CAN ANYONE SOLVE THIS MYSTERY?

In 3 distinct passages in the New Testament God makes it very clear that those who commit the act of sodomy cannot go to heaven unless they repent and stop doing it.

The world says: "Those passages are not culturally relative to our modern society, sodomy is OK".

The Church agrees with God and rejects the world's philosophy.

Yet...

In 5 distinct passages in the New Testament, God makes it very clear that He wants His children to greet one another with a holy kiss.

The world says: "If a man kisses another man or shows any kind of affection to him, he is a sodomite at heart."

The Church agrees with the world and rejects God's admonition as culturally irrelative.

Why are you insisting that people in the American church go around kissing on each other?

In America folks shake hands or give a hug if they know the person a little better to greet them.

In the Middle East and the Mediterranean area in Paul's day a kiss on the cheek was an accepted greeting. So that is why Paul said to greet each other this way. If this had not already been a custom, Paul would not have commended cheek kissing.

If handshaking was the cultural norm back then in that locale, he would have said "greet each other with a holy handshake."

It's a mystery alright.

Greeting each other with a holy kiss is the same in our cultural as shaking hands. Look in the Middle East and the practice this kissing. They kiss one cheek and then the other and then back to the original and end..............it is just like shaking hands. It isn't mouth to mouth and it isn't sexual. Don't allow your itchy ears to redefine this so as to make homosexuality promoted in the bible.

Quote by op: "God's admonition"

How can op be accused of anything? His logic is sound. If the bible is the infallible 100% literal word of God right down to every jot and tittle then he is right. We are picking and choosing. His confusion on this matter is a natural result of being taught a wrong understanding of the bible. If this was merely cultural and not important now then there are parts of the bible that were written for the people to whom they were actually addressed (what a "duh" statement) and not for us 2000 years in the future. Of course they are profitable for study, teaching, rebuking etc because they were written in the Spirit. Our (protestant) perspective of scripture is warped and it leads to this confused warped way of thinking.

John- I don't believe the OP is saying the Bible condones homosexuality.

He is saying on one hand the Church ignores plain statements about homosexuality in the NT by being permissive, i.e. Being tolerant of homosexuality.

Then the church at least in the US does not practice the holy kiss of men v men because of a perceived stigma of homosexuality of man kissing.

So on the one hand, he argues, the church could care less about homosexuality and on the other is so freaked out by it that it does not practice what he seems to be saying is a NT command for all christians everywhere- the holy kiss.

I just think his premise is wrong that the holy kiss is a command.

Brothers, do you realize what you are affirming here? By your argument that a hand shake is the cultural equivalent to a kiss, you are declaring that the Bible is not the Word of God to be taken literally for all generations, but that it is to be applied based on the culture that it is introduced to and not as it is written. The LGBT crowd is using YOUR SAME LOGIC to affirm that God is OK with sodomy.

They are saying things like: "If same sex union was the cultural norm back then in that locale, he would have said ‘Husbands love your husbands and/or wives’ "

DEADn, you use the term "homosexuality” because that is the term you were taught. It was coined in the late 1800s. It has come to convey the idea that some people are "wired” to erotically love men as women which is a lie from hell. God created nobody with inclinations to a certain sin. Man falls for the temptation to sin and then he gets addicted to that sin. Until he is set free by Jesus he remains addicted.

The Bible condemns sodomy (sexual activity between members of the same sex). Eternity in hell is the consequence if there is no genuine repentance. The Bible calls kissing between members of the same sex holy. It also holds in high esteem embracing. Intimate physical affection between members of the same sex (as is common in the Middle East) is never condemned in the Bible. It is presented as a good thing.

Our society has built an ideology that people are either "gay” or "straight” (homo or hetero) which goes against the teaching of the Bible. What the Bible calls good (men embracing, leaning the head on the breast of another, kissing) our corrupt society calls these holy and innocent things "gay” associating them with the sin of sodomy.

IS GOD RIGHT, OR IS OUR SOCIETY RIGHT?

Many boys grow up in our society without the love and affection of a father figure in their lives. Many have good fathers, but they reach a certain age and Daddy will not touch them in any affectionate way because our society has declared it gay EVIL. God created men and designed us to give and receive physical affection from each other. His Word affirms it. He designed men to give and receive affection and sexual stimulation from women.

Satan has "pulled the wool” over the eyes of the church and we go along with our society’s definitions that any physical affection between men is to be associated with sodomy. The only time it is acceptable in our society is at the end of a big sporting event. Since we have made what God calls holy and innocent something vile and we have accepted society’s definitions there are many men and boys who never got much affection from other men and end up craving, not sodomy but natural innocent holy man to man affection. Because of society’s redefining of things (and the church’s acceptance of the redefinitions) such men and boys assume that they are "gay” and end up falling into that trap.

And the devil is laughing at us!

In Kenya, Africa, as well as other parts of the continent, it is not so strange to see two men talking to one another or walking holding hands. It seems strange to us, but it is simply a cultural norm that indicates a bond of friendship, nothing more. We see this in America often when two little girls do the same thing. The problem is that we have become so perverse as a society that we focus on things sexual. The kiss was a cultural norm that is practiced to this day in many other parts of the world. Recall the kiss on the cheek that you might see in Greece, France, etc. between people who are friends and meet. I agree that this admonition might, in our culture, be something akin to, "Greet each other with a warm hug around the neck." No more, no less.

Lorddoitagain: Brothers, do you realize what you are affirming here? By your argument that a hand shake is the cultural equivalent to a kiss, you are declaring that the Bible is not the Word of God to be taken literally for all generations,

Brother you yourself do not take the bible literally. The new testament is LITERALLY a collection of letters written to the early church. The part of the "holy kiss" was LITERALLY written nearly 2000 years ago in a completely different time and place to incompletely set of different believers. You very UNLITERALLY take this very small thing written to those long gone and make it this grand law that must be followed to a tee and those who don't are not walking in truth.

You do not realize the full scope of time that has passed. 2000 years is a LONG time. The practice of the holy kiss fell out many many many years ago. Time does that, it just happens. God is not angry at us for that and it is not our responsibility to bring that back. The early church kissed. Paul wrote that to the early church. What does that have to do with Me? You can still learn from it (brotherly love, etc.) But it is not a command for you today, that is just silly

Martyr,

With your logic and view of the scripture, sodomy would be perfectly OK. 2000 years have passed man! This is 2017. "The practice of sex only between male and female fell out many many many years ago."

Nope. Christ is still the same and He is order, more exactly he is the order of all creation and in that order it is male and female. Don't even need a bible to know that just need to look around and see the order that has been established. Many cultures even before the bible disproved of homosexuality. It is not a christian concept it is a Christ concept (again he is the order of all things, not a book)

Martyr,

I was under the impression that most of the people on this forum believed that the Bible is the Word of God. If you don't need The Book, you just keep on inventing your own belief system with whatever blows across your finite brain.

I personally need something more solid and sure to base my beliefs on.

I find Christ to be a very firm foundation

I would think most Christians would consider Jesus to be the Word of God

So Michael do you go around kissing all the guys at your church?

You are putting way way yonder too much emphasis on a little closing statement that NT writers tacked on at the end of their letters. Even back then I don't believe it was intended as a command but rather as an encouragemt to show affection for their fellow believers.

Michael,

The issue you point out regarding how one views scripture is correct, but your conclusion is not.

Understanding that certain statements are made within the cultural setting (such as a holy kiss) and can be interpreted and applied in a similar but different cultural way does not mean that the bible is not complete and 100% The word of God.
If one cannot distinguish between such things as cultural greetings and the essential nature of sexual morality and the natural order of a man and a women it is becuse they don't want to and have an agenda.

As a point of interest, I am currently in Turkey and here all the guys greet one another with a formal kiss on both cheeks, however not with us 'westerners' they shake our hands. :) They can distinguish between different cultures, why can't anyone?

Post by lorddoitagain : If you don't need The Book, you just keep on inventing your own belief system with whatever blows across your finite brain.

The people who wrote the bible did just fine don't you think? They had nothing to go by but the witness on their hearts, we have Christ in us!! This is a huge fallacy in your way of thinking. Can you address it?

I have kissed a brother with a Holy kiss. It is the result of the love that God shed upon one's heart for your brother in Christ.

If the Holy Spirit is in it, you will know the difference between fleshly lust and Spiritual love. Has nothing to do with culture.

I do not believe Greeting with Holy Kiss is a command. I believe greeting is a command, we in our church, greet all brothers after the meeting is over. We spend time fellowshiping with one another. It is spirit that is important not the actual word. If we follow kissing but miss the actual fellowship part then what is the purpose of following the command? Understand the spirit behind all the commands of God.

Jesus himself said that my word is Spirit. If we ignore the spirit and literally take up only the word then we will easily become a pharisee.

Think about this scenario, suppose you practice holy kissing because it is a command of God and then kiss a brother who is struggling with homosexuality, are you not leading him to temptation? William Booth, stopped breaking of bread in his Church because the wine used in the church reminded some of the former drunkards to go back to their drinking habit. Is not breaking of Bread a command? The spirit that is important not the letter. By following an external command if I am making a brother to stumble then I will not follow it.

Also Bible commands, eat whatever is sold in market without asking question. But we are also commanded not to eat meat when there is a weak brother who does not eat meat sit next to you. So it is the spirit that is important here.

Same way, kissing of same sex is perverted in this society, hence it is not wise to practice it just for the sake of practicing and then bring dishonor to the name of God. I would personally not practice it.

Heydave wrote:"Michael,

Understanding that certain statements are made within the cultural setting (such as a holy kiss) and can be interpreted and applied in a similar but different cultural way does not mean that the bible is not complete and 100% The word of God.
If one cannot distinguish between such things as cultural greetings and the essential nature of sexual morality and the natural order of a man and a women it is becuse they don't want to and have an agenda.

As a point of interest, I am currently in Turkey and here all the guys greet one another with a formal kiss on both cheeks, however not with us 'westerners' they shake our hands. :) They can distinguish between different cultures, why can't anyone?"

**********************

Heydave, you are leaving it to the "common sense" of the person to decide which things should be taken as they are written and which things should be changed to fit the culture. We have a same-sex couple in our town that has been together for 25 years and go to a Christian church and are known as "great Christians". To them, those statements that condemn sodomy are culturally relative.

Your friends in Turkey understand that Western Christians are under the delusion that things like men holding hands, hugging, putting their arms around each other or kissing are sexually inspired actions. They've seen your withdrawals and shocked looks too many times. I have friends on Facebook in Pakistan who do all of those things and publish the pictures. In those countries where there is much more open display of physical affection between men, there is much much less sodomy.

So when does the church stop and analyze its culturally accepted beliefs in light of The Word?

Michael,

Have you ever walked around Louisiana in a skirt?

If not, is it because you don't look very good in a skirt?
Or is it maybe just your preference to wear pants?

Sree,

Your concerns about kissing being a temptation to people who have been addicted to sodomy is a result of your deeply rooted Western "sexual orientation” indoctrination.

There were people in the church at Corinth who had been "effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankind” but had been washed, sanctified, and justified. To the same Corinthians he said: "it is good for a man not to touch a woman”. He never said "it is good for a man not to touch a man”. To the contrary he said to the same Corinthians: "Greet one another with a holy kiss”.

Our Western false "sexual orientation” indoctrination teaches us that some are "gay” (homo) and some are "straight” (hetero). We gain from that indoctrination the idea that some are born wired up to get sexually motivated by the same sex. NOBODY was born that way! Like any sin, those who fall in the trap become slaves to that sin. Like any addiction slavery, those who are delivered from the addiction of sodomy are set free! When temptation comes it is resisted and the free man continues free.

Contrary to the scenario that you presented of a kiss causing a freed same-sex slave to be tempted, those who have been enslaved to sodomy find healing much faster when they are exposed to wholesome holy man to man physical affection. They are made aware that THIS IS HOLY and the other was unholy. You can go online and read "Beyond the Shades of Gray” and find where Dean Baily (delivered from sodomy) fully explains that issue. Because of his Western indoctrination, it took him 20 years to come to that realization. Christianity in our culture needs to understand these realities and get back to Biblical healing affection.

Savannah,

What's your point? The Bible never admonishes a man to wear a skirt.

God created male and female. He says in Deuteronomy 22:5 "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” He carries this concept over in the New testament in I Corinthians 6: 9-10 where he explains that the effeminate will not inherit the kingdom of God. It is my belief that men shouldn’t wear skirts, nor should women wear pants. Many say that my beliefs need to be more culturally relative.

God never recognized this "third sex” that our society invented called "homosexual”. If you’re trying to infer that we should not obey the scripture nor follow its examples because it would appear to belong to this third sex that we have invented (that doesn’t exist ”“ there are only 2), you are honoring our culture’s indoctrination above the Word of God.

Canada just passed a law permitting bestiality. If bestiality becomes fully legalized, legitimized and popularized, will Christians quit petting animals, or only do it in private when nobody is looking? Petting animals is not admonished in scripture. Everything in scripture is there for a divine reason which transcends culture.

Michael you seem to be arguing that not kissing guys causes homosexuality.

I agree that if you watch old tv shows and movies guys seem more physical with each other to some degree. I often note how close they sit to each other. I think it is entirely possible this was due to close quarters during war time service. When you spend 24/7 with other guys with all bodily functions in full view a little physical contact is no big deal.

In the 60s men and boys swam nude together in YMCA pools. In fact suits were not allowed. It skeeves me out but then it was no big deal.

Quote: "What's your point? The Bible never admonishes a man to wear a skirt. "

No but every man did, and there are admonitions to "gird your loins" which means to get your skirt out of the way so you can run or fight. How can we gird up our jeans? If we take the command to gird your loins literally, then we must first wear long skirts in order to do so.

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/10/02/how-to-gird-up-your-loins-an-illustrated-guide/

Your concerns about kissing being a temptation to people who have been addicted to sodomy is a result of your deeply rooted Western "sexual orientation” indoctrination.

I do not believe that homosexual orientation is a born trait. Homosexual behavior is developed due to perversion (Romans 1). Let God alone be true and every man a liar.

Now whether you blame western indoctrination or the corruption in society, the practice for a man to man kissing is no longer an innocent practice. There is nothing holy in it at least in western perspective. Bible commands us to keep our conduct excellent among unbelievers (1 Peter 2). Hence if an act is considered sexual in the society then it is better to avoid it for the sake of preserving our honor. At any case God's name should not be dishonored.

Contrary to the scenario that you presented of a kiss causing a freed same-sex slave to be tempted, those who have been enslaved to sodomy find healing much faster when they are exposed to wholesome holy man to man physical affection.

Even if what you said is true, which I highly doubt. It is still subjective and cannot be generalized. Let us hear what the Bible says in this matter. 2 Tim 2:22 says, to run away from all forms of youthful lust. Hence if any man is tempted by physical contact with another man, let him run away from it.

To the same Corinthians he said: "it is good for a man not to touch a woman”. He never said "it is good for a man not to touch a man”. To the contrary he said to the same Corinthians: "Greet one another with a holy kiss”.

1 Cor 7, is written in the context of marriage. Since marriage is always between man and women in Biblical context, it is told not to touch a women.

Now whether you blame western indoctrination or the corruption in society, the practice for a man to man kissing is no longer an innocent practice. There is nothing holy in it at least in western perspective.

Romans 16:16 - Salute one another with a holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.
1Corinthians 16:20 - All the brothers greet you. Greet you one another with a holy kiss.
2Corinthians 13:12 - Greet one another with a holy kiss.
1Thesalonians 5:26 - Greet all the brothers with a holy kiss.
1Peter 5:14 - Greet you one another with a kiss of love. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen.

Four times, He calls it holy. Let God be true and every man a liar.

Four times, He calls it holy. Let God be true and every man a liar.

No one is denying what the Bible says about it. If this practice has a perverted meaning then for the sake of honor our Lord's name, there is nothing wrong in not practicing it.

If we take the Bible literal, then we should start stoning our rebellious children, wash the feet of our fellow brothers etc. Why are we selective in those areas?

Also a man should not live with his parents in the same house, the moment he is married to another women. That command is mentioned more times in the Bible as well. All those who live with their parents (after marriage) in the intention of taking care of them at their old age are disobedient to this word then.

It is the spirit of the command that is important. Not the letter. The letter kills, but spirit gives life.

No but every man did, and there are admonitions to "gird your loins" which means to get your skirt out of the way so you can run or fight. How can we gird up our jeans? If we take the command to gird your loins literally, then we must first wear long skirts in order to do so.

TMK,
It would help if you would use actual Biblical references. There is a scripture that tells us to gird up the loins of our minds. I don’t know where the admonition that you refer to came from.

If we take the Bible literal, then we should start stoning our rebellious children, wash the feet of our fellow brothers etc. Why are we selective in those areas?

Also a man should not live with his parents in the same house, the moment he is married to another women. That command is mentioned more times in the Bible as well. All those who live with their parents (after marriage) in the intention of taking care of them at their old age are disobedient to this word then.

Sree,

Several of the things that you mention are a part of the Old Testament law that was specifically for the nation of Israel. When Jesus died on the cross, He fulfilled the Old Testament and only the things that are confirmed in the New Testament are practiced by the gentile Church. That’s why the epistles are so important. They outline the practical application that the gentile church is to follow.

By the way many Christians still wash feet. I've done it many times.

It is funny how some people who misread certain passages of the Bible think that they have disproved the infallibility of the scriptures.

Whenever you start going in that direction, ask yourself, "Could it be that I have misread this passage?" It takes a humble heart to admit lack of understanding and to submit to God's revelation.

But, there is another problem beside lack of humility and lack of understanding: bad doctrine (or simply lack of instruction). In particular, there are many people on SermonIndex who just don't have a theology of revelation. I recommend that everyone on this thread should buy Michael Horton's book entitled "The Christian Faith" and read the whole book. IT WILL ANSWER A LOT OF QUESTIONS.

If you are unwilling to buy it and read it, it's because you don't really want answers. And if you don't really want answers, the problem is in your heart, not in the Word of God.

I sincerely hope that some of you will be humble enough to read that book.

Blessings,
Renoncer

Renoncer: it is funny how some people who misread certain passages of the Bible think that they have disproved the infallibility of the scriptures.

Where did you learn the term infallible? I have not seen it in the scriptures. Sounds to me like you were taught that, and probably taught that it was a defining point between what is heresy and what is not.

I was not brought up in Christ by a church I was brought up by the Word who is Christ and by the scriptures which speak of Him.

I will not read the book, I have a book already.

RE : /// Where did you learn the term infallible? I have not seen it in the scriptures.///

The term is a simple common English word that everyone knows including yourself.

The concept is found through out Scripture.

I find nothing remotely perverted about a holy kiss ,

I kiss my son's often and in public including Church and do so out of Love and for the purpose of reaffirming my love for them and I do so without Self-consciousness.

I know some of those affiliated with Charity practice it, Perhaps the real reason that most fellowships do not practice it is because that kind of love that I have for my children does not exist amoung the brethren,

add : You can shake a hand without Self-consciousness in that it is often mechanical and not at all affectionate but to kiss another Brother without Self-consciousness would more likely take an act of true Brotherly love.

I don't know anyone who considers a "holy kiss" to be akin to homosexuality or homosexual tendencies. I've been to countries where men kiss women on the cheek (and vice versa) when greeting. I don't know anyone who feels that there is any sort of sexual or improper connotation from it.

I've also been among Persian believers (from Iran) where I was kissed on the cheek (or both cheeks in succession). It was certainly weird, but there was nothing improper from it.

Homosexuality is certainly a sinful thing. This isn't even debatable because the Bible is entirely clear. However, I don't think that a "holy kiss" would really be equated to anything improper.

Of course, I have heard a humorous story about a man who perpetually wanted to give one particular woman a "holy kiss" only to be given the "right hand of fellowship" by her husband. After the swelling went away, his views on the "holy kiss" had changed.

Is anyone here arguing that a "holy kiss" is improper? The only argument is against the idea that it is a command or a doctrine for today.

Several of the things that you mention are a part of the Old Testament law that was specifically for the nation of Israel.

The command that man should separate from his parents after marriage is given in both Old and New Covenant. At least I know of 2 places in NT where this is specified (Matt 19:5). If you believe in taking the commands literally then do you call those who still live with their parents (after marriage) are disobedient to this command? I am interested in this.

When Jesus died on the cross, He fulfilled the Old Testament

I do not believe this is directly specified anywhere in the Bible. This is a wrong theology that you have derived from some verse.

Old Testament standard is definitely lower than New Testament. For example 'do not commit murder' < 'do not be angry'. So when a born again person walks in obedience to New Covenant by the Spirit, he has automatically fulfilled the old Testament also (Romans 2:14, 15). Imagine if a high jumper jumps 1 feet high bar (old testament) each day, and one day he succeeds in jumping 2 feet (new covenant), then no one will blame him for not jumping 1 feet. The one who jumps 2 feet does not need to prove that he can also jump 1 feet high bar. It makes no sense.

By the way many Christians still wash feet. I've done it many times.

You do not get any credit for keeping a commandment many times. But doing it all the time. If you truly believe every word in New Covenant is a literal command then why not wash the feet every time as the Lord has commanded? Is it not hypocrisy? Who defines what is many? To one it could be just once or twice. So I too have the experience of Holy Kiss few times in a fellowship that I once attended. I was totally uncomfortable, will never do it again. So does that mean I have kept the command and not needed to do it anymore? Again who defines how many times it has to be done? I believe your logic has clearly failed here.

John 13:14 - If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.

I clearly believe that no one can take the New Covenant like old covenant laws and live them literally. It is impossible. You will definitely fail in most part, especially in the most important part which is the spiritual aspect. It is a dangerous position. This is not what New Covenant is meant to be.

Is anyone here arguing that a "holy kiss" is improper?

Yes, I believe it is improper in the society that we live in the west. I have seen men kiss each other in sexual way. So to me this kiss which no matter what you call, is still an uncomfortable act. I am not comfortable with anyone kissing me. I believe practicing this act in West will only bring dishonor to the name of God.

The only argument is against the idea that it is a command or a doctrine for today.

I believe the command is to greet. Greet in a way that you are willing to share their burden. Greet in a way to encourage them in their Christian walk. I believe in such a greeting. What is the use if we just kiss one another but fail in actually fellowshiping with one another? We are called to walk by the spirit not by letter. Letter kills.

Dear Martyr:

If you reject 21st century English words that are used to capture the teachings of scripture, you must also reject a plethora of English words that are approximate representations of Hebrew and Greek concepts. Therefore, unless you can communicate doctrine using Hebrew or Greek, you must reject all intelligible discussions about God. That's simply how information is communicated. Conveniently, the Khetuvim do contain the doctrine of the infallibility of scriptures (תורת יהוה תמימה). In case you missed it, תמימה is the Hebrew equivalent to our 21st century English concept of infallibility.

Just in case you're one of those guys who thinks that we should only read the New Testament, the New Testament also speaks of the concept of infallibility (in reference to the Old Testament scriptures!), using the following words: "ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον." In case you missed it, βεβαιότερον is the Greek equivalent to our 21st century English concept of infallibility.

The infallibility of the scriptures simply means that when God reveals Himself, it is faultless, because God is perfect in His character (cf. 2 Pet 1:20-21, 2 Tim 3:16, Ps 19:7, 18:30). The theology of revelation is a consequence of God's attributes in relation to his creation. If you want to know more about this, please read Michael Horton's book, "The Christian Faith."

If you wish to submit to the Lord, you must also pay attention to the traditions that have been handed down through the church (2 Th 2:15), and you must respect the church officers that God has appointed to take care of His church and make it grow (Heb 13:17). You are not a lone ranger or a one-man army (Eph 4, 1 Cor 12).

For someone to say, "I don't believe in the infallibility of the scriptures," and "I don't need to listen to mature ordained teachers in the church," you are setting yourself as the ultimate authority. That sounds like what Satan did, and like what Adam and Eve did in the garden of Eden.

Hope that you will humble yourself before the Lord and His Word.
Blessings,
Renoncer

Just in case you're one of those guys who thinks that we should only read the New Testament, the New Testament also speaks of the concept of infallibility (in reference to the Old Testament scriptures!), using the following words: "ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον." In case you missed it, βεβαιότερον is the Greek equivalent to our 21st century English concept of infallibility.

Reread the Greek it means "sure" "reliable" also reread the verse in Peter that this comes from because he is talking about the same thing I am. Thank you.

I do not believe we shouldn't read the old testament. It is profitable for instruction, reproof, teaching and other things.

But tell me this. Jesus said the old testament decree of allowing divorce was given for weakness of the flesh. It is not perfect. What Christ brought is.

Read Hebrews 8:7. The first covenant was not perfect, is not perfect and therefore, while useful, is not the perfect "word of God"

You're concept of infallibility was taught you, it is not required by scripture. Faith in Christ is our salvation, faith in the bible is not mandated. Let me make it clear I love my bible, I study it dearly and carefully but my faith is in Him who is wisdom and from the scriptures, in Him, I learn truth.

I am not against the bible, but the doctrines surrounding it choke the life from many and keep them from knowing Christ fully (as I am still striving for). The bible and the Word bring life, the flesh and the blood. This is what I believe, I do not undermine scripture no matter how hard you want to believe I do so.

And what traditions? Catholicism? They truly go back to the apostles and yet you disregard their traditions because YOU (Luther) decided there was something wrong with them. Whose authority then are you going by?

Dear Martyr:

Exactly, the prophetic word is "sure" or "reliable" precisely because it is "infallible." Concepts are explained differently from one culture to another, from one language to another, from one era to another. You won't find the word "infallibility" from the 15th century B.C. to the 1st century A.D. because that's just not how they spoke about these things. But, the concept is very much the same. The scriptures are "blameless," they are "without spot," they are "reliable," they are "sure," they are "perfect," just different ways to say that they are "infallible."

As for the Old Covenant, of course it was replaced by the New Covenant not because God made a mistake, but because it served its purpose in His plan of redemption and it was fulfilled in Christ. Whatever was lacking in the Old Covenant was due to the sinfulness of man, not due to the problems in the Law itself or errors in the scriptures. If man had not been sinful, the Law would have brought life. But, since men were sinful, the Law that was supposed to bring life brought death, which is why Jesus had to fulfill the Law on our behalf so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

As for the way that God uses those whom He has ordained in the church to take care of God's people and to pass down the traditions that come from the Lord Himself, you really need to consider the ministerial authority that is vested in the officers of the church (notice that I did not say magisterial authority), as it is communicated in passages such as 2 Th 2:15, Mt 18:17-20, 2 Tim 3:14-17.

You know, it's funny that we're having this conversation, because all of these concepts are explained in Michael Horton's book, "The Christian Faith." You would really benefit from reading that book. It explains all the fundamentals of the Christian Faith, from a historical perspective. It explains how these doctrines were developed, how they are grounded in the scriptures, and how they have been handed down and interpreted differently. Just imagine that you're having a conversation with Michael Horton as you read his book, just like you and I are having a conversation through writing and reading.

Just a quick question, do you know what I mean by distinguishing between the ministerial authority of church leaders and the magisterial authority of the scriptures?
(It's okay to say, "I had never heard of this distinction until you mentioned it, and then I googled it and learned something new today"... just like it's okay to read a book about theology, learn new concepts, and improve your understanding of the scriptures)

Blessings,
Renoncer

I do not know the distinction you mean.

Do you understand my distinction? God told Moses to sacrifice animals, stone children and not mix certain garments. They are in your bible and yet they are not infallible nor perfect, only as you said to "serve His purpose in redemption." They were given by God to acquiesce to the weakness of the flesh. That is okay, I am not accusing God of imperfection by any means and these scriptures are still useful and I am thankful for them.

Your bible teaches both to not eat unclean animals and to eat unclean animals. If you admit the latter then the verses speaking of the former are wrong (in that they are NOW wrong.) Do you understand what I'm saying? Christ is the Logos, not your scriptures. We learn from them, we cherish them and become strong in the Lord by them absolutely but we look at them (old and new) through the revelation of Christ who is the completion (head, origin, subject and spirit) of it all.

I know the different "understanding of scriptures" (I do have google!). But I learned the scriptures by God and prayer.

If you are taught the scriptures are infallible and 100% literal and the sole source of authority in the church (sola scriptura) you will see the scriptures through that lens. If you are raised catholic you see them through a catholic lens, if you are full of bitterness you read them through that, hate, envy, lust, whatever is in your heart contrary to Christ will distort scripture (or anything you view). That is why we are to be made "complete in Him" that we may see things only through Him and then we will see Truth. I do not claim to be there all the way, but I do know I have an advantage because I was taught nothing. I have been an empty vessel from the beginning (Talking now about knowledge of doctrines and teachings) with only God to teach me. Did He fail? Do you see the advantage of that? I praise God He heard my cries to know Him and I praise God He kept me pure that He might be my teacher and show me Truth.

Quote: The scriptures are "blameless," they are "without spot," they are "reliable," they are "sure," they are "perfect," just different ways to say that they are "infallible."

I think this is very revealing. The terms used for Christ in the scriptures you have twisted to make them describe the scriptures themselves. Who (or what) is your Christ?

Dear Martyr:

Do a word study of Psalm 19:7 and you will understand what I was talking about. Then you can apologize.

As for your statement, "I do know I have an advantage because I was taught nothing," that is absolutely false. The only difference is that you are unaware of the people who have influenced you. You need to be more aware, and then you will realize that everything you are saying in this post is a reflection of the people who have influenced you and taught you, even if it was indirectly or informally.

As for the question of how the New Covenant fits with the Old Covenant, I think that we agree on the essence, but we are arguing on how to formulate a similar understanding. You would really benefit from a course on Biblical Theology. I know a book that explains some of these concepts... can you guess what the title of that book is?

Blessings,
Renoncer

Renoncer

Dear Martyr:

Do a word study of Psalm 19:7 and you will understand what I was talking about. Then you can apologize.
Blessings,
Renoncer

RE : /// ...You would really benefit from a course on Biblical Theology... ///

I would recommend that he simply search the Scriptures for what it teaches about its own nature and not to be swept away by taking verses like John 5:39 out of context.

Psalm 19:7, the Word law can be "law "teachings or "instruction" which is it? If it's law does that include stoning disobedient children? If it's teaching or instruction could that be anything apart from the book of Moses?

I know biblical theology very well, I have studied it but only after being raised up. Let me ask you this, whose theology should I study? Catholic? Lutheran? church of England? Orthodox? Or perhaps the doctrines that you accept are the only ones that are correct?

Proudpapa: perhaps you should meditate more on John 5:39. I do not base my understanding of scripture on this verse alone. I base it on Christ who dwells in my heart and who is revealed in the scripture. I feel you are defending the bible while I am defending Christ. Which is correct?

Again I was brought up with only the scriptures and Christ. The bible does not testify of itself it testifies of Christ! And it leads to Christ! I do not downplay the scriptures like you accuse

RE : /// I feel you are defending the bible while I am defending Christ. Which is correct///

But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Meditate on the above

Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Tell me, in what way(s) did Moses write of Christ?

Dear MrBillPro:

I appreciate your comment, believe me. However, I would argue that the foundation on which the action of proclaiming the gospel stands is the authority of the scriptures, hence why I believe it is important to have this conversation with Martyr.

As much as we get our hands dirty by addressing these issues, I believe that in the end, it allows us to grow and brings glory to God. Sometimes, kicking and screaming is God's path to wisdom.

Years ago, I walked in the shoes of Martyr. In many ways, I see in him a younger version of myself. I am talking to him as I would have wanted someone to talk to me. I needed people to speak the truth to me. I was very arrogant (not that I am immune to arrogance today!) and independent, and even claimed that the Holy Spirit was my teacher, not men. Boy, was I deceived. God had mercy on me.

In paradoxical ways, God revealed the importance of ecclesiology and doctrine in powerful displays of discipline and answers to prayer. Now, I seek to strike a balance between the two. I do go out to proclaim the gospel in the highways and byways. But I also recognize the vessel through which God preserves the truth, and the foundation on which all godly activity stands.

Anyways, thanks for your comment and your good intentions, MrBillPro. May God continue to bless you and use you for the glory of His Name.

Blessings,
Renoncer

Allegorical/Spiritual but to See it, Starts with Faith /Belief that what you are reading is Supernaturally Inspired

Tell me this why is there so many details in Scripture ?

Dear Martyr:

We already agree on the fact that Moses pointed us to Christ, so I will not argue about that fact. We are in the same camp. :)

On a different note, Martyr, the more I read your posts, the more I'm curious about your background. What's your church background? What's your experience in serving the Lord? I'm just trying to get a picture of the man behind the posts. I know that some people might get offended at my probing about personal matters, but I think that it's important to keep the human factor in these discussions. I know that God does. I'm curious as to the path that the Lord is taking you on, and where it might lead in the future. I'm especially interested in how the Lord is shaping you for the purpose of using you for the advancement of His kingdom.

Blessings,
Renoncer

Renoncer,

If you wish to delve into more personal matters my email is listed in my profile. I Do not wish to share such things on a public forum. I work doubles Friday, Saturday and Sunday so if you do email me know it might be hard for me to get back to you until monday

Hi Martyr:

What are you afraid of? Are you hiding something?

A servant of the Lord would have no problem coming in the light so that his deeds might be known.

John 3:20-21 - "For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God."

You don't have to give confidential information, but at least it would be nice to know that you have actually been involved in building the church and working with others in the church to edify the body of Christ.

There are too many people who work under the cloak of darkness, pretending to be serving the church but really undermining its foundation. The truth is that God doesn't just deal with people individually, but as part of a covenantal body. That's why He cares about how we work with the rest of the body of Christ. He also cares about His Word because His character is reflected in it.

Just to make it clear, we're talking about primary doctrines of the faith. That's why it's so important. Unfortunately, many people do not realize these things because they have not received simple instructions about the fundamentals of Christianity. That is why I strongly urge you to read Michael Horton's book, "The Christian Faith."

Blessings,
Renoncer