PLEASE HELP: Is church for everyone?

[David H.]

I knew what you meant, Axe.

Actually, what she meant is not that its a good idea or the best idea. Quote after quote after quote reveals every time she expresses church attendance as something that is a command, not to be broken. However, I've only quoted her about eight times, and I think it's fair to say that someone doesn't really mean something the way they are saying it until they've said it at least ten times. It's unrealistic to expect her to own up to her own legalism after only eight quotes in which she says in several different ways that church attendance is a law.

And FloatingAxe says,

David..

You are obviously troubled by my words. I think I must have hit a nerve! My conscience is clear, as I have had good teaching for many years, and excellent role models in this area. Have you? Perhaps you are in rebellion? I will pray for you. Really.

That is the typical arrogant response of a Pharisee. First, don't admit that you did say time after time after time that going to church is a "command," something we must be "obedient" to, something God will hold us accountable to and be unhappy with if we don't do it, a "responsibility" and something we "must" do. Then, rather than admit your own legalism on this matter, self-righteously turn to suggesting the other person could only hold their view if they are "in rebellion." All the while, maintain your self-righteous view of your own opinion by avoiding any response to a totally biblical argument that pointed out Paul's clear statements that no one should let anyone tell them what to do with respect to observing the sabbath. In other words, avoid the biblical facts, avoid the facts about your own statements when they're quoted back to you in context, and jump to an ad-hominum attack, as the Pharisees always did with Jesus. Always attack the person when you cannot attack the argument.

I am no more troubled by your words than Jesus was troubled by the Pharisees words. I'm sure he was annoyed by their legalism, but I don't think he was "troubled." He knew they wouldn't change, yet he chose to challenge them in a very bold and brassy manner to expose the truth about their self-righteous legalism to everyone else.

Edited August 30, 2006 by David Haggith

[Floatingaxe]

I knew what you meant, Axe.

Actually, what she meant is not that its a good idea or the best idea. Quote after quote after quote reveals every time she expresses church attendance as something that is a command, not to be broken. However, I've only quoted her about eight times, and I think it's fair to say that someone doesn't really mean something the way they are saying it until they've said it at least ten times. It's unrealistic to expect her to own up to her own legalism after only eight quotes in which she says in several different ways that church attendance is a law.

And FloatingAxe says,

David..

You are obviously troubled by my words. I think I must have hit a nerve! My conscience is clear, as I have had good teaching for many years, and excellent role models in this area. Have you? Perhaps you are in rebellion? I will pray for you. Really.

That is the typical arrogant response of a Pharisee. First, don't admit that you did say time after time after time that going to church is a "command," something we must be "obedient" to, something God will hold us accountable to and be unhappy with if we don't do it, a "responsibility" and something we "must" do. Then, rather than admit your own legalism on this matter, self-righteously turn to suggesting the other person could only hold their view if they are "in rebellion." All the while, maintain your self-righteous view of your own opinion by avoiding any response to a totally biblical argument that pointed out Paul's clear statements that no one should let anyone tell them what to do with respect to observing the sabbath. In other words, avoid the biblical facts, avoid the facts about your own statements when they're quoted back to you in context, and jump to an ad-hominum attack, as the Pharisees always did with Jesus. Always attack the person when you cannot attack the argument.

I am no more troubled by your words than Jesus was troubled by the Pharisees words. I'm sure he was annoyed by their legalism, but I don't think he was "troubled." He knew they wouldn't change, yet he chose to challenge them in a very bold and brassy manner to expose the truth about their self-righteous legalism to everyone else.

Funny, I see the arrogant-ometer pointing at you and reading, TILT TILT TILT!

[David H.]

Funny, I see the arrogant-ometer pointing at you and reading, TILT TILT TILT!

As I said, you've got nothing left but ad-hominum attacks because you are unable to admit to the legalism that ran throughout your words on this topic. It wasn't just once or twice. It was practically every time you wrote. And you are unwilling to even acknowledge Paul's statements in Colossians where he specifically exhorts us not to let anyone tell us what we have to do on the Sabbath. And, as I said, I have yet to see a Pharisee say, "You know you're right. I am legalistic."

That's why Jesus didn't even bother to try to put new wine in old wineskins. There wasn't a chance in the world that a Pharisee would ever see his own legalism or self-righteous attitude. So, avoid the facts of your own words and avoid Paul's own words about observing the Sabbath, and end with a TILT. That's about the best that can be expected.

Edited August 30, 2006 by David Haggith

[Floatingaxe]

Hilarious!

Hebrews 10...

23Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. 24And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. 25Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

1 Corinthians 12...

12The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

14Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

21The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

We all need each other, and we are not to be separating ourselves apart from one another because we are essential to one another.

[Floatingaxe]

Colossians 2...

6So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, 7rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.

8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

I find it incredulous that one would tailor-make a belief that belonging to a local church is counter-indicated, when Paul was writing these things in letters TO CHURCHES!

Here is a commentary...

"The second subsection of Paul's theological polemic begins in 2:16-19 with his clarification of a related theological error. I call it ascetic piety: the denial of physical comforts as the mark of true devotion to the Lord. Apparently, there is at least one important parishioner in the Colossian congregation who has assumed the role of a "spiritual umpire" (see 2:18), making judgments about what constitutes authentic Christianity. This person's code of conduct is based on what people eat and drink and whether they observe the holy days of the Jewish calendar (2:16, 21). Paul claims these regulations, like the human tradition that informs the deceptive philosophy (2:8), are nothing more than "human commands and teachings," and their effectiveness is based on an "appearance of wisdom" rather than the truth of the gospel (2:22-23).

According to Paul, wisdom, whether true or false, is measured by its results. Wisdom is true if it produces a community that worships and bears witness to God in its shared life. Thus, in 2:20-23, Paul's verdict on self-righteous asceticism is negative: when measured by the "reality" of Christ's death (2:17, 20), this form of Christian spirituality "lacks any value" whatever (2:23). Paul's Christianity is practical; decisions believers make about their spiritual well-being must be aimed toward getting into the proper place ("in Christ"), where God's grace empowers growth and worship (see 2:7). Relying on carefully thought-out ideas or rules of abstinence rather than on what God has already accomplished for us in Christ is at least imprudent, because it imperils the present results of Christ's work in us."

[David H.]

Hmm.

Edited August 30, 2006 by David Haggith

[David H.]

First, Avoid acknowledging your own legalism as it appears throughout your writing on the topic of church attendance.

Then, repeat the scripture from Hebrews that we've been writing about all along, as if repeating it one more time will finally secure its status as a new law. And drag another scripture (Corinthians on Body life) as a red herring across the trail as if it negates what Paul says in Colossians against legalism -- even legalism about the Sabbath.

That's the "hmm" part.

But, at least, you've made some attempt to deal with Paul's argument in Colossians. Of course his argument was to people in a church. My argument is to you, and you're in a church, too. So what. The fact that something is written to people who are members of a church does not mean that it cannot discuss legalistic attitudes about church. I'd be happy, in fact, to bring up Paul's argument right inside of a church. I'm sure he would, too. So, the fact that it's TO CHURCHES does not in any way limit it from curbing excesses in church legalism -- even the prevalent legalism about church attendance. As I said before, Paul confronted legalism wherever and whenever he found it. It is precisely because Colossians is against legalism in churches that it is written TO A CHURCH. Who else would he write it to? Who else would care?

But the red herring across the trail isn't enough. You then pull a bait and switch:

I find it incredulous that one would tailor-make a belief that belonging to a local church is counter-indicated.

I find that "incredulous," too. Our debate has never been about whether or not belonging to a local church is counter-indicated by Paul. I've repeatedly said Paul says church attendance (or fellowship in some form) is a good thing. Our debate is about whether there is any dis"obedience," "rebellion," or backsliding in not belonging to a church. You insist in more than half of your entries on this topic that Paul has commanded us to attend church. I think that is incredible, since Paul consistently deplored all legalism. It's absurd. As I already said, Paul is saying, 1) Church is a good thing for all of you. 2) Don't let anyone treat you legalistically about what you do on the sabbath. Don't live by their rules. Paul likes church, and Paul hates legalism -- even legalism like yours about church attendance ... and he specifically says so.

Apparently, there is at least one important parishioner in the Colossian congregation who has assumed the role of a "spiritual umpire" (see 2:18), making judgments about what constitutes authentic Christianity.

That's what people do when they make judgments about people who are not attending church as "backsliders" or "in rebellion" or having "heart issues." These spiritual umpires presume they can know something about a person's heart or spiritual life by whether or not he attends church regularly. So, the commentator was writing directly to you.

According to Paul, wisdom, whether true or false, is measured by its results. Wisdom is true if it produces a community that worships and bears witness to God in its shared life.

That part is just the commentator, not Paul. Paul makes no such statement in Colossians. I think it's a good statement in and of itself, but it is not what Colossians is saying. Colossians does not say "true wisdom will result in the formation of a community that worships and bears witness to God in its shared life." Colossians says don't submit to legalism! Don't fall back into it. Christ set you free from it. Guard your freedom -- even with respect to observing the Sabbath! That's Paul, not me!

I notice you still avoided that part of Paul's argument. No surprise.

Edited August 30, 2006 by David Haggith

[pointer]

is church for everyone?

The gospel is for everyone, the church is for everyone. However, saints can be very, very hard to find, especially in the USA.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Mr

[pointer]

The gospel is for everyone, the church is for everyone. However, saints can be very, very hard to find, especially in the USA.

And where exactly are saints easy to find?

Nice try, but I'm not that silly.