The end of 'Christianity lite' is near

Edmonton Sun ^ | December 21, 2003 | TED BYFIELD

[ArrogantBustard]

Christ said there was no one of the apostles greater than any of the others

Bzzt. WRONG.

Matt 23:11
Luke 22:26
Luke 22:31-32
John 21:14-16

And, of course, Matt 16:18

If you can't even get such a simple thing as that right, why should I pay any attention to anything else you have to say? I've seen your performance on the NES thread, and it's no better.

[The Grammarian]

Jesus and the Apostles didn't worship God "through hymnody." Why should you?

Paul tells early Christians in Ephesus and Colossae to "speak to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" (Eph. 5:19, cf. Col 3:16). So whether Jesus or the apostles did (which is debatable), Christians do.

It's a long and re-hashed (and frankly boring) discussion

Then why bring it up? As for the rest of your post, I never said that other Christians couldn't sing 'contemporary' songs. I said that I see no reason to change the way churches "do" worship. I still prefer worshiping through hymnody.

[Theo]

I was responding to your term "hymnody," which refers to a particular "style/genre" of music that may have originated as early as the 4th century. "Hymnody" does not necessarily equate to "hymns/psalms/spiritual songs" in general....

You wrote: "I still prefer worshiping through hymnody." And that's of course perfectly fine. I prefer the doctrinal richness of many traditional hymns myself, both sung with traditional melodies and instrumentation, and also with contemporary melodies and instrumentation. And that's fine too.

Worship takes place in the heart, after all is said and done and sung. Whether that worship is accompanied by contemporary or traditional music is ultimately irrelevant.

What *is* relevant is the doctrinal soundness and depth of what is being sung; I find worship to be most "profound" or "meaningful" when the musical accompaniment (either "traditional" or "contemporary") facilitates a deep engagement with the lyrics/meaning of the song/hymn and with the Lord....

[Campion]

Does this mean that the followers of Peter can only go to the Jews?

No, that means there was a tactical decision in the early Church to send Peter to preach to the Jews.

We aren't bound by a first century tactical choice, and Peter has no "followers". Jesus has followers.

Was the first Pope perfect?

Nobody claims that the first Pope was perfect, or than any of the 263 subsequent Popes were perfect, either. Strawman.

[Campion]

As for a successor - a successor must succeed in spirit, not merely in title.

Compare your opinion to the Scriptures, where Jesus says that the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat, and must be obeyed.

And yet you accuse others of following philosophy over and against Scripture! You would see better the speck in my eye if you removed the plank from your own.

[Zipporah]

Like I said.. I WAS deceived as well. Although the denomination buys into Scofield etc., through study and prayer, I realized that it was IMHO heretical. Only recently, I began to do some research re Scofield and I found out some shocking things regarding the man.. look up info with the connection between Scofield and Westcott & Hort.

[Zipporah]

A partial preterist and proud of it...just noticed this in your signature.. and I say Amen.

[Havoc]

Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

[26] But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

[27] And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:

He says among the world, greatness and rank walk hand in hand. Then he says that will not be the case among the apostles and that Greatness will be measured spiritually.
No rule of one over another and a different definition of what makes one great. Just takes reading without looking to prop up an agenda.

[Havoc]

Compare your opinion to the Scriptures, where Jesus says that the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat, and must be obeyed.

Because the legal system and the priesthood were one in the same. The law being fullfilled in Christ removed the legal aspect and left only the spiritual. Moses' seat is occupied by Christ. That isn't opinion, that is what Christ spent the latter part of his life telling those that would hear him - both himself and through the Apostles. You might try actually reading what scripture says instead of parroting your philosophers.

[Campion]

No rule of one over another and a different definition of what makes one great.

The passage says nothing about everyone being equal, or "no rule of one over another," as you put it. It does indeed set a different standard of behavior for those in authority, but that instantly and automatically implies that there are some in authority.

You're the one reading your own opinions back into the Scripture.

[Havoc]

I might add that succession again, is not a matter of title, it is a matter of message. If the message isn't the same, you can parade whatever title you wish, and you're still a fraud. Your message don't match. Deal with it.

[Campion]

Because the legal system and the priesthood were one in the same. The law being fullfilled in Christ removed the legal aspect and left only the spiritual.

The Pharisees weren't priests, and came into existence long after the Decalogue. Nice try, though.

Moses' seat is occupied by Christ.

Why are you demoting Christ? What has he done to you to deserve such ill-treatment?

[Campion]

I might add that succession again, is not a matter of title, it is a matter of message.

More empty human philosophy uninformed by the light of God's word. When will you repent?

[Havoc]

Does this mean that the followers of Peter can only go to the Jews?

Peter could minister to Gentiles during the course of his primary ministry; but, per Christ, the original apostles were sent forth to minister to the houses of the family of Israel - the 12 tribes. Paul was commissioned to Preach to the 13th tribe that was grafted on - the gentiles. That was God's plan and Jesus' direction to the apostles. And it is why Peter ministered in the region of Babylon rather than in Rome.

[webstersII]

"A partial preterist and proud of it".

Amen to you both.

The Scofield mis-interpretation of Daniel Chap. 9 with respect to who is the "Prince who is to come" is one of the most egregious errors ever perpetrated on the church.

Zip, after reading the bio you linked on Scofield, I wonder if it really was an error or was intentional.

[Havoc]

The pharisees interpreted the law which was set forth by God. Thus they were the legal interpreters of the spiritual law. I understand you want to quibble; but, there it is.

Why are you demoting Christ? What has he done to you to deserve such ill-treatment?

I did no such thing nor did I imply such a thing; but, I'm sure to you that rank somehow matters to God. It doesn't. Christ assumed athority to himself over matters of the law. Remember. Thus the direction given in i believe 1 thessalonians 5 to return not evil for evil.. ie not barbecuing people at the stake for things. Ring any bells?

[Havoc]

I might add that succession again, is not a matter of title, it is a matter of message.

More empty human philosophy uninformed by the light of God's word. When will you repent?

Uninformed by God's word? Or uninformed by your philosophies, because the latter seems to be the problem you have - that your philosophies are being called into question instead of being blindly accepted as truth. Do tell.. Don't, then, bother reading what the apostles had to say about philosophy and the wisdom of men, you'll be really offended.

[Zipporah]

You know, that has crossed my mind.. and the deeper I look the more suspect it is...

[Havoc]

The passage says nothing about everyone being equal, or "no rule of one over another," as you put it. It does indeed set a different standard of behavior for those in authority, but that instantly and automatically implies that there are some in authority. You're the one reading your own opinions back into the Scripture.

So you charge. You are the one with the claim. I'm pointing out what scripture says, not offering a different system that I myself defined. I'm rather rebutting one that your philosophers offered up in error. Christ appointed no Chief among the apostles. And he states clearly 'the world has those who are great that rule over people - it shall not be so among you'. IE, there will not be one among you that will rule over the others. If you want to be great, then minister. If you think yourself chief, then serve. The whole group served and ministered. And none ruled but Christ. That was their example. Yours isn't the same, for some reason....

[webstersII]

I'm not much on conspiracy theories but when I saw who he was allied with it occurred to me that they probably were promoting their agenda.