Come Out Of Her My People

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Pliny

I guess we all better learn Hebrew and Greek...

Please explain how this is a logical conclusion to my premises?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 2 Tim 1:13

If you felt it important to 'hold fast the form of sound words', you would have known that was in the Bible, Prax.

[Esaias]

Lots of folks see nothing wrong with holding on to their traditions of men and denominationalism.

But some folks aren't interested in doing that.

A great gulf seems fixed between the two.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Pliny

I guess we all better learn Hebrew and Greek...

You know what they say Pliny, if the KJV was good enough for Jesus and the apostles, its good enough for us.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Esaias

We should call Bible things by Bible names.


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.


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.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Please explain how this is a logical conclusion to my premises?

You said we should call Bible things by Bible names. Those are Hebrew and Greek not English.
You said, after stating we should call things by their biblical names that those words mean things. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that we should again use Hebrew and Greek terms not English.
You then stated that some "prefer" to seek to be as biblical as possible - that would mean once again Hebrew and Greek.


Please demonstrate where anyone here said the people are not the temple of God.

As to calling a man-made structure "the house of God" I see no issue with it.
It is understood that God does not physically dwell in houses. He is omnipresent and every Christian should know that the earth is His footstool etc.
Instruments throughout time have been set aside as instruments for religious observances. There is also nothing wrong with consecrating things to God. Objects that have been set aside should be taken care of as the care we take of them signify the respect we have for God Himself. Does He need those items? Of course not. We however, need to respect God and those things we offer to Him including buildings for corporate worship. When they are consecrated to Him it does indeed become "His house".

As to the various remarks concerning NT verses juxtaposed to OT verses allow me this indulgence:
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Note: "All" includes the OT.

1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.


BTW the word "law" used in Jeremiah means Torah - the OT. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly people are to dismiss the OT when God in fact wants it written upon our hearts.


Just my thoughts from the cheap seats.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

You know what they say Pliny, if the KJV was good enough for Jesus and the apostles, its good enough for us.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Pliny

You said we should call Bible things by Bible names. Those are Hebrew and Greek not English.
You said, after stating we should call things by their biblical names that those words mean things. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that we should again use Hebrew and Greek terms not English.
You then stated that some "prefer" to seek to be as biblical as possible - that would mean once again Hebrew and Greek.

So then, you believe (honestly, now!) that to 'be as biblical as possible' means to revert to Greek and Hebrew? Is it possible to 'be as biblical AS POSSIBLE', as an English speaker, while retaining an English translation of Scripture? While expressing the apostolic teaching sin English, rather in Greek? If you do believe that, then our differences go further than the subject of this thread. If you do not believe that, then you have no basis to claim that I am demanding we revert only to Greek and Hebrew. I am not claiming we need to. I certainly believe the Scriptures can and ought to be translated into the disciple's native tongue. And I believe that english speaking people can 'be as biblical as possible' while retaining English.

Please demonstrate where anyone here said the people are not the temple of God.

I did not claim people believe that. I am saying the words people use, such as calling the meeting house 'the house of God', implies such a thing. Referring to the meeting house as 'God's house' implies things that the speaker is likely not thinking of, aware of, or intending... thus those who speak of the meeting house as 'God's house' are speaking ignorantly. Surely it is a worthy goal to try not to speak ignorantly, is it not?

As to calling a man-made structure "the house of God" I see no issue with it.
It is understood that God does not physically dwell in houses. He is omnipresent and every Christian should know that the earth is His footstool etc.
Instruments throughout time have been set aside as instruments for religious observances. There is also nothing wrong with consecrating things to God. Objects that have been set aside should be taken care of as the care we take of them signify the respect we have for God Himself. Does He need those items? Of course not. We however, need to respect God and those things we offer to Him including buildings for corporate worship. When they are consecrated to Him it does indeed become "His house".

Therefore when the priest consecrates the wafer it becomes holy? When a bishop consecrates the articles used in their mass, such as croiers, gowns, robes, and so forth, are they thereby God's? Is it possible that God doesn't want us to ADD to the religion he delivered to us? Did God anywhere command that we, under the New covenant, consecrate buildings to Him, and call them 'His House'? How far does this 'will-worship' go?

As to the various remarks concerning NT verses juxtaposed to OT verses allow me this indulgence:

Not sure who this is addressed to, as I did not make any remarks juxtaposing OT scriptures with NT scriptures. I did however juxtapose the Old COVENANT with the NEW covenant.

Just my thoughts from the cheap seats.

Well, you get what you pay for.

[Esaias]

What we say is an expression of what we believe. 'As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he' etc. What people believe, the religion they hold to, is often expressed by their mouths. Not only when asked, when pressed, when demanded of to give a confession of their faith, but also in the 'little things', in the 'little idle words' they speak daily.

For example, the evangelical will prattle on and on about how they 'asked Jesus into their heart' and how you should too, and how they 'prayed and were saved' and how you should too. They speak of 'the altar call' and how they 'got saved at an altar call'.

The apostles never said such things. And such speaking would have been foreign to them and to their understanding. The apostles had a different religion than the modern evangelical, and it shows how different their speech is one from the other. the apostle says 'baptism saves us' yet the evangelical prattles endlessly about how 'baptism most certainly does NOT save us'. Why the difference in speech? Because of the difference in religion.

Likewise, the modern denominationalist prattles on about 'the house of God'. The apostles never did, and such speaking would have been foreign to them. Why the difference in speech? Because of the difference in religion.

If we have the religion of the apostles, it would move us to speak as they did. That is to say (pay attention now), we would express theological truths using the same patterns they did, because our thoughts on those truths would be the same as theirs.

In other words, if we have the same religion as the apostles, we will speak of baptism in the same way. We will speak of being born again the same way (we won't intentionally or otherwise forget all about that water and spirit thing, like our evangelical friends). We will speak of sanctification the same way (and thus we won't be blustering about a 'second definite work of grace' like our Nazarene friends). We will speak of being baptised with the Spirit the same way (and thus we won't embarass ourselves with talk of a 'second work' in regards to the subject of Spirit baptism).

And so forth. We will speak of the TEMPLE OF GOD the same way as the apostles too, and won't be so shoddy as to mistakenly apply the names, which God uses of His bride and people, to some building of wood or stone.

Words mean something. They reveal our theology, in fact.

As STUDENTS (disciples) of the Lord Jesus, we should be striving to think they way He wants us to think, to have the same understanding He has, and which He taught to His first disciples, who were charged with passing that understanding on to the next generation.

Now, if it doesn't matter to you, and you feel inclined to maintain the traditional ways of doing things, have fun.

But if you are inclined to keep the faith once delivered to the saints, if you are inclined to seek after the original apostolic doctrine and way, then refrain from calling those things which be not Biblical as though they were.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So you have no problem with people being baptised in the titles then? After all, they appear in the Bible (in connection with baptism, even).

No, because that is soteriology, are you saying that the old sister will lose her soul for calling the building the house of God?

Originally Posted by Esaias

Eucharist does not appear as a DESIGNATION for the Lord's Supper or for the bread and wine.

I already explained the meaning of εὐχαριστέω that it means giving of thanks, and furthermore it is used when you were breaking the bread at a dinner table. Didn't say it meant transubstantiation, or communion, but giving of thanks. You want to use Bible words, then eucharist is a Bible word.

Originally Posted by Esaias

If an old sister in the church refers to the meeting house as 'the house of God' she should be reminded that the house is no more God's house than her own house or apartment or mobile home is - and to the same extent, and for the same reasons, and nothing more.

She knows the teaching of the Body of Christ better than you or I, but still refers to the building (or any meeting place) as the house of God. Will she go to Hell?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So then, you believe (honestly, now!) that to 'be as biblical as possible' means to revert to Greek and Hebrew? Is it possible to 'be as biblical AS POSSIBLE', as an English speaker, while retaining an English translation of Scripture? While expressing the apostolic teaching sin English, rather in Greek? If you do believe that, then our differences go further than the subject of this thread. If you do not believe that, then you have no basis to claim that I am demanding we revert only to Greek and Hebrew. I am not claiming we need to. I certainly believe the Scriptures can and ought to be translated into the disciple's native tongue. And I believe that english speaking people can 'be as biblical as possible' while retaining English.

So now you want to change what YOU said. That's fine...
I wonder if you use the term rapture to... That would seem hypocritical to someone who wants only to use biblical language.

Originally Posted by Esaias

I did not claim people believe that. I am saying the words people use, such as calling the meeting house 'the house of God', implies such a thing. Referring to the meeting house as 'God's house' implies things that the speaker is likely not thinking of, aware of, or intending... thus those who speak of the meeting house as 'God's house' are speaking ignorantly. Surely it is a worthy goal to try not to speak ignorantly, is it not?

Now you know what the "speaker" thinks???
Pretty judgmental of you isn't it? You see m to know more about what the speaker implies than the speaker himself.
Thus we see whose ignorance is really showing.

Do you believe we can give things to God?
If so are they not His when they are consecrated to Him?

Originally Posted by Esaias

Therefore when the priest consecrates the wafer it becomes holy? When a bishop consecrates the articles used in their mass, such as croiers, gowns, robes, and so forth, are they thereby God's? Is it possible that God doesn't want us to ADD to the religion he delivered to us? Did God anywhere command that we, under the New covenant, consecrate buildings to Him, and call them 'His House'? How far does this 'will-worship' go?

Please show me where God told us NOT to set aside buildings to Him.
If you can't then you are making an argument based upon silence. You have no scriptural standing to say the church cannot purchase a property for the express purpose of corporate worship. When the OT is used it has been dismissed as the "Old Covenant". Yet, Jesus said He did not come to destroy the Old Covenant, rather He came to fulfill it.

Jeremiah prophesied that God would write the Torah upon our hearts.
Paul told Timothy that ALL SCRIPTURE is profitable for doctrine etc.

Therefore, since it was okay to set aside a place for the worship of God it is still okay to set aside a place for the worship of God. When set aside it is properly His house.

BTW your allegory of the wafer is not the same as a building.
A wafer is eaten by people not God.
A robe is worn by the priest not God.

A place of worship is a place where people gather to worship God and God does meet them there.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Not sure who this is addressed to, as I did not make any remarks juxtaposing OT scriptures with NT scriptures. I did however juxtapose the Old COVENANT with the NEW covenant.

So you believe the Old Testament is not the Old Covenant???
Bizarre to say the least!
ISBE:
Testament
tes´ta-ment: The word διαθήκη, diathḗkē, almost invariably rendered “covenant,” was rendered in the King James Version “testament” in Heb_9:16, Heb_9:17, in the sense of a will to dispose of property after the maker's death.


The etymological force of the Hebrew berı̄th is not entirely certain. It is probable that the word is the same as the Assyrian birı̂tu, which has the common meaning “fetter,” but also means “covenant.” The significance of the root from which this Assyrian word is derived is uncertain. It is probable that it is “to bind,” but that is not definitely established. The meaning of birı̂tu as covenant seems to come directly from the root, rather than as a derived meaning from fetter. If this root idea is to bind, the covenant is that which binds together the parties. This, at any rate, is in harmony with the general meaning of the word.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Well, you get what you pay for.

As expected...