quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:


He didn't say he thinks you or anyone else is condemned for hanging pictures of Mary or Christ.

On this point I want to be crystal clear, my issue lay with the magisterium. Every single Catholic, Orthodox, or other trinitarian who truly believes Jesus Christ is his or her Lord and Savior will be in Heaven.

And there's the transcendent nature of salvation, as previously illustrated by Rey. Amen.

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:


I'm not Muslim, I do however take the 2nd commandment seriously, depictions of God are not appropriate. Christ did come and fulfill the law but the 10 commandments are not the law they are direct commandments. I also do my best to keep the lords day, the sabbath for God.

You say the 10 commandments are not the law but they are direct commandments.

Actually, when Jesus, and especially Paul in Romans, is quoted in referring to the word translated as the Law, they are more often than not, referring to the first five books of the Old Testament attributed to Moses, also known as the Torah or by the Greek term Pentateuch.

In Matthew 5:17 that you reference, Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." By pairing them, He was clearly referring to the written body of Scripture, starting with the Torah.

In Acts 24:14, Paul follows the same phrasing, "But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets.

The first five books of the Old Testament are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

The 10 commandments are enumerated twice in the Old Testament. The first is in Exodus 20:1-17 and then in Deuteronomy 5:4-21. The 10 commandments are indeed part of the Law as they are within the first five books. The 10 commandments aren't uniquely "direct commandments." It was God who directly gave the commandments to observe the Passover every year as well as every commandment for all the blood sacrifices and grain offerings. It was also God who directly gave the commandment for every male born through Israel be circumcised on the 8th day.

And it's good that people try to observe the commandments in the Bible or the principles behind the commandments. But as the apostle Paul points out, it's purpose was not to serve as a means of salvation but to serve as a guardian to show we need a savior and to point to the Savior. "Therefore the Law has become our guardian to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian." Galatians 3:24-25)


Jesus even explained that the 10 commandments goes deeper than actions; if we simply look at a woman in lust, we have committed adultery which is a capital offense. The same God who said "Thou shalt not murder" also said "Thou shalt not lie." And James said if you break the smallest part of the Law, you have broken the whole Law. "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." James 2:10 ""Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin." (Romans 3:20)

Gustofer, I am of the opinion that your comment on the previous page was not appropriate.

In re-reading some of our other recent discourse, I found this on page 33...

quote:

I have always fallen back on the fact that if Jesus had not intended us to confess our sins to priests, why did he give the apostles the authority to forgive sin? It has always seemed pretty logical to me. That does not mean that we can't confess directly to God, which we are encouraged to do as well.

Is this not the same thing you admonished me for? If you don't think so, then I can assure you it was merely a matter of improper authorship of what I wrote about understanding Fender's Iconoclast position, that gave you the incorrect impression that I think I "know better than God".

I am still learning on all fronts. I appreciate the ongoing inter-denominational discourse here (including our atheist sigfreund).

When it comes to scriptural foundations, I'd say the Reformed Iconoclasm has as much or more to stand on than the Catholic Marian Dogma. The Marian Dogma relies largely on one verse from one translation ("full of grace"), makes some bizarre claims about another, more prolific and consistent verse (Matthew 1:25), and relies on a lot of human "logic". This Dogma, as controversial as it can be in the Catholic/Protestant discussion, is ultimately not a "matter of salvation", and therefore something I don't fret about. (Remember that I am still learning, and take it easy if I am incorrect about aspects of the Marian Dogma)

I am not saying this to sharpshoot you or Catholicism. I am saying it to encourage you and everyone else here to remain open-minded on matters beyond fundamental truths of salvation (faith and repentance), and willing to let Christ bridge denominational divides. That He may be honored and glorified, in furtherance of His Kingdom.

The term “Reformed logic” piqued my interest, and the definition I found online seemed to indicate that it was based on and was respectful of Scripture. I’m curious what any objection to it might be.

Regarding “logic” in the common sense, humans communicate in various ways—words, gestures, images, expressions—and to make sense of any of them requires the use of logic on our part. If someone texts me at noon with, “Let’s meet for lunch tomorrow,” I must use logic to understand what “tomorrow” means in that context. It’s not the same as what Tomorrow Land means at Disneyland, what it means when my financial adviser uses it about long term planning, or what it means in other contexts and could be significantly different. I must use logic with even a very simple sentence like that to understand that my friend was referring to the 24 hour period starting at midnight tonight.

In one discussion about religion I mentioned something I’d read in a Bible and was told what it seemed to express in ordinary English wasn’t what it meant. I was advised to “find someone to explain it to you.” That of course implied that my logical understanding of the words in the passage was faulty and that I should rely on someone else’s logical interpretation for a correct meaning.

Anyway, an interesting discussion that continues to enlighten me; thanks to all the contributors.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:


I'm not Muslim, I do however take the 2nd commandment seriously, depictions of God are not appropriate. Christ did come and fulfill the law but the 10 commandments are not the law they are direct commandments. I also do my best to keep the lords day, the sabbath for God.

You say the 10 commandments are not the law but they are direct commandments.

Actually, when Jesus, and especially Paul in Romans, is quoted in referring to the word translated as the Law, they are more often than not, referring to the first five books of the Old Testament attributed to Moses, also known as the Torah or by the Greek term Pentateuch.

In Matthew 5:17 that you reference, Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." By pairing them, He was clearly referring to the written body of Scripture, starting with the Torah.

In Acts 24:14, Paul follows the same phrasing, "But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets.

The first five books of the Old Testament are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

The 10 commandments are enumerated twice in the Old Testament. The first is in Exodus 20:1-17 and then in Deuteronomy 5:4-21. The 10 commandments are indeed part of the Law as they are within the first five books. The 10 commandments aren't uniquely "direct commandments." It was God who directly gave the commandments to observe the Passover every year as well as every commandment for all the blood sacrifices and grain offerings. It was also God who directly gave the commandment for every male born through Israel be circumcised on the 8th day.

And it's good that people try to observe the commandments in the Bible or the principles behind the commandments. But as the apostle Paul points out, it's purpose was not to serve as a means of salvation but to serve as a guardian to show we need a savior and to point to the Savior. "Therefore the Law has become our guardian to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian." Galatians 3:24-25)


Jesus even explained that the 10 commandments goes deeper than actions; if we simply look at a woman in lust, we have committed adultery which is a capital offense. The same God who said "Thou shalt not murder" also said "Thou shalt not lie." And James said if you break the smallest part of the Law, you have broken the whole Law. "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." James 2:10 ""Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin." (Romans 3:20)

Alright, then what's the drive or point of your post here? Salvation is by grace alone. I'll accept that the 10 commandments are included in the Law but not subordinate to it.

now lets look at them here in short form.

1.You shall have no other gods before Me.

2.You shall not make idols.

3.You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.

4.Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

5.Honor your father and your mother.

6.You shall not murder.

7.You shall not commit adultery.

8.You shall not steal.

9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

10.You shall not covet.

Are you going to tell me, "Let's follow 8 of these, the other 2 aren't important."

quote:

That of course implied that my logical understanding of the words in the passage was faulty and that I should rely on someone else’s logical interpretation for a correct meaning.

"Logic" becomes contentious in the context of scriptural interpretation when folks feel as though following a certain logical course of thought becomes "too much" of a departure from what's on the page.

At least that's the best way I can think to summarize it.

Obviously it becomes subjective, and that creates problems.

As an example, in the Marian Dogma, Mary is considered sinless. They arrive at this conclusion by applying what they consider logical thought; the scriptures don't say it. They consider it logical that Jesus could not have been conceived in the presence of any sin, therefore she must have been sinless. A Protestant take on the topic would almost certainly refer to the numerous times God used broken and imperfect people in the execution of His perfect will.

quote:

Are you going to tell me, "Let's follow 8 of these, the other 2 aren't important."

A redeemed person indwelled by the Spirit will naturally give a darn about adhering to all ten. They may oppose the will of God in various ways for a time, and may come around to obedience to some commandments before others. But this is me applying in-this-moment human "logic" based on what I've been taught. I don't have plentiful scripture references at this time, but we know "fear and trembling", "bring it into subjection", "desperately wicked", etc. All imply ongoing sanctification and an imperfect condition, even when redeemed and indwelled. Romans 7:15-19 is probably the best reference.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:


I'm not Muslim, I do however take the 2nd commandment seriously, depictions of God are not appropriate. Christ did come and fulfill the law but the 10 commandments are not the law they are direct commandments. I also do my best to keep the lords day, the sabbath for God.

Alright, then what's the drive or point of your post here? Salvation is by grace alone. I'll accept that the 10 commandments are included in the Law but not subordinate to it.

now lets look at them here in short form.

Are you going to tell me, "Let's follow 8 of these, the other 2 aren't important."

You ask what’s my point here? Do you not follow that I was responding to you post where you differentiate between the Law and the 10 commandments and that somehow the 10 commandments are more special because, as you put it, “they are direct commandments?”

Here’s my other point now, driven by your logic of “”Let’s follow 8 of these, the other 2 aren’t important.” So your reasoning is that we should follow all 10, including the Sabbath that you mentioned, right?

Observing the Sabbath, which is the seventh day of the week which is Saturday, involves:

1) not doing any work or causing another person to do work on your behalf (Exodus 20:8-11, Deuteronomy 5:12-15)
2) not lighting a fire (Exodus 35:3)
3) not gathering any food (Exodus 16:23-29)
4) not buying or selling because commerce is work (Nehemiah 13:15-22)
5) not doing any agricultural field work (Exodus 34:21)
6) not carrying any loads out of your house (Jeremiah 17:21-22)
7) you’re supposed to sacrifice 2 male lambs without defect, a grain offering, and a drink offering in addition to the daily offering (Numbers 28:9-10)

So, my point now is: I doubt you’ve even really been observing the Sabbath as you’d like to think you’re doing. I’ll even give you the 7 since there’s no temple at the moment. Have you done work on a Saturday? Light up a barbecue on a Saturday? Cooked on a Saturday? Ate out on a Saturday? Bought or sold anything on a Saturday? Carried a load on a Saturday? Are you the one who’s going to say, “Well, some I observe and the ones I’ve not followed in observing the Sabbath aren’t important?” Or maybe you’re really perfect and follow all those things on Saturdays now. But have you broken them in previous Sabbaths? Are you now going to say you get to choose which Saturdays are important enough to observe and when it’s not important?

As I said, it’s good that people are trying to follow the commandments and even the principles in the Bible but it’s main purpose is not to point to the principles but the Principal Person of Jesus Christ.

So, again, my point in responding to you is because you’re the one who differentiated between the 10 commandments and the Law. You even said the 10 commandments are not the law. That is incorrect.

And, now, my second point, based on your logic, is that I’m willing to bet you’re not actually observing the Sabbath as directly commanded by God. You’re most likely just been following the parts you think are “important.” And if you’ve broken one Sabbath, you’ve broken the Sabbath law. “For whoever keeps the whole Law, yet stumbles in one point, has become guilty of all.”
‭‭James‬ ‭2‬:‭10‬

Fender did originally say...

quote:

I also do my best to keep the lords day, the sabbath for God.

My observance of the Sabbath, at this point in my life, means making no plans other than attending church. I don't succeed every Sunday, but I do succeed most Sundays.

Mark 2:23 and Colossians and Romans seem pretty clear about those laws no longer applying.

I think a day of rest is important - and I think those Scriptures support the idea of a day of rest.

I think the event at Mark 2:23 can be likened to James 2:15. It's a common sense moment, regarding obtaining sustenance in furtherance of the Kindom. It is also a sabbath teaching.

They were trying to sharpshoot Him, using a perversion of the Sabbath commandment.

It seems illogical that the Lord would have ever wanted us to "take a break" from work that glorifies Him and can lead the lost to Him. It ought not seem much like "work" anyway. Though it can.

It can also be interpreted as a commentary on the Sabbath, in the broader sense being discussed here.

My $.02 anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Fender did originally say...

quote:

I also do my best to keep the lords day, the sabbath for God.

My observance of the Sabbath, at this point in my life, means making no plans other than attending church. I don't succeed every Sunday, but I do succeed most Sundays.

Best may be close enough for people but not for God. That’s the point of the Law: “all our righteous acts are like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6).” We can try to follow the commandments but, if you understand the Bible, we’re only fooling ourselves if we think we’re keeping the commandments at all, even if only as best we can.

And as best as we can isn’t even an excuse. If you didn’t know all that entails in keeping the Sabbath, which again, is the seventh day of the week, not the first, there’s no excuse in not knowing that because it’s all in the Bible. And you certainly can keep the Sabbath observances such as no cooking, no working, no lifting heavy loads, etc. Do you know how I know it’s possible? Because there are plenty of Orthodox Jews who do exactly that. And they even get Sabbath compliant appliances with Sabbath mode such as refrigerators, ovens, lights, etc. so that they do fully observe the Sabbath to the letter of the Law, not just “as best as I can.”

Can you picture a person on judgement day who didn’t accept salvation by grace? “ But I kept the Sabbath as best as I can even though I did it on Sunday and not on a Saturday and I did work or caused other people to do work for me such as cooking.” Is that going to get them into heaven?

Picture a person who is saved using the same exact phrase. You think they’re going to get an extra reward for observing the Sabbath on a day that isn’t the Sabbath and even actually doing the things they’re not supposed to be doing on the Sabbath? Jesus explained in Mark 2:27, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”

And please put in context, the comment I was responding to: I was responding to a comment that he apparently follows all 10 commandments and not just 8 like lesser Christians do. And, yes, the implication that Christians who don’t follow all 10 commandments are somehow not as good Christians. I merely pointed out two facts: that the view that the 10 commandments are not part of the Law is incorrect and that it’s an easy bet that most Christians don’t actually follow the Sabbath. And the third point now is: best isn’t good enough; you either do or you don’t. James says you break the smallest part of the Law and you’ve broken the whole Law.

Am I saying you shouldn’t keep Sunday or any other day special and dedicating it to the Lord? No. All I’m saying is don’t think you’re in any way observing the Sabbath because you’re actually not observing it. Keep it real.

It’s the difference between memorizing the words from that handbook as to what Catholics should say and having actually experienced and living out those words. And, as I said, even non-Catholic Christians can spit out those same words convincingly and not be saved.

I suppose I am overly paranoid of keeping the disputes to a minimum. Maybe I shouldn't be. I tend to think that it's nearly always a case of misunderstanding, and discord in the thread really bums me out. There's so much opportunity for edification and sharpening.

Of course you're right, Rey...

quote:

Am I saying you shouldn’t keep Sunday or any other day special and dedicating it to the Lord? No. All I’m saying is don’t think you’re in any way observing the Sabbath because you’re actually not observing it. Keep it real.

We CAN'T do it. Out of gratitude and respect for our Savior, and by way of an indwelling of the Holy Ghost, we are compelled to try. We experience varying degrees of success that are impossible to truly measure, and human nature has us compare against each other.

Thank you for the continued conversation.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
I think the event at Mark 2:23 can be likened to James 2:15. It's a common sense moment, regarding obtaining sustenance in furtherance of the Kindom. It is also a sabbath teaching.

They were trying to sharpshoot Him, using a perversion of the Sabbath commandment.

It seems illogical that the Lord would have ever wanted us to "take a break" from work that glorifies Him and can lead the lost to Him. It ought not seem much like "work" anyway. Though it can.

It can also be interpreted as a commentary on the Sabbath, in the broader sense being discussed here.

My $.02 anyway.

You can read the whole passage and get the point that Jesus was making. Mark 2:23-28, Matthew 12:1-8, and Luke 6:1-5.

The accusation by the Pharisees was Jesus’ disciples picked grains through the field on a Sabbath; they worked thus breaking the Sabbath. Notice they didn’t level the accusation against Jesus and you can be sure they had eagle eyes on Him if He had broken the Sabbath law. They correctly observed the disciples had broken the Sabbath; it wasn’t a perverse interpretation of the Law. Remember: Jesus commended the Pharisees for their meticulous understanding of the Law, even going so far as tithing on the smallest of things such as mint, dill, and cumin (Matthew 23:23) but they tend to overlook the more important matters.

Jesus’ response was that David did what was not lawful by eating bread that wasn’t for him and even gave it to his companions. And it wasn’t recorded as a sin that he committed meaning David had “dispensation” or grace from God to do so. In the Luke passage, Jesus pointed out that the priests in the temple actually work on the Sabbath but they had obviously dispensation or grace to do what they do.

And Jesus ends with the point He was making: “For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” Jesus was claiming preeminence and privilege to dispense the same grace to his disciples as the grace given to David and the priests because of who He is: the Messiah. This was the more important matter the Pharisees were choosing to overlook. They were questioning Him about His disciples after they saw Him heal a paralyzed man and claimed the power to forgive sins.

Here's one thing I've been curious about and is up for debate. I've been working on eventually building a Tiki bar at my home. I know some of the Tiki carvings are of various Polynesian gods. If a Christian were to have these, would it be considered false idols, even if they are considered to be nothing more than decoration. Ex: Not considered to be a real god, not worshipped, not believed to bring good luck, etc...

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
I suppose I am overly paranoid of keeping the disputes to a minimum. Maybe I shouldn't be. I tend to think that it's nearly always a case of misunderstanding, and discord in the thread really bums me out. There's so much opportunity for edification and sharpening.

I can only refer you to Proverbs 17:27 “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.“

I’m sure you know that sharpening comes from abrasive wear. Our ideas meet and come together and the peaks and valleys where our ideas differ hit against each other. The incorrect ideas break off and may become a temporary abrasive between the two pieces and if the two pieces are good pieces of iron, the work produces a hardened edge of sharp truth in both.

I don’t disagree just to be disagreeable; I’m assuming the other person wants to get at the truth just as much or even more than I do. And that’s what it is for me; it’s nothing personal, it’s just about what the truth is and is not.

There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be satisfied by any created thing but only by God the Creator, made known through Jesus Christ.

-Pascal

quote:

Originally posted by ryan81986:
Here's one thing I've been curious about and is up for debate. I've been working on eventually building a Tiki bar at my home. I know some of the Tiki carvings are of various Polynesian gods. If a Christian were to have these, would it be considered false idols, even if they are considered to be nothing more than decoration. Ex: Not considered to be a real god, not worshipped, not believed to bring good luck, etc...

I suppose you're referring to the command "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth." Right?

So here's a humdinger for you: In Exodus 25, God gave Moses the design for the ark of the covenant. In Exodus 25:18, God says, "You shall make two cherubim of God; make them of hammered work at the two ends of the atoning chrub. Make one cherub at one end and one chrub at the other end... And the cherubim shall have their wings spread upward, covering the atoning cover with their wings and facing one another; the faces of the cherubim are to be turned toward the atoning cover."

The curtains and veils of the tabernacle were also made with images of cherubim (Exodus 26:1).

So you have the commandment of God not to make any graven images of anything in heaven above or on the earth or in the water under the earth and, yet, commands in the design of the tabernacle to create statues of cherubim and above the ark and on the veils and curtains.

How do you reconcile the two? You actually need to understand the full commandment: Exodus 20:2-5 says, "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them nor serve them; for I the LORD your God, am a jealous God,....

So the prohibition is against making images AND worshipping them. Which reconciles the apparent conundrum above - God prohibiting making images and incorporating images into the design of His tabernacle. Otherwise, you can't even have pictures of your graduation, your daughter's wedding, etc. because those are, indeed images. You think God didn't account for Kodak to be born?

What's the practical application for you? If you actually did used to worship tiki carvings or Polynesian gods, then, yeah, that might be a distraction for you that takes away your focus. If you have Christian friends, especially new believers, who are Polynesian, you might consider Paul's warning "But take care that this freedom of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak (1 Corinthians 8:9)." On the other hand, don't let another person bully you into what they think is right. In that same letter, Paul also says, "for why is my freedom judged by another's conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered about that for which I give thanks? Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all things for the glory of God."

Paul also says in Romans 14:14 "I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean." And finally in Romans 14:23 "But whoever has doubts is condemned, if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin."

The short answer to your practical issue is: It depends. See above and pick whichever applies.

To assist with the issue of "Idol" and the Ark.

The word used and translated (for yourself/unto yourself) carries the "doing" this with the focus being of you/about you.

Same as when the Tower was built at Babel.

The act was in direct opposite of what was commanded, that the people out to all of the earth and "present/reflect" G-d's likeness/image for all creation of see/perceive/understand.

Yet, the people "collectively" state they want to build "for themselves/unto themselves", a tower and most importantly "A name for/unto themselves" Rather than the Name of G-d.

That is the essence of "idolatry" rather than the "created/made" in the image of the Creator (G-d), man tries to "create/make" a god out of his own image. 180 degrees in direct opposition of what is required.

So, the Ark, does not violate this because man is commanded to make this, as a representation of "G-d's" manifestation of His Presence/Instruction/Sustenance/Mercy/Protection/Glory and such, it's structure/materials/and items it contained.

I was not "man's" creation, it was G-d's making of it through the obedience of those that made it.

Bottom line. Idolatry is about the person being the center of the universe, (represented by the "thing"), rather than G-d being the Center.

So, if one makes an Idol, even for another, the one making is recognizing that any such thing has "power", or he would not make it for even another.

It is like choosing to murder another, or pay to have another do the deed, or fashion a weapon that you know will be used in such a fashion.

If that is "unlawful" in our human world, how much more such a premise applies in the spiritual realm with regard to "unto one's self"?

I wouldn’t mess around with graven images.

In origin, they are all demonic.

It wouldn’t be something I would want to bring in my house.