symbolic imagery. John didn't see a lamb down on all fours get up and take a book in his hoof. lol

[SmartAlex]

John wrote....

Revelation 5:6-7
6And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
7And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

First John says that he saw one who "stood". Lambs don't stand. He uses the symbol of a lamb, for Christ was the Lamb of God. John saw the nail scared hands, the pierced side, and the shredded brow of the Savior, and describes him appearing as a lamb that had been slain. John then speaks of the seven eyes, he is all seeing and knowing. John then speaks of his seven horns, he is all powerful. John then states that this "Lamb" (Jesus) walked up and "took the book out of the right hand of him who sat on the throne", that requires walking and hands. John saw Jesus and described him using vivid symbolic imagery. John didn't see a lamb down on all fours get up and take a book in his hoof. lol

Lamb's don't stand?

[mfblume]

John wrote....

Revelation 5:6-7
6And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
7And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

First John says that he saw one who "stood". Lambs don't stand. He uses the symbol of a lamb, for Christ was the Lamb of God.

I think you are reading this completely wrong, but that is my opinion.

It stood on four legs after having been slain and dead, implying it lay dead afore.

John saw the nail scared hands, the pierced side, and the shredded brow of the Savior, and describes him appearing as a lamb that had been slain.

Incorrect. He literally saw a lamb with blood all over it, and seven eyes and horns. He would not say the Lamb had seven eyes and horns if he literally saw a MAN Jesus Christ. No biblical poem says anything in the ballpark of that sort of thing in purposefully symbolic poetry on the behalf of the writer.

John then speaks of the seven eyes, he is all seeing and knowing. John then speaks of his seven horns, he is all powerful. John then states that this "Lamb" (Jesus) walked up and "took the book out of the right hand of him who sat on the throne", that requires walking and hands. John saw Jesus and described him using vivid symbolic imagery. John didn't see a lamb down on all fours get up and take a book in his hoof. lol

Sorry, I disagree. John did see that in the visions, and God gave Him symbols in those visions. That is why the first verse says the message was "signifed", betokened.

John was not waxing poetic. He was reporting what he saw.

[mfblume]

Anitpas,

You still never answered why John said He saw One on the throne, while writing in 1 John 4 that no man has ever seen God at any time. How could that be akin to seeing the beaten and bleeding Jesus as a man who was dead, and choosing to describe Him as a lamb in poetic manner?

[Antipas]

You ask me what I believe, and do not respond with your own beliefs. Do you believe John saw God or not (According to Rev 4's vision of one on the throne), knowing that the same writer said no man has ever seen God?

John saw "one upon the throne". No doubt the glory was so great I doubt John could describe his features. John saw the glory of the one sitting upon the throne. Notice that while John uses vivid imagery to describe all the things he saw...he never attempts to describe the one sitting upon the throne...shrouded in glory.

I have no clue what Heaven looks like! I do believe there is an actual throne and Jesus actually sits on it. I believe angels are there and worship. But I have no idea what it actually looks like. Revelation only gives symbols of it all.

Some things are described in vivid symbolism in the context of real events that John was witnessed. In addition very symbolic visions took place in this context regarding the near future that was to soon come to pass.

Bro., if you want liturgy THAT MUCH, enjoy it! Whatever you want. But you are arguing a weak argument if you're saying liturgy is correct because Heaven actually uses incense according to Revelation.

Okay...let's assume you're right and all these things are mere symbols... if liturgy isn't correct or holy in God's sight... why would God use it as a consistent theme in John's vision? If liturgy was a fitting symbol of what happens in Heaven...there's evidently nothing wrong with it in God's sight.

[Antipas]

Lamb's don't stand?

They don't walk up to one sitting upon a throne and take a book their hands either. ;)

John was using vivid imagery to describe Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world.

[Antipas]

John was not waxing poetic. He was reporting what he saw....

...in vivid symbolism, I'd conclude. It's the nature of apocalyptic writing.

[mfblume]

John saw "one upon the throne". No doubt the glory was so great I doubt John could describe his features. John saw the glory of the one sitting upon the throne. Notice that while John uses vivid imagery to describe all the things he saw...he never attempts to describe the one sitting upon the throne...shrouded in glory.

You cannot directly see a form of God whatsoever! He is omnipresent, bro. Everywhere present, no where absent. Only a theophany can be seen, if anything. But theophanies are not direct sightings of God. We would not be able to see beyond the surface of our eyes if we were to see God physically due to his omnipresence.

Okay...let's assume you're right and all these things are mere symbols... if liturgy isn't correct or holy in God's sight... why would God use it as a consistent theme in John's vision? If liturgy was a fitting symbol of what happens in Heaven...there's evidently nothing wrong with it in God's sight.

Who said it was wrong to use symbols? Dumb things, like I think liturgy is (dumb in light of what Revelation was actually saying), are not necessarily "wrong". It's just wrong to say He did not see symbols and to say that Revelation sets the stage for how we should conduct a service and make it dogmatic as the liturgical churches have done.

[Antipas]

Anitpas,

You still never answered why John said He saw One on the throne, while writing in 1 John 4 that no man has ever seen God at any time. How could that be akin to seeing the beaten and bleeding Jesus as a man who was dead, and choosing to describe Him as a lamb in poetic manner?

Remember, the Revelation is a piece of apocalyptic literature. John used heavy symbolism that the early church was quite familiar with. He described the crucified savior in all his power using symbols.

[SmartAlex]

They don't walk up to one sitting upon a throne and take a book their hands either. ;)

John was using vivid imagery to describe Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world.

Baaaaaaa









:)

[mfblume]

...in vivid symbolism, I'd conclude. It's the nature of apocalyptic writing.

Apocalyptic writings made outside of visions are not the same as apocalyptic writings written about visions.

John actually saw four horsemen riding varying coloured horses!

[mfblume]

Remember, the Revelation is a piece of apocalyptic literature. John used heavy symbolism that the early church was quite familiar with. He described the crucified savior in all his power using symbols.

You mean GOD used imagery that the early church was familiar with, and John actually saw those symbols God gave to Him in his eyesight and repeated them in words.

Bro we just will not agree on this, I guess. But you seem to favour your view to support liturgy.

[Antipas]

You cannot directly see a form of God whatsoever! He is omnipresent, bro. Everywhere present, no where absent. Only a theophany can be seen, if anything. But theophanies are not in directly sightings of God. We would nto be able to see beyond the surface of our eyes if we were to see God physically due to his omnipresence.

Wow. You've got God all figured out Bro. Blume. lol

Have you considered that God may have a theophany by which he is manifest before the Hosts of Heaven upon the throne that John saw? Perhaps God can only be seen in such a manifestation. Therefore, though John may have seen God manifest in theophany upon the throne....John still didn't behold, "God", in his fullness because such would be impossible. In addition, should God choose to have a spiritual form of sorts, he is still omnipresent and omniscient. All of creation is before him and nothing is outside of his power.

Who said it was wrong to use symbols? Dumb things, like I think liturgy is (dumb in light of what Revelation was actually saying), are not necessarily "wrong". It's just wrong to say He did not see symbols and to say that Revelation sets the stage for how we should conduct a service and make it dogmatic as the liturgical churches have done.

Liturgy began as a practical tool by which the Scriptures were read and the congregation learned them through repeating them. It was done like that for centuries...most likely starting in early Oneness churches.

The point is that God wouldn't use liturgical and ceremonial worship as a fitting symbol of Heavenly adoration (assuming it's all just symbols) if he absolutely disdained liturgy.

[crakjak]

Sure, schedule a formal move of God.

Don't Pentecostals schedule it every Sunday night at 6:30 PM? LOL

[nwlife]

Actually, I do like the liturgical at times, especially when I am feeling depressed. Every church has it's own form of liturgy.

Inadvertantly, in trying to bring a little of the traditional liturgy into the church I attend in order to save the attendance of some of our members, I think I ran off a few others.

My say is this, while liturgical style worship is great, it isn't needed at every service. One must just take stock of the local congregation and see what they would or would not be comfortable with- then try to find something in between.
I myself have started using responsive readings again from the psalms in our church, and plan to use the teen class I teach now to bring some scripture reading now and then. (Trying to find a way to bring our teens into active worship in the church, and feel a part of the church.)

[commonsense]

What I mean is, when the entire services is so structured that you are going from one program to another...structured. It becomes mechanical when you are not allowed to just spend time freely worshiping

I agree. We had a different freedom of worship as I was growing up. It was in order and proper but still somehow there was a greater freedom.

Choruses selected and practiced in advance; the words projected on the wall<
I'm not against quality singing but it's seems to be more of a show or contest than worship.

[commonsense]

The song leader had a couple songs picked out but nothing was rehearsed.
It wasn't unusual for a request from someone in the congregation.

The service permitted the following of the spirit.

[Hoovie]

Hoovie enters the room.

Scuffles through carrying and swinging a golden mystery pot on chains... odors spew forth.

he leaves murmuring...

[Sherri]

Hoovie enters the room.

Scuffles through carrying and swinging a golden mystery pot on chains... odors spew forth.

he leaves murmuring...I thought you had gotten modern and gotten rid of those chamber pots.

[Coffee99]

There can be a very sweet presence of the Lord and a great reverence for Him in a liturgical service. A liturgical service can be more complete and satisfying than repeated doses of whooping, which is a ritual in some apostolic services. Unless there is running and jumping, many don't feel like "we had a good service 'cause church was dead tonight."

[Hoovie]

There can be a very sweet presence of the Lord and a great reverence for Him in a liturgical service. A liturgical service can be more complete and satisfying than repeated doses of whooping, which is a ritual in some apostolic services. Unless there is running and jumping, many don't feel like "we had a good service 'cause church was dead tonight."

Just for the record... Coffee said that - not me.

Did I mention I enjoy a good cup of coffee?

[A_PoMo]

I agree with Coffee, those runnin' and gunnin' services don't do anything for me except make me tired and a little embarrassed.

[ReformedDave]

I agree with Coffee, those runnin' and gunnin' services don't do anything for me except make me tired and a little embarrassed.

:thumbsup:thumbsup

[ILG]

I agree with Coffee, those runnin' and gunnin' services don't do anything for me except make me tired and a little embarrassed.

I used to really get into those services. To be honest, I think coming down off of them made me a little bent in the brain. I love to worship God, but I find that quieter worship is sometimes more fulfilling. Wilder worship...it's very hard to come down off of and live life. Kind of like coming off a drug.

[ReformedDave]

I used to really get into those services. To be honest, I think coming down off of them made me a little bent in the brain. I love to worship God, but I find that quieter worship is sometimes more fulfilling. Wilder worship...it's very hard to come down off of and live life. Kind of like coming off a drug.

Nothing wrong with worship engaging the mind.......

[ILG]

Nothing wrong with worship engaging the mind.......

Can you elaborate?

[ReformedDave]

Can you elaborate?

Pentecostalism(the rank and file) tends to equate worship primarily with emotional response and not the thinking of God's thoughts after Him.....

[ILG]

Pentecostalism(the rank and file) tends to equate worship primarily with emotional response and not the thinking of God's thoughts after Him.....

Yes, that is true. And while I was in it, I thought that too. But, since leaving, I feel that even though I had definite spiritual experiences during those times, I may have had them in spite of what I was doing and not because of it. I really think it was detrimental to me.

[mfblume]

There can be a very sweet presence of the Lord and a great reverence for Him in a liturgical service. A liturgical service can be more complete and satisfying than repeated doses of whooping, which is a ritual in some apostolic services. Unless there is running and jumping, many don't feel like "we had a good service 'cause church was dead tonight."

Two wrongs do not make a right, though. :)

[clgustaveson]

This thread is so repetitive....

[ReformedDave]

This thread is so repetitive....

And the same thing is repeated many times.........

[clgustaveson]

And the same thing is repeated many times.........

And it's like people keep saying the same things

[mfblume]

And then it repeats again!

[A_PoMo]

And then it repeats again!

ad nauseum. :)

[clgustaveson]

ad infinitum

[mfblume]

energizer bunny-ish

[clgustaveson]

Lets see how many pages we can make this discussion go

[Antipas]

I can see the beauty in liturgy. Direct reading of the Word by an entire congregation is often nice. In addition the homily is normally brief and too the point, with the speaker staying on topic. There's little funny business with hyped up emotionalism or demonstrations of wrinkled brows as the speaker pretends to cry. Theatrics in the pulpit is exactly that...theatrics. I have little tolerance or mercy toward a lot of the theatrics I see. I just saw an evangelist this past weekend faking a cry as he talked about how badly he wanted revival but so many are too "comfortable". I was thinking...if he can't really cry about it he doesn't really want it as badly as he's letting on. I heard an Episcopal Priest offer homily that was too the point, sober, and timely. No ranting, screaming, bombastic language, emotional pleas, ques, or phony crying. It was wonderful.

[clgustaveson]

I can see the beauty in liturgy. Direct reading of the Word by an entire congregation is often nice. In addition the homily is normally brief and too the point, with the speaker staying on topic. There's little funny business with hyped up emotionalism or demonstrations of wrinkled brows as the speaker pretends to cry. Theatrics in the pulpit is exactly that...theatrics. I have little tolerance or mercy toward a lot of the theatrics I see. I just saw an evangelist this past weekend faking a cry as he talked about how badly he wanted revival but so many are too "comfortable". I was thinking...if he can't really cry about it he doesn't really want it as badly as he's letting on. I heard an Episcopal Priest offer homily that was too the point, sober, and timely. No ranting, screaming, bombastic language, emotional pleas, ques, or phony crying. It was wonderful.

k

[mfblume]

Liturgy does indeed appeal to many people. It exudes peace and suchlike. It is of the same philosophy that edifices, shaped like the cross with Mary's-womb-shaped domes in the center, are designed to translate into awe-inspiring physical pictures. To that is connected the Kingdom of God allegedly in the literal City Vatican, etc. It's all part of the same sort of philosophy. I think it is just as fleshly as faked weeping and some of the emotional whooping.

Emotions are created by God. They are not evil. But if we focus on that all the time, we can purely be in the flesh all the time. God's Spirit does direct and guide despite the fakes and the bad examples of some mystic-type preachers. There is a genuine move of the Spirit which cannot be programmed, which liturgy simply disallows.

[Antipas]

Liturgy does indeed appeal to many people. It exudes peace and suchlike. It is of the same philosophy that edifices, shaped like the cross with Mary's-womb-shaped domes in the center, are designed to translate into awe-inspiring physical pictures. To that is connected the Kingdom of God allegedly in the literal City Vatican, etc. It's all part of the same sort of philosophy. I think it is just as fleshly as faked weeping and some of the emotional whooping.

Emotions are created by God. They are not evil. But if we focus on that all the time, we can purely be in the flesh all the time. God's Spirit does direct and guide despite the fakes and the bad examples of some mystic-type preachers. There is a genuine move of the Spirit which cannot be programmed, which liturgy simply disallows.

The same could be said about our ever growing mega church tabernacles where multiplied hundreds of Pentecostals come to worship. Emotions are not evil…but they are not good either. I’ve learned that what I feel emotionally is often very far from the reality. One can feel like they are alright emotionally and be very far from God. One’s emotions can lie to them. Often people learn to feel their emotions and then they think its God. Also emotions can be manipulated and exploited. We cannot go by what we “feel”, be it physically or even emotionally. We must go by what we “know”. A reading from Scripture, if believed, settles into being what we “know”…even if our emotions don’t “feel” it. Also I think our hype and emotionalism has created a class of Christians who don’t like “dead church”. All too often when Christians talk about a “dead church” what they’re meaning to say is that the service wasn’t “entertaining”. The preacher didn’t get up and scream, holler, spit, speak with vibrato, jump off the platform, walk the pews, tell entertaining stories, or make them laugh. I see nothing wrong with these kinds of things…but it’s become a Pentecostal art form among us that has created an “entertain me” church in America. Sadly too many of these carnal entertainment seekers would completely miss the opportunity to have their souls transformed by the power of the congregational reading of Scripture and brief commentary that speaks directly to the point without the fluff.

A move of the Spirit is't something that is always decernable through physical demonstrations. Often it's powerful and completely invisible, only experienced by the individual. God is not hindered one bit by liturgy. He can move upon the heart and soul in ways that are ever so still and silent. In a sense...we as Pentecostals think that a move of God has to be accompanied by physical demonstrations...in truth...God can transform the heart merely by a reading that challenges the heart and weighs upon the conscience for a few days until the individual gives in and begins to live as God has commanded. That's a move of God. Sadly, many "moves of God" are just hyped up people in an emotional frenzy. They leave the way they came, they're just sweaty.

[mfblume]

The same could be said about our ever growing mega church tabernacles where multiplied hundreds of Pentecostals come to worship. Emotions are not evil…but they are not good either. I’ve learned that what I feel emotionally is often very far from the reality. One can feel like they are alright emotionally and be very far from God. One’s emotions can lie to them. Often people learn to feel their emotions and then they think its God. Also emotions can be manipulated and exploited. We cannot go by what we “feel”, be it physically or even emotionally. We must go by what we “know”. A reading from Scripture, if believed, settles into being what we “know”…even if our emotions don’t “feel” it. Also I think our hype and emotionalism has created a class of Christians who don’t like “dead church”.
That is all true, but there is also a reality where God is actually inspiring the emotions and it is Spirit led. We just cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater.

All too often when Christians talk about a “dead church” what they’re meaning to say is that the service wasn’t “entertaining”. The preacher didn’t get up and scream, holler, spit, speak with vibrato, jump off the platform, walk the pews, tell entertaining stories, or make them laugh. I see nothing wrong with these kinds of things…but it’s become a Pentecostal art form among us that has created an “entertain me” church in America. Sadly too many of these carnal entertainment seekers would completely miss the opportunity to have their souls transformed by the power of the congregational reading of Scripture and brief commentary that speaks directly to the point without the fluff.

I agree.

A move of the Spirit is't something that is always decernable through physical demonstrations. Often it's powerful and completely invisible, only experienced by the individual. God is not hindered one bit by liturgy.

Sure He is. He is limited. Liturgy often if not in all cases, has the ministers of the same denomination preaching exactly the same sermon in every church across the nation. There is no room for Spirit leading in the ministry of the Word. None. And our circles have that same error with the "quarterlies" in my opinion. The gifts of the Spirit, if one still believes they exist, are given no room in liturgy whatsoever, as an other example.

He can move upon the heart and soul in ways that are ever so still and silent. In a sense...we as Pentecostals think that a move of God has to be accompanied by physical demonstrations...in truth...God can transform the heart merely by a reading that challenges the heart and weighs upon the conscience for a few days until the individual gives in and begins to live as God has commanded. That's a move of God. Sadly, many "moves of God" are just hyped up people in an emotional frenzy. They leave the way they came, they're just sweaty.

Although you're right about moves of God in individuals, there are also moves of God in mass degrees with everyone altogether. I've seen things that can only be attributed to outright miraculous moves of God. I've personally received a word of prophecy in a service that was exactly the chapter and verse scripture and message the pastor was moved onto preach, before anyone knew the preacher had that message and before the man preached it! Liturgy would never allow for that to manifest.

[Antipas]

That is all true, but there is also a reality where God is actually inspiring the emotions and it is Spirit led. We just cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater.

God inspires emotions in liturgical services also. There are moments when tears stream down, moments of deep reflection and praise in the heart during service. One thing about liturgical services I enjoy...mediation on it later at home. The message is brief and to the point, meaning you're not left wondering what all the preacher talked about because you can't remember what all he said. The point is brief, to the point, and directly connected to the passage in question. It's far more sound.

Sure He is. He is limited. Liturgy often if not in all cases, has the ministers of the same denomination preaching exactly the same sermon in every church across the nation.

I'm curious as to where you came up with that idea. The Missal and the Lectionary chart the readings throughout the year. However, the homily (sermon) is largely at the priest's discretion. The priest preaches what the Spirit leads him to preach concerning the passage assigned. Other passages are often referred to though not read in their entirety if the priest feels it necessary. Also, it's interesting how the Missal and the Lectionary, which charts out each reading of the year ahead of time, can be found to directly address issues facing the church and even individuals in the congregation. It's often attributed to God's omniscient power that he knew far ahead of time what readings were needed and then inspired the priest to deliver a timely homily. There are also special readings for special occasions, and the priest has leverage here in the homily also. So while the church in question may be united GLOBALLY reading the SAME reading, each priest will surprisingly deliver very different and unique homilies. This often regarded as a blessed unity because after all...there is only ONE church.

Also, the entire church may navigate most of the Bible within a year or two...whereas with most Pentecostal churches reading the entire Bible is entirely left to the individual. Most Pentecostal churches I've attended throughout my years in Pentecost NEVER navigated the entire Bible within a five year period. Often the same old tired passages are read as the Pastor only preaches what he knows best and ignores vast passages of Scripture. In a Liturgical church priests are challenged to deliver as they minister in the Word...if they are unfamiliar with a passage...they are expected to STUDY and deliver ministry to the people.

There is no room for Spirit leading in the ministry of the Word. None. And our circles have that same error with the "quarterlies" in my opinion. The gifts of the Spirit, if one still believes they exist, are given no room in liturgy whatsoever, as an other example.

I care to differ. A priest may deliver a homily as he feels directed by the Spirit. Also, a priest can digress to address a pressing issue if serious enough as to warrant addressing the congregation. Most issues are handled privately and directly with individual members if counseling is necessary after confessional. No vague references over the heads of the congregation to hit the one who "needs a Word".

Here's one that I've always been amazed with. I've known ministers to labor in fasting and prayer for a sermon. Then when behind the pulpit, after the song, during the prayer, he changes gears and suddenly God was mistaken...now God doesn't want him to preach the message he got in prayer. Now God wants him to preach something else. Remember, God is omniscient. Didn't God know what would be needed for the service? Or was the preacher in the flesh when he got his message the night before? Or is the preacher in the flesh now, abandoning the Word that God gave him in prayer to follow the emotional "crowd dynamic" at work? Many think a preacher that does such a thing is spiritual. But I find that hard to believe. When I preached, if God gave me a message the night before, no dynamic in the service made me deviate from what God gave me. I'd allow things to cool down or bring things in order gently and deliver what God gave me. Word trumps emotional crowd dynamics. I just trust that God knew what was needed the night before regardless of the dynamic at work in the congregation. God is all knowing and NEVER makes a mistake.

Although you're right about moves of God in individuals, there are also moves of God in mass degrees with everyone altogether. I've seen things that can only be attributed to outright miraculous moves of God. I've personally received a word of prophecy in a service that was exactly the chapter and verse scripture and message the pastor was moved onto preach, before anyone knew the preacher had that message and before the man preached it! Liturgy would never allow for that to manifest.

Perhaps if there was a God ordained liturgy God wouldn't need to intervene in such a manner, his church would be in order from the very start of the service. Like the carnal preacher who evidently didn't hear from God the night before. Amazingly the Missal and homily would directly address situations facing the church and individuals. Anything left unaddressed could be directly handled in the confessional or in private counsel.

[mfblume]

God inspires emotions in liturgical services also. There are moments when tears stream down, moments of deep reflection and praise in the heart during service. One thing about liturgical services I enjoy...mediation on it later at home. The message is brief and to the point, meaning you're not left wondering what all the preacher talked about because you can't remember what all he said. The point is brief, to the point, and directly connected to the passage in question. It's far more sound.

I'm curious as to where you came up with that idea. The Missal and the Lectionary chart the readings throughout the year. However, the homily (sermon) is largely at the priest's discretion. The priest preaches what the Spirit leads him to preach concerning the passage assigned.

"...the passage assigned." Exactly my point.

Other passages are often referred to though not read in their entirety if the priest feels it necessary. Also, it's interesting how the Missal and the Lectionary, which charts out each reading of the year ahead of time, can be found to directly address issues facing the church and even individuals in the congregation. It's often attributed to God's omniscient power that he knew far ahead of time what readings were needed and then inspired the priest to deliver a timely homily. There also special readings for special occasions, and the priest has leverage here in the homily also. So while the church in question may be united GLOBALLY reading the SAME reading, each priest will surprisingly deliver very different and unique homilies. That often regarded as a blessed unity because after all...there is only ONE church.

Issues vary from one church body to another throughout the actual one true church. And for that reason even Paul said things to the Corinthians he said to none others.

Let's face it, liturgical church is certainly not the way Paul would have run a service -- Not to say certain other forms are the way, either, though.


Also, the entire church may navigate the most of the Bible within a year or two...whereas with most Pentecostal churches reading the entire Bible is entirely left to the individual. Most Pentecostal churches I've attended throughout my years in Pentecost NEVER navigated the entire Bible within a five year period. Often the same old tired passages are read as the Pastor only preaches what he knows best and ignores vast passages of Scripture. In a Liturgical church priests are challenged to deliver as they minister in the Word...if they are unfamiliar with a passage...they are expected to STUDY and deliver ministry to the people.

There are some good points. But you know as well as I that supernatural manifestations that accompanied Paul's ministry, for example, do not occur in those realms. If one believes the gifts ceased, I still change not in this respect. :)

I care to differ. A priest may deliver a homily as he feels directed by the Spirit. Also, a priest can digress to address a pressing issue if serious enough as to warrant addressing the congregation. Most issues are handled privately and directly with individual members if counseling is necessary after confessional. No vague references over the heads of the congregation to hit the one who "needs a Word".

Your very language about specific ministering to perhaps one person shows you simply do not believe in it.

Here's one that I've always been amazed with. I've known ministers to labor in fasting and prayer for a sermon. Then when behind the pulpit, after the song, during the prayer, he changes gears and suddenly God was mistaken...now God doesn't want him to preach the message he got in prayer. Now God wants him to preach something else. Remember, God is omniscient. Didn't God know what would be needed for the service? Or was the preacher in the flesh when he got his message the night before?

Again, you are taking some reproaches and throwing out the baby as though God does not actually move in on-the-spot inspiration. By reason of whom the way of truth is evil spoken.

Perhaps if there was a God ordained liturgy God wouldn't need to intervene in such a manner,

Think of it. Those liturgical priests could not believe God for such a manifestation of the word of prophecy if their lives depended upon it. I mean, really.

his church would be in order from the very start of the service.

You again show you were miffed by the false and think none move and operate in the reality of such a thing.

Anyway, you sound convinced. I am, too.

[Antipas]

"...the passage assigned." Exactly my point.

The passage assigned by God ordained authority that is ordained to govern the church. The homily can be as the Spirit leads the priest, however, it will expound upon the passage in question. Ministers are servants...that teach the Word, not Lords who can just teach whatever they wish. Sadly I've seen Pentecostal preachers preach the same passage or actually the same sermon from different passages for weeks. How starved and spiritually weak the congregation becomes....

Issues vary from one church body to another throughout the actual one true church. And for that reason even Paul said things to the Corinthians he said to none others.

There is nothing that prevents a minister in a liturgical church from addressing the issue or writing an article to the congregation as Paul did the Corinthian church. Such is typically done separately from the liturgy. The liturgy is regarded as instrumental for teaching the Word and for unity of the global body. Addressing issues specific to each church can be done without neglecting the liturgy.

Let's face it, liturgical church is certainly not the way Paul would have run a service -- Not to say certain other forms are the way, either, though.


Paul was Jewish. In Judaism the teacher would read from the Torah scroll and the congregants would repeat the verses as they were read. Then the teacher would expound upon the text. It was very much like a liturgy. Paul may not have taken this tactic with Gentiles who didn't observe such a practice. But it's interesting that within the first 100 years of Christianity the church took upon itself a liturgical mode similar to the synagogue reading and congregation repeating. Where did they learn it? Most likely....Paul. Liturgy is a tool used to teach the Word and keep the body in unity.

There are some good points. But you know as well as I that supernatural manifestations that accompanied Paul's ministry, for example, do not occur in those realms. If one believes the gifts ceased, I still change not in this respect. :)

I think if you studied it out you'd find that just considering the Catholic church the number of confirmed miracles and manifestations of the supernatural far outnumber the sporadic manifestations in modern Pentecost. Everything from stigmata, to crying statues, to healing spring waters, bleeding crucifixes, healing vigils, angelic visitations, visions, and manifestations of saints, etc. You are right about outbursts that interrupted the reading of the Word and the homily would not be tolerated. But God has manifested untold numbers of confirmed miracles, signs, visions, and wonders in liturgical churches.

Your very language about specific ministering to perhaps one person shows you simply do not believe in it.

I believe in it. I've done it. But in retrospect I think I should have approached the individual and asked them to join me in private counsel. What I'm saying is that I don't think it's a positive thing to sniper at a person from the pulpit with vague statements about their condition. Especially in moments of a heightened emotional state in the church. It's manipulative. It's happened to me too. I know a minister who knows some things I've been going through attempt to drop word bombs my way to "speak to my situation". I just shake my head and wish he'd preach the Word. If God gave him a Word for me...I'd appreciate it if he simply asked to speak to me about it.

Again, you are taking some reproaches and throwing out the baby as though God does not actually move in on-the-spot inspiration. By reason of whom the way of truth is evil spoken.

I've seen God move in on-the-spot inspiration. On one occasion a preacher just didn't hear from God and didn't prepare a sermon. He went up to the pulpit with a passage in mind but nothing to really "preach". When God began moving he began just following the Spirit. God didn't give him a sermon, because God (who knows the future) knew he'd move in a special way. However, I'm talking about a man who "hears from God" to prepare a sermon and then ditches it at the last minute. Now, either God gave him the message to preach or he didn't. God knows the future. God wouldn't be so confused as to give a man a sermon and then say, "No, wait, I was wrong. Preach this..." lol

Think of it. Those liturgical priests could not believe God for such a manifestation of the word of prophecy if their lives depended upon it. I mean, really.

I know of many who might not...and many who might. It's unfair to lump them all together. Besides...a liturgical church functions on a different level. The liturgy brings unity and sound reading and teaching. God inspired advice is typically one on one in confession or counsel.

I'm not "convinced" of anything. I'm just open minded. I've been a Pentecostal for going on 20 years and I've preached behind a Pentecostal pulpit. Recently I've been drawn to experience the liturgical side of things. It's different, but it's not altogether as bad as you make it out to be.

By the way...historically speaking, even early Modalists and Monarchians (Oneness believers) maintained liturgies in their churches along with prophetic giftings.