Come Out Of Her My People

[shag]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I think you are missing the point of what is really being said here.

do tell

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by shag

I'll tell u what, lets make this simple. U show a list of all the new covenant scripture that refers to a man made structure or bldg as "The House of God or Gods House". And I'll show a list of the new covenant scriptures that refers to the body of Christ as "The House of God" or Gods House. Then we'll compare. Deal?


Then we can talk about why u have no nt scripture for something that's "not a big deal".

You are missing the point. I never said the NT refers to a building called blah blah...

I responded to your statement about man made buildings by pointing out a man made building in the OT was called "house of God" and nodody made a big drama deal about it. Lol

Its a waste of time getting upset over it

BTW Jesus called a man made buiding "my Father's House"

John 2:16-17 NKJV

And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!” Then His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up.”

Why do you suppose its called "house of God"? Why do you suppose Jesus called it "my Father's house"?

Its not that big a deal they call it that. I see no reason to be bothered they do

[shag]

Old covenant, pre cross, along w the animal sacrifices...That's why I said list new covenant scriptures. Why do u suppose there are zero to support what you're saying, but many supporting what I'm saying?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by shag

Old covenant, pre cross, along w the animal sacrifices...That's why I said list new covenant scriptures. Why do u suppose there are zero to support what you're saying, but many supporting what I'm saying?

Its still a man made building.

What do you believe I am saying? This should be good...please answer my questions too

[shag]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Its still a man made building.

What do you believe I am saying? This should be good...please answer my questions too

U are saying that a bldg where the NT church gathers, is Gods House, as well as the church itself. Both.

I am saying, the man made bldg is not Gods House, according to nt teaching, but rather the church is Gods House, according to New Testament, which is post cross, new and better covenant, teaching.

I am also saying u do not have any scripture to support a man made Gods House in the new and better covenant. But there are many supporting the church as Gods House.


Is that not correct?


I am also saying, u might as well pee on the fire and call in the dogs, cause you're trying to argue against nc scripture, that points out Gods OT House made w hands was kicked to the curb, now His House is the church.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by shag

U are saying that a bldg where the NT church gathers, is Gods House, as well as the church itself. Both.

No. Thats not what Im saying or what I said. After explaining it more than twice it appears you won't get it.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

So what's the big deal if someone calls it a house of God, house of worship, church building, temple, tabernacle, meeting house, house of meeting, or assembly? The Bible calls the building a synagogue which is Greek for assembly?

We should call Bible things by Bible names.

Jesus warned us about traditions of men, and how they are often used to make void the Word of God. By calling the meeting-house 'the house of God' we do several things:

1. We instill and reinforce the unbiblical notion that God dwells in temples made with hands. The first martyr of our Lord died because he strictly affirmed that God does NOT dwell in houses made with hands. By constantly speaking of the meeting-house as 'God's house' we inadvertently cheapen his testimony and its importance and significance.

2. Related to number 1 above, the new covenant is RADICAL. It is a RADICAL departure from old covenant religion. It is a RADICAL departure and indeed a RADICAL repudiation of many of the Pharisees' and Sadducees' (and the Gentiles' as well) ideas of God, religion, piety, and practically everything else. One of those RADICAL ideological (theological) elements of new covenant religion is the idea that God has REJECTED physical temples ('houses') as being insufficient and temporary relics of a by-gone and now-rendered-moot paradigm and form of religion. God dwells in a PEOPLE by His Spirit, not in a building. One worships God 24/7, on a daily basis in daily life, not merely at set times in set places (see Jesus' statements to the woman of Samaria, for example).

Words mean something. 'What difference does it make?' is the ideology of people like Hillary Clinton, not disciples of Jesus. By speaking of a meeting place as 'God's house', indeed by speaking of a meeting-house as a 'church', we deny by our words one of the fundamental bases of new covenant reality. We ought to abstain from such things.

3. We are commanded to 'hold fast the form of sound WORDS, which we have learned' from the apostles. The apostles never referred to a meeting place as 'God's house', and their theology does not allow for such a concept. By departing from the apostolic 'sound words', and calling bible things by unbiblical names, we may still be speaking theology, but it's not the apostles' theology.

4. We are forbidden to cause children to stumble. Children, when told that the building is God's 'house', do not immediately self-correct by thinking 'well, that's just a common, cultural term and really it isn't, because the house of God, or temple of God, or CHURCH is the people themselves'. Instead, they simply take what is said at face value, and are led into the darkness of ignorance of just what it really means when Paul says 'know ye not that YE are the temple of God?'.

5. Calling the meeting-house 'God's house' or 'the church' is indicative of a mind-set and an ecclesiology that is sub-biblical and quite frankly ignorant. I have had a pastor tell me that you can't have a move of God in a living room like you can in a church building. And he was serious. Carnal people crave and require the proper 'set and setting' to have a glorious religious 'experience'. Temples and cathedrals and such-like are designed for just that. And thus is demonstrated that many people's 'Pentecostalism' is just exactly that - another '-ism'. We have replaced Pentecost with this PentecostalISM. We must have our special building, our special music, our special musicians, our special speakers, our special occasions to meet our special God and have our special ecstatic experiences. When what we really need is to come and meet Abba.

6. An analogy: Is it proper and okay for us to call the Lord's supper 'the Eucharist'? Why not? What difference does it make? Should we speak of the Lord's Supper as 'the Sacrifice of the Mass'? Again, what difference does it make? Obviously, we should not be doing those things, because of all the theological baggage that comes with them. Same with calling the meeting-house a 'church' or 'God's house' - it carries with it a lot of theological baggage.

Is ignorance of said baggage an excuse to continue toting that luggage?

These are just a few reason why some of us prefer to seek to be as Biblical as possible. Others are content with not rocking the boat or making a fuss. YMMV.

Peace.

[Praxeas]

Why should we call bible things by bible words?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Why should we call bible things by bible words?

Because words mean something.

God's thoughts are expressed by his words.

His words are perfect.

Historically, when Christians began using unscriptural terminology, the result was trinitarianism, Arianism, and a whole host of other isms. Servetus pointed out the bible knows no such things as the 'theological terminology of the Scholastics and Doctors of divinity' who were the constant unending source of heresies and schisms.

Shall we call 'justification' by a different, unbiblical term? A term that taken at face value is opposite to the biblical meaning of justification? Shall we take a term that means one thing, and apply it to justification (which the term does not mean), and say 'well, who cares?'

Does it matter what is said in baptism?

Do words mean anything anymore?

Or is it all lost in a slough of relativism?

Why should we call sin SIN? Should we be happy and content to speak about 'homosexuals' or 'gays' instead of sodomites? Shall we call it 'shacking up' or 'living together' and refuse to call it fornication?

We should call Bible things by Bible names, meaning, we should hold fast the FORM OF SOUND WORDS delivered to us by the apostles and prophets.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Because words mean something.

God's thoughts are expressed by his words.

His words are perfect.

Historically, when Christians began using unscriptural terminology, the result was trinitarianism, Arianism, and a whole host of other isms. Servetus pointed out the bible knows no such things as the 'theological terminology of the Scholastics and Doctors of divinity' who were the constant unending source of heresies and schisms.

Shall we call 'justification' by a different, unbiblical term? A term that taken at face value is opposite to the biblical meaning of justification? Shall we take a term that means one thing, and apply it to justification (which the term does not mean), and say 'well, who cares?'

Does it matter what is said in baptism?

Do words mean anything anymore?

Or is it all lost in a slough of relativism?

Why should we call sin SIN? Should we be happy and content to speak about 'homosexuals' or 'gays' instead of sodomites? Shall we call it 'shacking up' or 'living together' and refuse to call it fornication?

We should call Bible things by Bible names, meaning, we should hold fast the FORM OF SOUND WORDS delivered to us by the apostles and prophets.

Words mean something does not mean we have to ONLY use the words the bible uses.

Is God upset if I call a Homosexual "gay" or "a sodomite" or "Homosexual"?

Why can't I call fornication "Shacking up" or "unlawful sexual intercourse"? Does the bible say it's a sin to not use words specifically in the bible or for that matter just one particular translation of the bible?

Your last statement is a repeat of your assertion but I see no biblical evidence we have to only use words found in the bible and in particular one specific Translation.

The bible never speaks of "sound words", it speaks of "sound doctrine"