John, thanks for your answer, but you seem all over the place over extreme situations and out of shape personal experiences and concepts.
Two or three pointers here,
1. An OT passage on evangelism, "Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days. Give a portion to seven, and also to eight; for you know not what evil shall be upon the earth. If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth: and if the tree fall toward the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be. He that observes the wind shall not sow; and he that regards the clouds shall not reap. As you know not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so you know not the works of God who makes all. In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thine hand: for thou knowest not whether shall prosper, either this or that, or whether they both shall be alike good."
2. Seeking justice is never barred as unlawful in Scripture. E.g. Mordecai used the only means he had to seek such in his predicament when all the other routes were non existent. Yet by God's mercy a positive outcome came to pass
John UK wrote: ... for preventing their evangelising in a public park. What I'm looking for is a biblical precedent for this, and there is none. If they had not had a DIY method of evangelism, they would have heard the Holy Spirit speaking in their ear what they ought to do, and it wasn't to keep winding up the park authorities.
1. John, in an gospel-adverse society liberties are lost if not fought for, given that means in place allow, which means come God granted and always subject to his kind mercy and sovereignty. The dismantling of God given freedoms is on.
Megaphone wrote: Pure speculation. You don't know what the apostles would have done if they had rights guaranteed by law to freedom of speech, it didn't exist in their day. You cannot say with any authority that Wheaton college students did was unbiblical because you have nothing upon which to base it, it wasn't an option for the early Christians.
Paul used his Roman citizenship to avoid an unfair trial that was getting him into the hands of unfair Jews. Pursuing lawful means of justice is not forbidden in Scriptures.
What can be said of this passage?
" ...when it was day, the magistrates sent the serjeants, saying, Let those men go.
... the keeper of the prison told ... Paul, The magistrates have sent to let you go: now therefore depart, and go in peace.
But Paul said unto them, They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison; and now do they thrust us out privily? nay verily; but let them come themselves and fetch us out.
And the serjeants told these words unto the magistrates: and they feared, when they heard that they were Romans. And they came and besought them, and brought them out, and desired them to depart out of the city."
Chris G P wrote: Well, as I have said before on this subject, I am sure that N Ireland is being buttered up for reunion with the Republic of Ireland, which, by popular vote, threw off its Catholic past, and adopted both â€śgay marriageâ€ť and even more extreme laws for abortion than mainland Britain. With all the Brexit uncertainty, I do not know how it will eventually work out, but I am sure that N Ireland is about to be betrayed.
God is still on the throne and whatever he wills he will bring to pass. Out of the darkest hour still God may surprise us, not by politics, but by his power bringing many to himself in the land.
Vital teaching In a day of eroding definitions, the phrase 'sexual immorality' requires specific conceptual boundries to govern aright the God-given instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate contact between opposite genders.
Good Surely, the Sabbath was purposely made for man from the beginning, and significantly the Son of man when on earth took it that way, he being Lord of the Sabbath. Thanks for addressing the derogation of this topic.
Adriel wrote: I take your point BM. But will our modern counterparts understand terms such as 'fornication' etc. ? Will they read the KJV?
Certainly such terms are foreign to a deceived and deluded culture, but they do pertain to modern dictionaries; they are still there, they are not obsolete by no means.
It is the concepts our culture tries to make obsolete, but the words and their meaning, say the precise acts, remain.
In our 'educated' society ignorance and iliteracy willingly abound by choice. See, all goes, so why focus on meaning and detail ...
However, preachers should not contribute to this out of pragmatism, hiding behind modern versions to 'make the message clear'. They only need the right words explained.
People touched by the Spirit will certainly understand AV texts and concepts when presented, because these people will be the seekers, as only those that seek will find. This is the golden rule of biblical evangelism, not of modern/man-centered evangelism.
See, "If ye seek him, he will be found of you" And "Ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart."
The rationale for the need to use modern versions rests on man-centered evengelism.
Regretfully only one of the 6 guess preachers at this conference seem to adhere to the AV. Such fact reflects where the train of the modern evangelical pulpit gravitates to, say towards reliance on critical text based versions.
As pulpits rely on such loose translations, out of necesity then, teaching will be somehow affected, not only in content but signifincantly in attitudes and approach also, in spite of great care taken to consult the original languages. The effects of this pragmatic slant will be not only theologically long term felt, but also obviously immediately perceived in practice.
See, we pass a stronger message to the pew by what we do than by what we say, and subtly the message is assimilated: faithfullness through detail does not matter as far as the result is justified by pragmatism. This in turn destroys integrity of character without which there is no authentic blessing in the church of Christ. We cannot play at gymmics without paying a price. However, as much as we wish to convince ourselves other wise, such price is already obviously reflected in the type of church such preachers lead.
Ministries not committed to accuracy will eventually, without a doubt, prove themselves not reliable, and in the long term self destructive.
Adriel wrote: The U.K. Does not have a government anymore. What it has is a hotch potch of dysfunctional parties who cannot run a bus queue. The U.K. Used to have a party of government which had ... authority ... Today the Conservative party has been poisoned by diabolical Liberalism - which is destroying all morals, authority and principles ... effectually means NO authority or respect or democracy in the UK. Thus abortion and abominations and the satanic sodomite defile the nation daily. God no longer blesses the UK. The Wrath to come has begun to arrive.
Significantly, one remembers how Cromwell dismissed parliament at length as useless. Still, in God's sovereignty things can turn round. We might groan as Jeremiah did yet his moaning ended with a request to be turned around,
"Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we ... borne their iniquities. Servants have ruled over us: there is none that does deliver us out of their hand ... The elders have ceased from the gate, the young men from their musick ... The crown is fallen from our head: woe unto us, that we have sinned! For this our heart is faint; for these things our eyes are dim ...
*Turn thou us unto thee, O LORD, and we shall be turned*; renew our days as of old"
2. at the time when Paul wrote about psalms and hymns, everyone knew what he meant ...
1. The biblical 'regulative' principle is found in the last verses of Rv.22
However, by making psalms-only a non existent biblical rule, adding to what God never specifically commanded, you might be in danger of this,
"Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee..."
2. NT Israelites used Aramaic, a close dialect to Hebrew. Besides Ephesus and Colossas, a mixed multitude were not to make connections with the Septuagint.
3. Any procuring a study of the words Psalm, (meaning a poem recited to the plucking of strings), hymns, songs of praise, Masquil, Neginoth, Shoshannim, Jeduthun, Mahalath, Aijeleth, Sheminith, Muthlabben, Gittith, will cerciorate not only the variety of instruments used in worship but the different keys and modes, some borrowing from songs chanted on that day.
4. In the day of Christ's glorification, see Jh 12, people erupted in spontaneous praise, not Psalms, declaring concrete facts related to the occassion: "Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord: Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest"
John UK wrote: http://www.prca.org/resources/publications/cr-news/item/773-psalms-hymns-and-spiritual-songs
John, sorry but this argument about the Septuagint cannot hold water. It should not be so complicated to make sense of such a plain practical issue in worship. If the matter cannot stand upfront for the mere ploughing lad or the average housemaid to identify it plainly from the scriptures by the simple reading of the word, there is something amiss.
That the singing of Psalms is blessed and especial no one would attempt to deny, but if one has to defend its exclusive use to such lengths of dishonest exegesis is quite pitiful.
Please, understand we all care about the ongoing misuses and abuses in worship, but temperance is useful to help see the grand picture.
E.g.this "...when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased, And said unto him, Hear thou what these say? And Jesus said unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast *perfected* praise?"
1.Christ approved of children not singing psalms strictly
2. Babes hardly know psalms but spontaneous praise
Frank wrote: Here is what pluralism really means. If someone says that faith in Christ is essential for their individual salvation but not necessarily for someone elseâ€™s then they have logically said it wasnâ€™t essential for them, but was simply a matter of personal choice. The world has told us to think this way in all spiritual matters. So it is not uncommon for someone to apply a moral standard to their own lives, but not to the lives of others. That is moral hypocrisy... and simply deludes the lost into reducing Godâ€™s moral standards and requirements to personal choices, and if a personal choice then they canâ€™t be binding on anyone. This personal choice fallacy is one of the characteristics that separate the true church of Christ from all others. Pluralism is simply spiritual polygamy.
The true Church is not allowed to claim monopoly of Truth, in exclusion of all lies. Only is tolerated to proclaim 'their own version' of truth, to the ineffectiveness of evangelism, because "we know that no lie comes out from truth"
I John 2:21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that *no lie is of the truth*.
This constitutes the top strategy of the evil one in our day