Bible Discussion Thread

Matt.16:1-12 "Doctrine of Man"

"Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."(vv.11-12)

Man has always responded to grief which in its basic form which is as natural as bursting into tears. It may go further by tearing the garments that one wears as a woman twists her kerchief in vexation. Old Jacob did what was most natural for him to do when he was told of his son's death. " And Jacob rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned for his son many days."(Ge.37:24). Hebraic tradition of Kriah stems from it. The Pharisees since the exile made a doctrine of his grief devising so many ways without being subjected to an iota of grief while they set about it. Is it different when some Academic reduce Christian theology into Evangelical quadrilateral? Jesus talk is not abiding in Christ so my ego the 'I' is buried in Christ. St Paul could in good conscience say,"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."(Gal.2:20). Living day in and day out through grief of loss in worldly goods, ageing and bereavement is a matter of grace which is only given a lucky few and I hope to may bear it all since my faith testifies the Lord is good. So I may say with St Paul," I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound."(Ph.4:12) Amen.

Jesus sensed hypocrisy miles away so when "The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven, " he would not be drawn into matters they have resisted every time. Similarly he would not be drawn in when the tempter came and challenged him (Ch.4) Matthew makes clear the Pharisees and the Sadducees tempted him since Jesus understood that they were moved by another spirit. The leaven of malice tempered their talk.

Pt. 2

I have been in Pentecostal churches that exercise spiritual gifts outwardly. I love the openness to the influence of the Holy Spirit among the congregation and the sense of freedom in worship.

I have been in churches that have contemporary services with worship bands. I love the singing of songs that express our love for the Lord to Him and, more so, that exalt who He is. The sermons are usually longer than in liturgical services, so there is more teaching from the pulpit, whereas teaching in liturgical churches usually occurs in the Sunday School hour (another tradition).

Some churches observe Advent with mid-week services, some have mid-week services every week, some have small group home bible studies, some have studies at the church during the weekdays, some have special programs aimed at children such as Awana or Royal Rangers, others have Youth ministries for Jr. Hi and High School ages. All of these added traditions are adaptations incorporated into the functioning of the church in different times and places. My sister in law from Africa says that they go to church on Sunday and stay there all I with meals and services in the morning and in the evening. Many have to travel a long way on foot so it isn't practical for them to go home and come back.

I do not think that these things are evil. I think that they can be helpful to those who utilize them in the exercise of their faith, worship, and ministry to others. However, we do need to be careful not to hold these traditions as more important or binding than the Scripture nor to be unwilling to change traditions that become outmoded.

There was a time in the church where singing was only acapella without music, times where there was chanting, times where instrumentation were introduced with piano or organ accompaniment, a time when choirs became normalized, and in our generation, worship bands near or on the place of the altar platform.

We just need to be prayerful and open towards God and His work

Hello again, Bennymkje,

The leaven of the Jewish leaders was all the additions to the law and regulations in conduct added that they determined was binding on themselves and the people they were leaders over. The Jewish leaders were requiring things that God never had ordained, but, since the rabbinical tradition states that rabbinical interpretation of the Scriptures is equivalent to the words of God, they felt, in their pride, that these traditions of men were on an equal standing with the other Scriptures.

I think that some traditions in any congregation can be helpful, but not stand alone from the teaching of the Word. There are many church traditions already in place in the infant church lead by the apostles. We read in the every epistle a greeting to begin and a doxology or blessing at the end. Many of Paul's epistles include a prayer for the people he is addressing the writing to and within his epistles and in the book of Acts there are things done that are a regular part of the ongoing work and worship of the infant church: offerings for the poor, deacons and deaconesses, elders, overseers, meeting on the first day of the week for fellowship and worship that included the Lord's Supper, singing of songs, hymns, and spiritual songs.

All of these things are good for the members of Christ's body, yet I don't see where Jesus taught such things in the gospels. Maybe Jesus taught much of this to Paul in Arabia. Or maybe the lead apostles in Jerusalem revised some of the practices of Judaism to better reflect the teachings of Jesus, since most of the converts in the early days of the church were Jewish.

I have been in a number of churches that have differing traditions in regards to worship. Some have been liturgical, which I love because of the amount of Scripture read by aloud and the responses of the congregation within the liturgy. The hymns are uplifting (if not sounding like a funeral durge) and the sense of reverence of the congregation.

see pt. 2