|
|
USER COMMENTS BY BANGING ON |
|
|
| RECENTLY-COMMENTED SERMONS | More | Last Post | Total |
· Page 1 · Found: 36 user comments posted recently. |
| |
|
|
1/8/19 11:53 AM |
Banging on | | | |
|
Thread closed Report abuse
|
..cont“...The special Christmas service must consist of preaching, praying, congregational singing, and giving of alms. It may not take the form of dramatic presentations of the manger scene, liturgical dance, instruction by means of banners, and the like. I plead with our Presbyterian brothers and sisters not to find differences that divide where none exist. The purpose of looking at these controversial matters is to plead that such differences in applying the regulative principle do not betray fundamental disagreement over the regulative principle itself. Thus, it is hoped, this examination of differing application of the regulative principle will make for peace among those who are truly one in ecclesiastical subjection to the second commandment” Extract from "Reformed Worship"- David Englesma, Barry Gritters & Chas Terpstra. The authors obviously foresaw the overly censorious pharisees who want to create a straiter than strait gate because they can thus impose their holier than thou whims on everyone else. Pharisaical pride always seeks to create multi-track Christianity just so that they can point to their own superior version of the faith. The Charismatics do it in their own way, and the advocates of a rigid RPW do it in theirs. The effects are the same. |
|
|
1/8/19 11:23 AM |
Banging on | | | |
|
Thread closed Report abuse
|
...cont“The Heidelberg Catechism explains the fourth commandment this way: “ . . . that I, **especially** on the day of rest, diligently attend church” (emphasis added). In the heyday of the Reformation, there were preaching services virtually every day of the week. As regards the Reformed church’s observance of the great events in the ministry of Christ, one of the earliest and most respected Reformed creeds, the Second Helvetic Confession (1566)—not a Dutch creed!—explicitly approved it, “highly,” as an aspect of the church’s “liberty”: "Moreover, if in Christian liberty the churches religiously celebrate the memory of the Lord’s nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, and of his ascension into heaven, and the sending of the Holy Spirit upon his disciples, we approve of it highly.” One may like Dordt’s rule in Article 67, or one may dislike it, but observance of Christmas and the other “Christian festivals” has absolutely nothing to do with the regulative principle whatever. What the regulative principle requires is this: If you have a service of worship to remember Jesus’ birth on December 25, this service must consist of the same elements as the worship on Sunday. .." Out of space TBC... |
|
|
1/8/19 11:14 AM |
Banging on | | | |
|
Thread closed Report abuse
|
Even people who hold to the RPW can't agree."“Observance of Christmas Some Presbyterian advocates of the regulative principle vehemently denounce Reformed churches for observing Good Friday, Easter, Ascension Day, Pentecost, and Christmas with special worship services. Such observance is alleged to be violation of the regulative principle. Their argument is that God has not commanded the church to worship on April 21 or December 25 in observance of Good Friday or Christmas. In reality, they charge Article 67 of the Church Order of Dordt and thus the synod of Dordt and the entire Dutch Reformed tradition with image worship. The charge rests on a misunderstanding of the regulative principle. The regulative principle prescribes the content of the public worship, not the time when the church worships. It is the fourth commandment that prescribes the time of public worship. And, although the fourth commandment insists that the church worship on the Sabbath Day, it permits the church to worship also on other days.... Out of Space TBC.... |
|
|
1/8/19 10:54 AM |
Banging on | | | |
|
Thread closed Report abuse
|
John UK wrote: The liberty of the people of God consists in being free from the traditions and commandments of men.... At best begs the question.Forbidding hymn-singing, and organ-playing, and Christmas-keeping sounds like the commandments of men to me and so enslaving other peoples consciences, which is the very opposite of freedom. Not even going to attempt to answer my last post? Don't blame you. Interesting tidbit: Thomas Manton, author of the Epistle to the Reader which still graces the front of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland's edition of the Westminster Standards, acknowledged that orthodoxy does not require exclusive psalmody. In his commentary on James, p. 442, Manton wrote: "I confess that we do not forbid other songs [beside Psalms]; if grave and pious, after good advice they may be received into the Church. Tertullian, in his apology, showeth that in primitive times they used this liberty, either to sing scripture psalms or such as were of a private composure." So much for the oft-heard claim that subscription to the Westminster Standards requires a commitment to exclusive Psalmody! |
|
|
1/8/19 9:28 AM |
Banging on | | | |
|
Thread closed Report abuse
|
Here are the 3 things that RPW advocates insist on:1. Obey what is commanded 2. Do not do what he forbids, and 3. Something not expressly commanded shouldn't be done. We can agree on 1 and 2, but not everyone agrees on 3 or its application. The onus of proof is on those who make the claim and so they should get busy to prove 3 from the NT. Once you've got your proof texts, start answering the following questions: 1. Where are the OT Jews commanded to have synagogues and to worship in them? 2. Where were OT Jews ever commanded to read the prophets during their worship? 3. Where were OT Jews commanded to observe Purim and Hanukkah? 4. If not, where did God condemn the observance of these days? 5. If Jesus felt so strongly about the RPW, why did he attend the Hanukkah feast in John 10.22? 6. Where is there a command for NT believers to meet in homes? If they had no command to meet anywhere other than the temple, why did they leave the temple? 7. Where in the NT is the church commanded to meet on the Lord's day? 8. If the RPW is true then you have no command to sing anything in Church including the Psalms. So why do you sing? 9. Were you married in church? If so, where did you find the command? Lots more questions to come once you've tackled these. |
|
|
1/7/19 10:23 PM |
Banging on | | | |
|
Thread closed Report abuse
|
Lurker wrote: I find it very offensive that you ...would attempt to bind my conscience to your ill founded convictions. Don’t expect any answers. Pharisees are always fixating on the externals of religious observance.. don’t touch this, don’t eat that, don’t drink this, don’t keep any special times, days etc...Col 2 16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. 18 ***Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility ***and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, .....20 ***Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 21 (touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 which all are to perish with the using) after the commandments and doctrines of men? ***23 which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. |
|
|
1/7/19 11:59 AM |
Banging on | | | |
|
Thread closed Report abuse
|
June A. Nadolny wrote: Briefly, in reply to “Lurker” below, John-UK answered correctly: he brought up the regulative principle. In the worship of the Lord, we are not to add our own ideas, thoughts, opinions. If it is commanded in the Word, then it is right; if it is not commanded, then it is not to be done. Sin is the transgression of God’s law, yes; but one transgresses the law when one adds to it as well. For this is feeble man claiming to know better than God how God must be worshipped. It is in effect saying to Him, I will worship Thee, but as I see fit. This is sin. Oh really?!Can you explain where the Jews were commanded to worship in Synagogues? Where in Synagogue worship they were commanded to read anything other than the law (remember Christ read Isaiah!)? How about where they were commanded to drink wine with their Passover meal? Or where they were commanded to observe Purim or Chanukah? Where are you commanded to perform weddings in church, or baptisms or funerals? Where in the NT is there a command to sing anything in church? I am sure that you will have ready answers for these questions, and if so, I have a ton more that I would like answers to. |
|
|
1/6/19 8:57 PM |
Banging on | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
B. McCausland wrote: discredinting a person in order to debunk an argument seems easy. Such shallow studies and thoughts from John UK and B Mc.Every church started with Jews, because that was the set priority; The Jews first and then the Gentiles. However that is not the issue. The question is whether the composition of the churches in Rome was mainly Jewish or Gentile. Well, the very fact that we are talking of Rome not Jerusalem should put us on warning. However, there is more. 1) The letter is written to all believers at Rome, not a specific church. In fact commentators believe there could have been as many as 5 churches 2) Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles (1:5; 11:3; Gal. 2:7-8) 3) Paul speaks to them as Gentiles who receive mercy through Jewish unbelief (11:12-13) cf 11:30 where the "ye" refers to them as Gentiles 4) Paul compares the Romans with other Gentiles (1:12-14) 5) Paul refers to the Jews as “my” brethren, and not “our” brethren (9:3) 6) Out of the twenty-four names in chapter 16, over one half are Latin and Greek, not Jewish This is just from a cursory consideration. When I have more time I will show how John UK is seeking confirmation bias from Gill for his own warped view. |
|
|
1/6/19 7:14 AM |
Banging on | | | |
|
Thread closed Report abuse
|
John UK wrote: Young, nasty and reformed? Is that the modern way? It certainly is in my experience of reformed churches. Well, maybe not young, nasty and reformed, more like old, nasty and reformed. Having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof. That's it, powerless Christianity. Yes, that's the modern way. Christianity without the power. Christianity without Jesus. Christianity without the Holy Ghost. A mere intellectual Christianity, where you can do whatever you want, trample all over the Bible, do despite to the Spirit of grace, always resisting the Holy Ghost. Just being plain nasty. Proved my last post correct by his blanket condemnation of all who oppose his convictions and his assessment of all reformed churches. Wonder why he can’t find a church. Hmm..Mr I’m holier than thou having a another mental breakdown because ppl won’t praise him sincerely and won’t bow down to his pharisaical scruples, so they must all be formalists and nasty and intellectual Christians only whereas his sowing division and strife by pushing his pharasaical agenda and constantly condemning everyone else, looking down his nose at them because he alone is God’s chosen one is good cheer, Christian love and a display of the fruit of the Spirit. Ha! |
|
|
1/5/19 5:05 PM |
Banging on | | | |
|
Thread closed Report abuse
|
John UK wrote: 1. Yes we have some like that in Wales. Young people tend to go there, for the carnal delights of rock worship and froth. Other churches merely die off as people die. 2. What a tragedy, June. But very true. Traditions trump the word of God. 3. Yes, there are Bible ways and there are false ways. 4. Oh yes indeed! It is sanctification. This is that change which can take decades, little by little, getting closer to Jesus Christ and his character. Heaven will be populated with people becoming like Jesus, who follow him. The sun in all its glory shines on John and his little coterie.They appear to enjoy a degree of holiness unknown in the history of the church and they bring revival whereever their feet tread. I am sure we’re all humbled to be in such august company. To think that SA forum is visited by such bright luminaries and that they bring heaven to kiss such a lowly forum. All praises are due to them for such condescension. May glory light their heads and all the peoples of the world fall before them in adoration. |
|
|
1/5/19 2:45 PM |
Banging on | | | |
|
Thread closed Report abuse
|
John UK wrote: I believe Heb 10:25 is quoted out of context a multitude of times by those desperate to hang on to their adherents. It becomes tantamount to legalism in the end. Instead of the church being a place of blessing and joy and growth, it becomes a cold, formal ritual, where the pastor is effectively saying, "Now you keep coming to church, and we will make you as cold as we are." It's like an elder saying, "Now will you please stop falling asleep during the sermon!" Look, if the preacher wants his hearers to stay awake, the onus is on him to be living close to God, so that he is full of the Holy Ghost, so that God speaks through him during the sermon, where the waters of life pour forth from his lips, where the healing balm of Gilead is evident, where the Holy Spirit convicts of sin or brings some assurance, where there is regeneration, where there is spiritual life, where JESUS is present in the midst. But still the majority say, "I am fine, my worship is fine, my church is fine, our structure is good, we're obeying God, no need for change...." And so there is no progress, ever. They continue on into apostasy, oblivious. Scriptural justification for any of the points you raise? |
|
|
1/5/19 8:27 AM |
Banging on | | | |
|
Thread closed Report abuse
|
Unprofitable Servant wrote: May God direct your steps in this matter. Thanks UPS for pointing out the obvious. Seems some on here who like to always point the finger at others because they are so much better simply don’t get that maybe, just maybe they are the problem and that perhaps that’s why they cannot find a church. Somehow in their make believe world somewhere on earth there is a trouble free church where perfect saints attend and they being perfect saints will fit in. Apparently this is what they’ve learned from the reformers and the reformation. Sad, sad, sad beyond belief. It’s sad that these deluded ppl misuse verses like Matt 18.20 to justify their false notion that a church can be composed of just 2 or 3 and so seal themselves in their own delusions. BTW - I’m not suggesting that this is the case with everyone who stays at home. I’m sure there are many who genuinely want an evangelical (viz a bible believing church) in their locality, as imperfect as it may be, but can’t find one. |
|
|
1/4/19 4:53 PM |
Banging on | | | |
|
Thread closed Report abuse
|
B. McCausland wrote: Reprobates are God's concept. 2 Timothy 3:8 What you as others are doing is to twist around meaning to catch people in their own words. This is a diabolic practice. See previous post below. This does not proceed from above. No further insult or mocking will be tolerated, so you are not considered for further dialogue Having a different conviction is not resisting the truth!You think that liberally dishing out the term reprobate to describe believers who differ from you in their convictions is from above? Your insulting others this way is ok in your eyes but you will not tolerate anyone who mocks or challenges you. We get it. Your sense of self importance is duly noted. |
|
|
|
Jump to Page : [1] 2 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|