Pages

Monday, June 6, 2016

As (Not So) Often As You Do This - another round of the crushing Protestant liturgical dilemma

Though I haven't had much time to blog recently, I wanted to show people a beautiful real-life example of the crushing effectiveness of the Ultimate Catholic Apologetics Argument (UCAA) against Protestants (which I posted about previously). 

A "Reformed Baptist" pastor named Ken at the Protestant apologetics site Beggars All had a post focused on criticizing Catholics for following "traditions of men" rather than the Bible, which turned out to be highly ironic shortly after I brought up the UCAA in the combox. There's no need to read the post or most of the comments, but if you're interested just see the last ten comments or so for how effortlessly the UCAA can take down the most committed "Bible Christian" (see THIS link to take you straight to the last few comments). 

The key post is when I responded to Ken saying, 
[Pastor Ken said]: None of what you say really carries any weight with me, since you are right in the sense that that an order of worship is not laid out word for word, but the general idea is for us to worship God by Scripture, prayer, singing, teaching, etc. and we can arrange the order however we want to and that is not a big deal to me.

[Nick's response]: The main problem I have here is that you haven't actually given any Scriptural verses that say what the "general idea" is for Christian Liturgy. The closest thing you've listed is the Lord's Supper, which you say you only do once a month. I don't even think you've given a verse that says singing is supposed to be done during liturgy.

As for your admission that you only celebrated the Lord's Supper once a month, this is astonishing because either it is part of liturgy or it isn't. If it is part of liturgy, you have no right to only do it 25% of the time. This suggests a person can celebrate the Lord's Supper as rarely as they feel like it, and by extension they can leave out Scripture, prayer, etc, as often as they feel like it. All this reduces down to a liturgical relativism, which really isn't liturgy at all, but more and more a man-made event according to personal taste.
As you can see, Ken was pretty trapped here, because while the Bible does indicate the Eucharist is the essential part of the liturgy, and thus is done "often" (1 Cor 11:26), both Ken and most Evangelicals do not do this that often. And as I also point out, to compound the dilemma they are in, that line of thinking means there is nothing actually essential to the Christian Liturgy, which is ridiculous, and results in the Protestant being able to leave out anything they want on any given Sunday.

Now, it's important to note that while this massive problem didn't bother Ken nor will it trouble most other Protestants, the fact is it should, and I believe that it eventually will bother them. For now, it's great that some seeds were planted. I strongly believe that if more Catholics would start using the UCAA, I swear that this will be the downfall of Westminster Seminary in a few short years.

20 comments:

Steve Dalton said...

Nick,it s a waste of time to reason with the BA folks. Their minds are made up, they don't want to be confused with the facts. Send your time and energy educating those who are willing to learn.

prolifemama said...

Nick, please continue to provide the facts and explain the truth. There are always folks who adamantly state one thing, while still feeling uncomfortable in their minds. They need to know they're seen as individuals, and they desire a safe place to ask their question. It is never a waste of time. Jesus went after the one sheep that was lost, safely leaving the 99 who had no desire to wander.

jack mills said...

This is the Scriptural support for the comments made by Ken regarding the form of worship: "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." Acts 2:42

1Cor 11:26 has nothing to do with Ken's point. "As often as you eat this..." simply means that Paul was informing the church that when the Lord's supper is celebrated by the saints, the Lord's death is proclaimed until He comes back.

The early church had a simple directive in joining together for what is now called "Sunday service": The teaching of the Bible, corporate prayer, fellowship, and the Lord's supper. Most of what is done in the Catholic church on Sunday does not even remotely resemble the gathering of the early believers.

MaryC said...

So, Jack; which of numerous Protestant sects has it right then? Did the early Christians roll around on the floor, laughing and barking like dogs as the Pentecostalists do perhaps?
Sunday worship couldn't have been what you say it was for the simple reason that there was no Bible in the early centuries of Christianity. The canon of the Bible was decided upon later, by the Catholic Church, I might add.
What the early Christians did have was the Holy Eucharist which they celebrated often per Our Lord's instruction.

Joey Henry said...

Hi Nick,

Just want to drop a comment regarding the liturgy argument that you gave. I know you really believe this as the ultimate argument. And it bothers you that your argument is not taken seriously. The reasons I don't take it seriously are because of the following:

1. It presupposes an understanding of the application of sola scriptura that is erroneous. For example, it demands that the perfect order, words and programs of the believer's assembly should be laid out in the Bible otherwise it is in violation of the sola scriptura principle. This is simply a wrong understanding of the tenet.

2. There are many things in the Christian life, practice and decision making that is not detailed in Scripture but are controlled, principled and guided by Scripture. For example, we are commanded to take care of our bodies but the Scripture does not detail whether we are to do 10 sit-ups per day or have glutten free diet for breakfast. We are commanded to love but the Scripture does not detail that on Monday we are to give 10 dollars to the homeless to show love. In other words, Scripture gives us principles and guidance on which we apply to each of our situations; the details of which vary in different ways.

3. Thus, we are commanded in Scripture to gather together in worship. There are guidelines and principles in Scripture that what we are to do in these gatherings. One major objective is for edification which Scripture gives us guidelines such as preaching, singing and exhorting. But it is not limited to those only because we see also as situation permit the celebration of the Lord's Supper or Baptism. Or, the prayer for the sick or rebuking or disciplining or ordaining leaders. There are many things that Scripture provides as priciples and practices that we can apply when we gather. There are liberties on what and when to do it. And so, our commitment to gather together to edify fellow believers and create programs to that end is a full commitment to Sola Scriptura rather than a violation of it.

4. As a practical example: In China, most underground church gathering significantly differ in their practices when they worship together. Theirs is very basic. Sometimes, it is merely the reading of Scripture and prayer during the service. They have to make it quick and fast. At times, it is testimonial and thanksgiving. Are they violating Sola Scriptura or is their practice not in accordance with Scripture? Of course not. The principle is laid out in Scripture the application of which differ in every situation. We dare not say that their "liturgy" is deficient compared to the gathering we have for theirs might be more meaningful due to the persecution they experienced, although short and basic. It is not the form or length of words and ornaments used that the Scripture prescribed after all when we gather together in worship but the heart.

Regards,
Joey Henry

Nick said...

Joey,

Here are my thoughts to your points:

(1) I have explicitly and repeatedly addressed this point. Nothing about my argument says Sola Scriptura has to address everything "perfectly". Rather, I set the bar *very low* saying that Scripture should say SOMETHING about Liturgy, and yet it's mostly silent about it. And even when it does speak on Liturgy, namely the Eucharist, Reformed Protestants are in general agreement that the Eucharist isn't even an essential every Sunday.

(2) I cannot make my argument any clearer than this: You have no Liturgy *at all*. None. You don't turn to Scripture for *anything* you do on Sunday. That's a very devastating claim. Your only option, which my UCAA is intended to force, is for you to say it doesn't matter how a Christian worships as long as it seems good to them.

(3) You said: There are guidelines and principles in Scripture that what we are to do in these gatherings. One major objective is for edification which Scripture gives us guidelines such as preaching, singing and exhorting. But it is not limited to those only because we see also as situation permit the celebration of the Lord's Supper or Baptism.

I *deny* that there are any such "guidelines" of what is supposed to be done in gathers, as you claim. That's precisely where everything breaks down, because in the Protestant mind Scripture *must surely* give such guidelines, so such comments seem so true that they must be...but when actual details are asked for from Scripture, no such "guidelines" are ever produced. I don't believe you can give any reasonable *guidelines* from Scripture of what is supposed to be done for worship. That's where I hang my hat. Where does the Bible say that typical Christian worship consists of a pastor standing up and leading a glorified Bible study? If you cannot give clear Scripture for this, then it's not Scriptural "guidelines" you're following, but rather what sounds good to your tastes.

(4) If you are arguing that the Chineses underground churches cannot practice their faith in its fullness, then Yes they are deficient in their worship. That's the definition of living the faith in persecuted conditions. If the Bible is forbidden, then you can hardly say they are in a position to have a solid Bible study. We can say that God won't hold them to the same standards as 'free' Christians, and He will certainly look at the heart more than anything, but even the faithful Jews in Babylonian captivity yearned to get back to full practice of the Torah.

Joey Henry said...

Nick,

1. You did not set the bar so low but you want to make Scripture say something about Christian worship that it didn't say. In other words, you are looking for formularies in Scripture and because it doesn't detail it, then you are quick to judge that any christian gathering with their formularies are in violation of Sola Scriptura. Simple: You have an erroroneous view on Sola Scriptura.

2. From no.1 sprang another error. When you said that, "We have no liturgy at all. None." - Simple: Error in observation. Quick generalisations. Each local gathering of Christians have their formularies whether in China, Iran, Syria and even in the most basic home church, i.e. there is an order of christian gathering.

3. Another error: "You don't turn to Scripture for anything you do on Sunday." Every Christian turns to the word of God not only when they gather but every day. When they corporately gather to worship, we see them read the word and the exposition of it (something rooted in Synagogue practice) as seen in Scripture. But there are unique practices too, the encouraging of one another, the collection, the breaking of bread, singing of hymns, etc. Simple: Again, errorneous view of Sola Scriptura.

4. Deny all you want about Scriptural guidelines but the Scripture is clear about it. Guidelines are principles. And Scripture accommodates liberties for to uphold those guidelines. Simple: You are confusing principles with detailed formularies.

5. Where does the Bible say that typical Christian worship consists of a pastor standing up and leading a glorified Bible study? -- Simple: What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. (1Cor 14:26). This is then cross referenced to the function of an elder: Elders lead the church [1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1–2], teach and preach the Word [1 Timothy 3:2; 2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 1:9], protect the church from false teachers [Acts 20:17, 28–31], exhort and admonish the saints in sound doctrine [1 Timothy 4:13; 2 Timothy 3:13–17; Titus 1:9], visit the sick and pray [James 5:14; Acts 6:4], and judge doctrinal issues [Acts 15:6]. In biblical terminology, elders shepherd, oversee, lead, and care for the local church.

6. I guess I just want to register the word: Arrogance. The gall of a western man with all the benefits of western liberties to judge home churches in China that they cannot practice the FULLNESS of their faith unless they follow certain formularies. This is just Judaism again en toto. Well, let's see in judgment day when all intentions of the heart is revealed. Let's see who has the fullness of godly worship between the formularies of the Cathedrals in Paris with all the props and a house church in China or Africa or Syria. For that, we'll just have to wait and see.

Take Care,
Joey Henry
Regards,
Joey Henry

Southern Israelite said...

Nick,

"The closest thing you've listed is the Lord's Supper, which you say you only do once a month."

>>>But the problem is compounded for you Nick. Your theology says the Lord's Supper replaces the Levitical Feasts, but the Levitical Feasts were ordained with specific time parameters while there are hardly any for the lord's supper. Moreover, to maintain that the Levitical Feasts have all been fulfilled commits you to a Full Preterist Eschatology for the Harvest feasts and the Feast of Trumpets are shadows of the final state, the judgment and the Resurrection.

Nick said...

Joey,

You are correct, I am indeed judging Christians who gather on Sunday to worship however they decide is best, because ultimately that is man-centered worship. Further, a Liturgy by definition requires structure, not mere principles to then build your own liturgy.

I asked where does the Bible say a typical Christian liturgy consists of a pastor leading a glorified Bible study. You responded by quoting 1 Cor 14:26, "When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation." Exegetically, this doesn't say anything directly about reading from the Scriptures, and in fact suggests all sorts of other actions, many of which most Protestants would say are gifts of the spirit that are no longer (or rarely) given anymore.

Then, with the cross references to the elder, none of these many verses you gave are explicitly referring to Liturgy. The New Testament is clear that preaching/teaching/reading were done in a variety of contexts, including preaching to unbelievers, pastoral guidance to individuals, meetings during the week for edification, etc. None of these refer exclusively or particularly to Sunday Liturgy. Visiting the sick and judging doctrinal issues aren't done during Liturgy.

Lastly, it is not arrogance for someone with full freedom to worship God to say those without full freedom are thus lacking. If someone doesn't have bread and wine and bibles and hymnals and a place to meet, then they certainly cannot partake in the fullness of Christian Worship. God would not judge them for scenarios beyond their control, but there is also an element of Divine Providence where those born in such places were not as "blessed" as you and I. The only way those house churches even know what to do is because Christians from outside have delivered the information to them. Now if what was delivered to them was some individualist westernized Evangelical Protestant "liturgy," then that is very much the arrogance of those Protestants projecting their way of life on others that you are understandably upset about.

Nick said...

Southern Israelite,

The OT Feasts are not so much 'replaced' as they are fulfilled. With the Old Covenant fulfilled and faded away, there's no such thing as those holidays anymore. So the Lord's Supper is not mirroring them in such a way as to have to correspond directly to how they were celebrated.

Southern Israelite said...

Nick,

"The OT Feasts are not so much 'replaced' as they are fulfilled."

>>>Which I specifically addressed and showed how this doctrine requires to to hold to a full preterist eschatology, which you read and deliberately avoided.


"With the Old Covenant fulfilled and faded away, there's no such thing as those holidays anymore. So the Lord's Supper is not mirroring them in such a way as to have to correspond directly to how they were celebrated."

>>>And yet the apostle tells us

1 Cor. 5:7 For Messiah our Passover also has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us celebrate
the feast

Col. 2:16 Therefore no one is to [n]act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath [o]day— 17 things which are[estin - present tense not past tense] a mere shadow of what is to come[Not what is in the past]; but the body of Messiah.

Do we find that the Colossians are being condemned for NOT observing feast days and
Sabbaths? Who would be doing that to former pagans? Could it be that they were being
condemned FOR OBSERVING the Kosher Laws and the Sabbaths? Next, what about the
phrase, “things which ARE a mere shadow of what is TO COME”? The are, (estin in the Greek)
is present tense not past tense. It is not saying they were a shadow. It says they are a shadow. The Christian interpretation is that the Sabbaths and Feasts were shadows of something already come, namely Yeshua the Messiah. This is obviously incorrect.

Now, Nick, how about we try this again. I have made arguments in clear plain English, let's see you actually address what I said this time.

Nick said...

Starting with your last sentence, I would say No, you have not made your arguments clear in plain English. I can barely understand what you're saying about the Colossians.

The Judaizer heresy was the notion that Gentile Christians had to live as Jewish Christians. If Gentile Christians were supposed to get circumcised and live according to the 613 Mosaic Commandments, then there would have been no Judaizer controversy at all. Acts 15 would make no sense.

It is understandable that the Jews are scandalized by Christians saying the Mosaic era is over. But what is absolutely unacceptable is the Protestant view that says the Mosaic Law still abides but that it is now a butchered Mosaic Law, wherein we pick which of the 613 we want to live by and ignore the rest as outdated. The Catholic/Pauline view is that the whole Mosaic Covenant as a binding law has been set aside, holding no legal force at all.

Christians are not supposed to keep the Ten Commandments as if we were living under the Mosaic dispensation. Rather, Christians are to worship God properly, avoid murder, theft, adultery, and other such moral commands, because Jesus and the Apostles command it under the New Covenant. This is why Jesus said, "Moses allowed you to divorce, but I say to you anyone who divorces and remarries commits adultery."






Southern Israelite said...

Nick,

"Starting with your last sentence, I would say No, you have not made your arguments clear in plain English. I can barely understand what you're saying about the Colossians."

>>>If you didn't want your worldview challenged you shouldn't have started a blog. You know exactly what I said.

"The Judaizer heresy was the notion that Gentile Christians had to live as Jewish Christians."

>>>This is literally not a word in the bible that says this. The word Judaizer is nowhere in the bible.

"If Gentile Christians were supposed to get circumcised and live according to the 613 Mosaic Commandments, then there would have been no Judaizer controversy at all. Acts 15 would make no sense."

>>>Nick you need to actually back up claims with evidence. The reason why the Gentile issue came up was Rabbinic Theology of the Noahide Laws.

https://southernisraelite.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/faith-and-heritage-exposed-on-the-noahide-laws/

The Rabbinic Theology which is exactly what Jesus corrects in Matt. 5, and the apostles correct in Acts 15, taught that there were these two radically different paths of salvation and morality for Jews and gentiles. Your religion is a development of Rabbinic theology. Your problems are multiple:

1. Acts 15:20 but that we write to them that they abstain from [j]things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

These are commandments that are in the Torah!

2. After enacting these Mosaic laws for Gentile observation James suggests the preaching of the Mosaic law to the Gentiles: vs 21 "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since [k]he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

3.In direct defiance to the Noahide Law theology you believe Peter states, vs 11 "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”

4. In Acts 16 as Paul is handing out the decrees of Acts 15 he circumcises a Gentile.

There is no way around these arguments Nick. The only honest response you can have to this post is a renunciation of the Catholic Church. I'll be expecting to see you post your decree of excommunication in the next week.

"It is understandable that the Jews are scandalized by Christians saying the Mosaic era is over."

>>>Mosaic era? See that is the problem. You think the Sinai Covenant and the Moral laws of moses are jointly exhaustive.

Southern Israelite said...

Nick,

"But what is absolutely unacceptable is the Protestant view that says the Mosaic Law still abides but that it is now a butchered Mosaic Law, wherein we pick which of the 613 we want to live by and ignore the rest as outdated."

>>>First the protestants got their view from your church. The only laws done away with from scripture relate to the function of the Levitical priesthood. Everything else goes, yes, 7th day sabbath, polygamy, slavery, clean eating, feast observance, tzizit, and the whole nine.

We have tried your theology from 2000 years Nick and it hasn't worked. We live in the chaos of today because of your religion. No one knows what part of the bible they are supposed to do.


"The Catholic/Pauline view is that the whole Mosaic Covenant as a binding law has been set aside, holding no legal force at all."

>>>On the contrary:

Mat 5: 17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish

Acts 18:21 but took leave of them, saying, “I must by all means keep this coming feast in
Jerusalem; but I will return again to you, God willing.” And he sailed from Ephesus.

Acts 21: 17 After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 After he had greeted
them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles
through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they
have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to
forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the
customs. 22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.23
Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and
purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.25 But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.” 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.

Acts 25: 6 After he had spent not more than eight or ten days among them, he went down to
Caesarea, and on the next day he took his seat on the tribunal and ordered Paul to be brought. 7 After Paul arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many and serious charges against him which they could not prove, 8 while Paul said
in his own defense, “I have committed no offense either against the Law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar.” Rom. 2:12 For as many as have sinned without Law will also perish without Law, and as many as have sinned in the Law will be judged by the Law


Rom. 3:20 for by the Law [is] the knowledge of sin. Rom. 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

...


Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? is the Law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I
would not have known sin except through the Law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the Law had said, “You shall not covet.”

Rom. 7:12 Therefore, the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. Rom. 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual [Not merely national and political­-DS], but I am
carnal, sold under sin. Rom. 7:22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.

Southern Israelite said...

Nick,

...

Nick,

"But what is absolutely unacceptable is the Protestant view that says the Mosaic Law still abides but that it is now a butchered Mosaic Law, wherein we pick which of the 613 we want to live by and ignore the rest as outdated."

>>>First the protestants got their view from your church. The only laws done away with from scripture relate to the function of the Levitical priesthood. Everything else goes, yes, 7th day sabbath, polygamy, slavery, clean eating, feast observance, tzizit, and the whole nine.

We have tried your theology from 2000 years Nick and it hasn't worked. We live in the chaos of today because of your religion. No one knows what part of the bible they are supposed to do.


"The Catholic/Pauline view is that the whole Mosaic Covenant as a binding law has been set aside, holding no legal force at all."

>>>On the contrary:

Mat 5: 17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish

Acts 18:21 but took leave of them, saying, “I must by all means keep this coming feast in
Jerusalem; but I will return again to you, God willing.” And he sailed from Ephesus.

Acts 21: 17 After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 After he had greeted
them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles
through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they
have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to
forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the
customs. 22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.23
Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and
purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.25 But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.” 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.

Acts 25: 6 After he had spent not more than eight or ten days among them, he went down to
Caesarea, and on the next day he took his seat on the tribunal and ordered Paul to be brought. 7 After Paul arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many and serious charges against him which they could not prove, 8 while Paul said
in his own defense, “I have committed no offense either against the Law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar.” Rom. 2:12 For as many as have sinned without Law will also perish without Law, and as many as have sinned in the Law will be judged by the Law


Rom. 3:20 for by the Law [is] the knowledge of sin. Rom. 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

...


Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? is the Law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I
would not have known sin except through the Law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the Law had said, “You shall not covet.”

Rom. 7:12 Therefore, the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. Rom. 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual [Not merely national and political­-DS], but I am
carnal, sold under sin. Rom. 7:22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.

Southern Israelite said...

...

Rom. 7:25 I thank God through Yeshua the Messiah our Master! So then, with the mind I myself serve the Law of God, but with the flesh the Law of sin.

Rom. 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Rom. 8:6­7 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the Law of God, nor indeed can be.

Rom. 12:19 Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

Rom. 13: 8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor
has fulfilled the law. 9 For this, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

1 Cor. 5:1 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. [Lev. 18:7­ 8]

1 Cor. 5:7 Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact
unleavened. For Messiah our Passover also has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us celebrate
the feast

1 Cor. 5:13 But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among
yourselves. [Deut. 17:7, 21:21, 22:21, 24:7]

1 Cor. 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

1 Cor. 9:8 I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the Law also say these things? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.” God is not concerned about oxen, is He? 10 Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written

1 Cor. 9: 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

1 Cor. 14:34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.

2 Cor. 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has
righteousness with Lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?

Eph. 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), 3 so that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the earth.

Gal. 3:21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be!

Gal. 5: 14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Gal. 6:2 Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ. [He says this right after quoting Lev. 19:18 in Gal. 5:14]

Col. 2:16­-17 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body of the Messiah. [Here we see Paul encouraging the Colossians not to be intimidated by the judgments of their Gentile Pagan tribesmen for becoming like Jews and showing them that the Feasts are not merely shadows of things in the past but of the future, and that is
why they should still keep them!]

1 Tim. 1:8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully

2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly

Southern Israelite said...

...

2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

1 John 2: 6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

"Christians are not supposed to keep the Ten Commandments as if we were living under the Mosaic dispensation."

>>>And yet Paul quotes straight from it in Eph 6:1-2.

"Rather, Christians are to worship God properly, avoid murder, theft, adultery, and other such moral commands, because Jesus and the Apostles command it under the New Covenant. This is why Jesus said, "Moses allowed you to divorce, but I say to you anyone who divorces and remarries commits adultery."

>>>You misquoted Jesus.

Mat. 19: 8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to [d]divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever [e]divorces his wife, except for [f]immorality, and marries another woman [g]commits adultery[h].”

everybodysdaughter said...

Nick,

I like your argument and think it's pretty solid argument from a logical standpoint. But I'm a former Protestant, and I am not sure that Protestants will be persuaded by it. I think this stems from the fact that their only authority is the Bible. Of course, you and I know that it is illogical to rely on the Bible yet reject the authority that compiled it (and complied it without error, no less). So they're adrift and don't realize it. They really believe they are free to do whatever they want in that respect, since the Bible is silent on Christian liturgy. For example, nowhere in the Bible does it say that there *must* be an order to their Sunday liturgy. Nor does it say, as you have pointed out, what elements *must* be present to count as a Sunday gathering. They don't feel an obligation to do something the Bible doesn't tell them to do.

However, here is another angle. Perhaps you have already explored it, I don't know because I'm new to your site. But have you tried asking them why they worship on Sunday? After all, it is not clear AT ALL from the Bible that the day of worship should have changed from Saturday. My intuition is that their worship on Sunday is a holdover from before the Reformation... in other words, they are (correctly) relying on tradition. I found this Catholic tract from 1853 that essentially makes the same argument:

https://books.google.com/books?id=OgsDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=%22Why+Don%E2%80%99t+You+Keep+Holy+the+Sabbath+Day?%22&source=bl&ots=PFvTMdbfu3&sig=X1cabogoSUxlxgmyuXfCgYPIyqY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3iK7zw4XOAhVYzmMKHRV6BqMQ6AEIUzAI#v=onepage&q=%22Why%20Don%E2%80%99t%20You%20Keep%20Holy%20the%20Sabbath%20Day%3F%22&f=false

everybodysdaughter said...

Nick,

I just found this post of yours: http://www.creedcodecult.com/the-biblical-basis-of-man-made-liturgy/

I understand your argument better and I see how you've tied it into worshiping as God wants us to worship. Let me summarize your argument. Tell me if this sounds right. Your question for Protestants is, "How do you know that your Sunday liturgy is the way God wants you to worship?"

Let me know how that sounds. Thanks for all your work on these issues. Much appreciated.

Nick said...

Everybody'sDaughter,

Yes, that summary is accurate. I would add to it some emphasis on where does Scripture tell you to worship the way you are worshiping.

It is curious that almost all Protestants worship on Sunday, when the fact is the Bible doesn't give that much detail on Sunday being the day of worship.