What do we really mean when we say we're Biblical?

......................

 

No, not all things are opinion. The Gospel is not opinion. The Ressurection is not opinion, etc. However, topics like "what is Biblical" is opinion, as we have seen about a dozen here alone. Opinions are fine. They are not essential to salvation. The problem comes in when individuals mix up their opinion to evolve into Biblical truth, thereby not respecting any other opinions.

 

Cat got your tongue?

 

When I say I disagree and prefer to leave it at that, it's because there is no debate as far as I'm concerned. I am convinced that there is no debate - only an argument, and I feel I've made my point scripturally. Obviously, you seem to want to prove your point also, so any further interaction with you on this topic will not be edifying. We are obviously on two different planets.

 

That is the same post as above, and thought I answered it. Most of the Bible deals with the work of Jesus Christ, or preparing the world for His birth. There is no opinion in that. If you read the start of the thread, there are at least 4 catagories of opinion as to what is Biblical in relation to a worship service. All four opinions are based on the way someone reads the Bible. This is one reason there are so many denominations.

 

Using the standards of the OP, my church shouldnt have had that excellent pot luck dinner last Saturday night.

Seriously, doesnt common sense play a role in this? Didnt God give us a mind? Thinking is not unbiblical, else we would not be able to "rightly divide" the Word of God.

To me, the line is drawn when we add to or take away from the workings of the Holy Spirit. For instance, "being slain in the Spirit" is a totally man-made practice that credits the Holy Spirit for some silly thing that He had nothing to do with. This is what I would call unbiblical.

Changing the Gospel of Christ to include baptism or church sacraments as a requirement for salvation...this is unbiblical.

There are some things that probably fall under the opinion category, like music. Personally, I think it is wrong for the church to copy the world when it comes to music. I know of a church in Oklahoma that has a grundge band for their worship service. The congregation doesnt participate in the singing at all, it is more or less a hard rock/grundge concert. The Bible doesnt address hard rock directly, but it does teach us to be seperate from the world, therefore copying the worldly music, to me is wrong.

Having said that, let me say further that this is my understanding that I get from my reading of scripture. If you want to have a grundge band perform in every worship service, then by all means, go ahead. If you want to have no instruments at all, then by all means go ahead. This is why there are more than one church in most towns.

What about every day activities? I love college football (Go Hogs) but college football is not mentioned in the Bible. Does that make it wrong? Is college footbal unbiblical because it is not mentioned?

My point is simply this, that God gave us some basic guidelines in the Bible to live by, and He gave us a mind to help us to "rightly divide" how to apply those guidelines in our lives, and in our churches.

It seems to me that a large number of churches are trying too hard to make church fun and entertaining, and are constantly trying to defend their frolic as being ok to do since it isnt specifically forbidden in scripture. (Saddlebacks "night club" themed worship service comes to mind).

I would suggest that we need to reevaluate the purpose and mission of ministry. Is it to entertain us? Or to honor God?

AJ

 

OnlyByGrace,

I think I understand where you are coming from. Why do we use one scripture to support what we believe while dismissing other that contradict our positions in similar areas? Your examples from the music topics are spot on. I claim there is no authority for one stance but ignor the fact that there is no authority for others that I choose to practice. You even do this yourself in stating that there are no instructions for music in the NT but use OT scripture to support that the children should be taught in the family.

Are the areas you chose to question such as SS, meetings, buildings, membership, Biblical? This is something we all should answer. Victoriuos has answered with scripture to support her stance. It is obvious she has given this area thought and prayerful consideration and choosen her position.

I am convinced that most if not all areas you question are Biblical. Not because it says in 1st GG 1:1 "Thou shall have Sunday School", but because of the principles in scripture that we are to teach and make disciples. The Bible does not spell out specific of how to do so. Too often mankind desires to make the Bible into a rule book of what we can and cannot do. This makes it easy for our feeble minds to understand. However, it is a spiritual book that we must apply to our souls, hearts, and minds. It survives from culture to culture. God knew what he was doing when he wrote it. He never told us to wear robes and sandals. He never told us to wear suits and ties. He never said to wear a dress or slack or jeans. he said to dress modestly. Women should look like women and men should look like men. How this is done changes from culture to culture. The Bible addresses each with it simplicity.

I too am influenced by my opinions. But I try my best to keep the influence minimal. I do not like the Bibker churches and dress down attitudes of many modern churches. The music of many are too modern or too old fashioned for my taste. But if souls are won for Christ, who am I to condem them as unbiblical?

 

I think that if you look up unbiblical in the original language it means,

Just Kiddin

 

Ha! :laugh:

Good one!

 

C4!

Been a long time.

Biblical would have to mean that all of the doctrinal teachings of the church are consistent with a literal historical grammatical hermeneutic. Seems like I used to use another word in that description as well?

Really like the quote by Walter A! Very true.

 

If it is an area that Scripture does not address, it is neither Biblical nor unbiblical, it is abiblical. There may be principles that address the spirit of the matter, but that always gets down to a matter of application. If there is disagreement in these areas it is a matter of opinion, not a matter of biblical or not.

Doctrine = teaching (Matt 6:2; 7:28 - didaskw/didakh or Strongs 1321/1322)

so yes, all the teachings of Scripture matter, but they must be viewed in context, immediate, near, and far.

Adam and Eve were told to eat vegetables, fruits, and nuts. Noah, after the flood was told to eat. After the Exodus, the Jews were told not to eat certain animals and fish because they were considered unclean. Jesus told Peter to rise, kill, and eat things that had previously been considered unclean. At the Jerusalem council, the only limitations on what could be eaten was things strangled and blood (Gen 1:29,30; 9:3; Lev 11; Acts 10; 15).

So what is Biblical to eat? Depends on the dispensation (that ought to fire up a few comments)!

Is it Biblical to keep the Sabbath?

The teachings of Scripture must be kept in context. Can you be saved if you get out of the boat? Not according to Paul! (Acts 27:31)

My point? Even the things that the Bible does address must be examined in context. The things that the bible does not address are matters of principle and conscience and there is some degree of freedom there (except for those who hold to the regulatory princple, Nadab, Abihu, strange fire and all that).

 

I don't understand how singing songs in church and music is sinful and not biblical. In the old testament King David and Israel would sing psalms and use music in their worship. The Lyre is a well known instrument used in King Davids reign. If music is so evil why did King David use music?

Have you ever heard the psalms of the old bible sung in Hebrew as they once were in the days of King David ? Absolutely beautiful. Trying to sing psalms by themselves in English can sometimes yield not much melody. I notice people will repeat lines in the psalms just to get it to rhyme so it sounds more like a song. The psalms were once beautiful songs in Hebrew that rhymed without any modification needed to be done. Through all the translations from Hebrew to English much of the psalms original melody was lost. I started listening to psalms sung in Hebrew so I can hear how they were actually sung and sounded like in King David's reign. "By the Rivers of Babylon", a famous song sung by the Melodians and then later sung by Sublime, is from Psalm 137. To make psalm 137 rhyme many repetitions were inserted in the song and they repeatedly sung "by the rivers of Babylon". A lot of alterations were made to the original psalm just to get it to rhyme. If you ever get the chance to hear Psalm 137 sung in Hebrew you will discover that there doesn't need to be any alterations done to the original wording for the psalm to rhyme and sound like a song.

It is so easy to pick out a bible verse and skew it to what someone wants to prove. I have read many christian forums and seen how the meaning of scripture can be completely different across the many denominations. King David would never have sung songs and played musical instruments unto God if it was an abomination. One of the psalms if I remember tells us that we should sing songs to the Lord.

 

The OP isn't really about instuments in church as much as it is about how we pick and choose verses that support our position and acuse everyone who differs as non-biblical. For instance I was once in a Sunday School class (not mentioning the denomination) where everyone was saying that the 10 commandments apply to today. When I asked about the Sabbath, some said that it had been changed to Sunday, others said that as long as you use 1 day as a sabbath. Yet if the commandments apply neither position is listed. Another example is that a preacher must be the husband of 1 wife. We hold strict enforcement of that position but give great leeway when looking at how he manages his children and household or if he even has them.