James 5:13 KJV (13) Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms.
John, I'm well aware afflictions are a good time for prayer. I'm also aware that James didn't expect his verse to be taken for a pray-only-when-afflicted command. Exclusivity to affliction, not prayer itself, is the issue. Similarly with the psalm segment.
btw as you know, prayer is communication, and that is ongoing throughout life, good times and bad. Worship is not nailed to following a procedure, but comes from the heart. Your heart and mine. The Jews of that time thought if they followed the rules, whether the right rules or the ones they made up in their minds, they would be right with God. But their hearts were not right with God because it was their way, not God's. You well point out who it is singing psalms these days, and makes the heart issue clear. No doubt they think they bless God.
John UK wrote: It is written Mike, for those who can see it. Let me give you one example, bro. James 5:13 KJV --- But you will notice Mike that it was an apostle of the new covenant who said to sing psalms. And if we add anything to the text, we are adding to the word of God, just to suit our own preference for more entertaining songs. I can say from personal experience of singing psalms, that it is a most wonderful exercise, full of sound doctrine, and full of encouragement from the word of God.
James' verse. It says
(13) Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms.
Are we only to pray when afflicted? Of course not. Are we to limit singing psalms to those times when we are merry? No. Now understand, I have never opposed the singing of psalms, but even James doesn't add "exclusively" to the text, nor is it implied.
I am glad you are encouraged by the singing of Psalms. But care need be taken, for as you said, if we add anything to the text, we are adding to the word of God.
John UK wrote: --- Now if you truly believe that anyone without biblical warrant can do whatever they wish in God's house simply because it is their preference, then.... --- But sure, I've sung thousands and thousands of hymns, and thought I was "worshipping God" in a way he delighted in and ordained for his church ---
In God's house? Whatever do you mean, John? We are God's house, no? We don't sing in his house, his church sings out to him. We don't have to be in a building for that.
Even if we hold there is biblical warrant for singing Psalms, where is found biblical warrant for singing Psalms only? Is it written, or is it deduced?
John UK wrote: --- I don't know about the ones across the pond, but in NI the church is very strictly biblical, holding to the Regulative Principle. So, for example, you won't ever sing hymns composed by men, rather you will have the psalms of scripture, which are inspired of God himself.
So John, are you saying God inspired David, who was a man, to write psalm songs, but God cannot and does not inspire any other man to write hymns? Seems like we're limiting what he can do, no? You might consider pondering the words and read the history behind "It Is Well With My Soul" by Horatio Spafford.
John UK wrote: Amen Christopher, it's a horses for courses thing, and if folks can afford to employ an accountant to do their returns, it will save a whole lot of stress. Why governments make the tax system so complex I will never understand. For anyone to desire full honesty in all things is, I believe, one the great proofs of a "new creature" (2 Cor 5:17).
Agreed, John. Maybe they make it complex so there can be a taxpayer paid industry composed of tax collectors? How many of them would you need if the filing form were composed of...
1. What is your income? _____ 2. This is your tax _____
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Brother not commenting on the substance of your posts or on you personally, just your opening comment with a generalized response.. Wouldn't read too much into it, people tire of the debate and because, as usual nobody changes their thinking, they often see it as pointless to continue. I am sure you've been there.
Time goes by and nothing much changes, does it, US? Some still have an either/or view of sovereignty vs responsibility, instead of a proper both/and.
Chris G P wrote: In Philippians 4:8, it tells us, â€śFinally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.â€ť This is an excellent rule which should govern all our watching, listening,reading, etc., and may indeed keep us out of trouble. This world now seems to be obsessed with immorality and the occult, and it is admittedly very difficult at times to avoid these things, but we need to, and we also need to be fully aware of and use the spiritual warfare and armour given to us in Ephesians 6. We must also pray for pastors that they will preach the truth without compromise and that we will grow in our knowledge of the Holy Scriptures and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Excellent answer, my brother! Thanks for the clarification!
Chris G P wrote: Also things like Harry Potter, films, tv, the Internet, rock music and popular entertainment are leading people on to the occult.
Help me understand your comment, please. Are you saying that there is a logical necessity between all of these? You mention them all in the same breath as if they are all responsible for leading people into occult practice, things that are both general (film, tv, Internet) and specific (Harry Potter, rock music). Are you saying that the Christian must abandon all of these things lest they be swept away in their influence, or do you differentiate between certain allowable things? And of these things, how do you determine what's allowable? Thanks!
TrueHolyBibleChristianCatholic wrote: "Betcha" Didn't Know That +++BOWERS+++ Is An Ashkenazi-"Jewish" Last-name &-Or Surname ! Look Saints: Some Of The +++Worst+++ & +++Deadliest+++ Anti-Semites &-Or "Jew"-Haters/Killers/Cold-Blooded-Murderers Were +++THEMSELVES+++ "Jewish" !
Well, there are individuals who have debated Dr. James White who would gladly stand against hateful, bloodthirsty Muslims like that, and they are not alone. But it's easy for us to criticize from quasi-comfortable Western civilization; can you imagine how difficult it must be if you were a Muslim who eschewed the despicable tactics of the ones you rightly point out and lived in an area were those in charge would seek to destroy you or your family for standing against the bloodthirsty status quo? Btw, we could go back and forth in the "proof" wars all day long. Can YOU produce proof that they are all as you say? All is a pretty all-inclusive word and means just that; ALL. I find the claim incredibly bombastic and worthy of nothing more than fear-mongering and keeping the faithful to Jesus Christ afraid of witnessing to Muslims out of fear that they may be strict Sharia adherents. Let's keep our criticism clear and free from conspiracy theory claptrap; Islam is an inconsistent religion that misunderstands the Trinity, misunderstands the OT/NT, and misunderstands salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. We do not wage war as the world does, but through prayer and the power of the Spirit through the faithful proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ!
Nice try, but I was specifically talking about how you refused to answer the witnessing questions earlier in seemingly defending the comments from the man earlier who seemed to write them all off. I am talking about YOU and those like yourself, not Christians you have given their lives for the cause of Christ in Islamic nations, so don't do that to me or anyone else who refuses to buy this "Never trust a Muslim" mantra, it's offensive and insulting and I don't appreciate you accusing me of besmirching them. Thank you for finally answering that you have witnessed, and I hope your message comes across clearly and that is encouraging. I don't deny anything you are saying, for it is basically Islamic doctrine concerning their rejection of Christ. It amazes me that you didn't see that I asserted your attitude will HELP them to JUSTIFY their rejection; of course they reject on their own! My point is by seemingly lumping all Muslims together as extremist Sharia-loving individuals I believe you are hurting not helping the cause of Christ among them. Unless I misunderstood your stance I have nothing further to say about this. I believe each Muslim should be judged as we would want to be judged, on our own merits, and not fear-mongering.
Well, I am emotional about it, and please forgive me for being so, but I grow incredibly weary of Christians seemingly casting off Muslims as being unworthy of the kingdom of God and they themselves not willing to witness to them due to fear, hatred, ignorance, or some unholy conglomeration of the three. I think comments like the previous gentleman and yours hurt the cause of Christ among the Islamic community and are more at home with some of the religious extremists and terrorists you so decry. You haven't answered my questions about witnessing to them, I provided real dialogue about what I know of the Qur'an and the Hadith literature, and you have dismissed them by refusing to engage my points. So are you saying all Islamic interpretations of Sharia are the same among all Muslims? So you're saying ALL Muslims want to destroy American law and jurisprudence then, and you have evidence of this? How have I bypassed the reality of Islam? I mentioned how there are many who interpret Sharia in ways that are in contradiction and opposition to our way of life, but yet you fail to engage any of the points I've made. Respectfully, the astounding dodging and ignorance is your own. Should we witness to Muslims? Are all Muslims militant Sharia promoters? Will this woman promote Sharia?
John UK, I appreciate your candor and willingness to dialogue (though I know it is late for you, haha!). I am one of those professing Christians that say rock music CAN be fine for Christians, provided that it does not provoke them to sin. The problem here, most respectfully, is that YOU say it is of the devil; but where does the Scripture say it? You didn't respond to the point I made about 1 Cor. 8, and I would also like to ask what you think about what we can clearly define as worldliness? I do believe that Scripture does give clear parameters as to what defines worldliness, and if you could please show me where a certain style of music is declared devilish or somehow inherently worldly? Where do we draw the line then? Only Scottish tunes? Or American tunes? Or what exactly? Not that I want this to get away from the original topic of tattoos, but I think you get my point. Thanks again brother, and have a good night!
John UK wrote: Hi Mike NC, No you assumed wrongly, and I agree with you. In situations like this it may even be necessary to apply sanctified common sense, as well as compile a whole plethora of scriptures which speak to what we are to do with our body, which is after all, the temple of the Holy Spirit. What we have to decide is whether or not this thing is of the world, or is it of God? I say that it is not only of the world and not of God, but that it is of the devil. There is no getting away from it. Everything is either of the flesh or the Spirit. And I believe this is one the clear-cut ones.
Sorry for the wrong assumption, friend, but I have to respectively disagree. I cannot find any clear-cut Scriptural evidence that condemns fashionable body marking that is not promoting or celebrating the worship of false deities or anything of the like. I myself don't have a tattoo, nor would I get one, but the issue has more to do with financial stewardship. I really think that to say a skin marking is of the devil I think is way too far a statement to make, most respectfully. Also, when you say everything is of the flesh or of the Spirit, then how should we understand Paul in 1 Cor. 8? For some it's sin, and others it is not; how does that fit your pa
JohnUK, you cited me speaking of Leviticus in support of opposing the modern practice of tattooing, so I just assumed that your question was couched in the context of the Levitical injunction against marking oneself for the dead. My response was much more nuanced than a just, â€śYes, God does,â€ť or a â€śNo, God doesnâ€™t,â€ť for I do not believe that the Bible explicitly speaks to the modern-day practice of fashionable tattooing per se any more than the Bible explicitly speaking of 21st Century democratic governments. That being said, we cannot then conclude that the Bible is silent concerning the issue of tattooing, because as I stated in my reply, God does speak an awful lot about vanity, pride, and proper stewardship of monetary resources, all issues that touch on the present-day practice of tattooing. This is how I think the subject needs to be approached, NOT by ripping Leviticus 19:28 out of its original context and applying it unethically to present day practices. Something might preach well enough, but its biblical support may be lacking. Does this answer your question?