OPC on the Passion of the Christ

[fredtgreco]

[quote:0507ea3f89][i:0507ea3f89]Originally posted by BrianLanier[/i:0507ea3f89]
[quote:0507ea3f89][i:0507ea3f89]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:0507ea3f89]
Now he does say as an Apologist who often debates Roman Catholics that he has to see the film in order to be able to refute its serious errors! But he has serious warnings about the content of the film and the theological slant it provides without any Biblical context.
[/quote:0507ea3f89]

Phillip,

Do you think that it is ok for James White to see the film because he has the proviso of being an "appologist"? If it is a violation of the 2nd commandment as we seem to agree on, then does the end justify the means. Couldn't he just read the script of the movie, assuming of course that one is available? Does James White address the issue on the 2nd commandment in his sermon(s) or articles on the movie. I listened to part of one of his dividing line shows, but he didn't address that issue.

Just curious what you think?

Also, Mark brought up the question about the triangles on most Hymnals (Trinity included) and some Bibles (NKJV). How does this relate to the 2nd commandment? Fred mentioned that the dove was a violation (and I agree), so how does this fit in. Just trying to be consistent.

Brian
[/quote:0507ea3f89]

[u:0507ea3f89]IF[/u:0507ea3f89] one views the film as a violation of the second commandment, as it appears White does, then he ought not to see it in order to "refute" it. It is then the equivalent of stealing or whoremongering or anger or idolatry in order to "better understand" something.

 

[Guest]

I will not lie. I am going to see it for the artistic expressions of music, acting, and cinemetography. I will see it because it is the story of all stories whether true or not. I will see it because the more I can realize the suffering of Christ and the ultimate humiliation and sacrifice of the cross, the deeper my love will be towards God.

And until someone can really answer any of the questions Paul or I asked above, I cannot see dramatic re-enactments of anything Christ did, as any violation of the commandment to not make statues and think they represent God in His eternal power and being, and decide to pray to them and burn incense to them.

This is the very issue of the Baroque period in response to the Reformation. So I hope those of you who oppose what I am saying do not listen to any music by Bach or Handel, Vivaldi, Telemann, Palestrina, etc. . . . Because the very music they wrote was for the same artistic end as this movie.

 

[kceaster]

Mark...

[quote:a6bebbe36e]And until someone can really answer any of the questions Paul or I asked above, I cannot see dramatic re-enactments of anything Christ did, as any violation of the commandment to not make statues and think they represent God in His eternal power and being, and decide to pray to them and burn incense to them.[/quote:a6bebbe36e]

To be fair, I think we have answered them adequately. But, I think you already had your mind made up, so our answers were not adequate for you. I am not saying that you are intentional in your sin, but know this: I am praying every day, as long as this movie is in the theatres, that God will convict all who see it, according to His perfection - that He would chastise those who should be chastised, save those He has chosen by the true gospel and not this false one, and thwart the effort of the enemy in regards to making converts for the perverted churches.

[quote:a6bebbe36e]This is the very issue of the Baroque period in response to the Reformation. So I hope those of you who oppose what I am saying do not listen to any music by Bach or Handel, Vivaldi, Telemann, Palestrina, etc. . . . Because the very music they wrote was for the same artistic end as this movie.[/quote:a6bebbe36e]

You are very wrong about this music. Although music may break the first commandment if not given its proper place, music cannot break the 2nd commandment, as that is visual. I don't really care what it was written in response to. The fact of the matter is that it is not a visual art.

So, I can still enjoy my Bach organ pieces.

In Christ,

KC

 

[Guest]

[quote:bafe9fd85b]
To be fair, I think we have answered them adequately. But, I think you already had your mind made up, so our answers were not adequate for you. I am not saying that you are intentional in your sin, but know this: I am praying every day, as long as this movie is in the theatres, that God will convict all who see it, according to His perfection - that He would chastise those who should be chastised, save those He has chosen by the true gospel and not this false one, and thwart the effort of the enemy in regards to making converts for the perverted churches.

[/quote:bafe9fd85b]

You should pray to that end. And woe is me if I am wrong. I also pray that any converts will not be to RC.



[quote:bafe9fd85b]


You are very wrong about this music. Although music may break the first commandment if not given its proper place, music cannot break the 2nd commandment, as that is visual. I don't really care what it was written in response to. The fact of the matter is that it is not a visual art.

[/quote:bafe9fd85b]

I did not mean to imply music was a visual art. (Although we could enter into the realm of synesthesia now if I felt really argumentative . . )

I simply meant the spirit of that music or [i:bafe9fd85b]zeitgeist[/i:bafe9fd85b] was unto the end that all art should be to the glory of God, which to those artists, meant Religious art as well as secular, and they had the support of the Church behind them.

Taking from Shaeffer here of course.

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Visigoth]

 

[JohnV]

Mark:
Just so we all know, Schaeffer did not say that all art was to the glory of God. He was referring to the ability, the talent, that aspirations that evoke the creative spirit in man, (creativity being something that copies God's attributes ), all these things being demonstrative of the image of God in man. He did not say that this justifies all art or all that goes by that name, to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Guest]

There is no need to take everything I say as a universal maxim. I was speaking specifically of those Baroque artists who found support in the Church. Of course not ALL so called art is to the glory of God.
One might even be able to argue that art that does not glorify God is not truly art at all.

 

[JohnV]

[quote:6fddc5cb70][i:6fddc5cb70]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:6fddc5cb70]
There is no need to take everything I say as a universal maxim. I was speaking specifically of those Baroque artists who found support in the Church. Of course not ALL so called art is to the glory of God.
One might even be able to argue that art that does not glorify God is not truly art at all. [/quote:6fddc5cb70]
Sorry, Mark. I didn't mean for it to come out that way. I'm sorry if I offended you. Sometimes I get type-happy, just to write something.

 

[A_Wild_Boar]

[quote:3e24e1901a]

Because Gibson derived his understanding of this project from the theology of Rome. He is staunch orthodox RC.

[/quote:3e24e1901a]
I thought Gibson was part of some offshoot of the RC? and not a true RC? Or was that his dad?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Should James White see this flik, even if others shouldn&#03

Yes, he should. And I wouldn't even consider seeing it for a mili-second. Now let me (try!) to defend this seemingly contradictory position.

It is a matter of calling, in particular, calling that has to do with church office.

In America, we are used to the idea that everybody is the same, same, same, in every way, way, way. Individualism run riot. It is a cultural misfortune to have lost almost completely the concept of distinctions [i:a8fc21015d]and[/i:a8fc21015d] the freight distinctions carry biblically (e.g. Male/Female, youth/age). The short answer is that JW may be obligated to go see this movie precisely because of who and what he is (despite his inherent objections--see Ezekiel 4:14).

This, may I add, is virtually the only argument I know that can modify the clear, biblical injuction against MAN-MADE images. So, if you believe God has obligated you to go see this movie AND you are horrified at the very thought of being subjected to the evils of rank idolatry, but in submission to your calling you go,

May God be your shield and defense.
And I hope, for the sake of your spiritual well-being and conscience, you are right.

 

[BrianLanier]

[quote:496ad11399][i:496ad11399]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:496ad11399]
Now, why don't those who are of the "hard line" view re: 2C, condem White? This is yet another inconsistancy on these adherents part. If you are correct he should be called out. If he thinks that it is a violation, but that he is especially called, then he would fall by the above reductio.
-Paul [/quote:496ad11399]

Paul, that is exactly what I was getting at! Also, just a thought: Why would God not CLEARLY reveal what the 2nd commandment teaches, since, as I believe, reflect his Holy character as the summation of the moral law. I mean why such cloudiness surrounding JUST 10 commandments. I do agreee with Vos that we who are of the 'hard line' view of the 2nd commandment should be patient, though NOT silent, with those who disagree. I liken it to the weak and strong brother. We are to strive with them, but the desire is for the weaker brother to become stronger and not remain in his weakness. So with patience I will continue to defend the 'hard line view'. By the way I agree that we all need to at least be consistent with our convictions.

Brian

(P.S. Please don't take offense at the weak/strong brother analogy, it was just helpful for me regarding the patience issue....I welcome corrections)

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by BrianLanier]

 

[Radar]

James White and 2nd commandment

to the best of my recollection from Tuesday's Dividing Line, James says he does NOT consider the film to be a violation of the 2nd commandment. If you don't like that, don't talk about him here. Please call him on the Dividing Line, Thursday morning at 11 am MST, 12 noon CST, 1 pm EST. Ask him, let him actually respond to you, and I will enjoy listening in. Phone 877-753-3341

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Radar]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Responding to the Reductio

Let us be a little more exacting with the analogy.

Has "James Black" been ordained as a minister of the Gospel to march into the strip club and denounce the sins therein?
And assuming he was, was he obliged to do "research" by ogling the dancers?

Naturally, I think the point of my post was missed.
Please interact with God's conversation with Ezekiel in chapter 4, and offer a counter-interpretation. I would enjoy responding much better to someone dealing with the substance of my post and any relevant Scriptures.

Actually I thought JW did NOT have 2nd Commandment objections to the movie UNTIL I read on this site that he did. I thought I was formerly in error. So, do we have to drop him from the example? Not really, since I was defending his going.

As for inconsistencies, well, I defined my conscientious objections and won't violate them. And I said don't violate your own. If the shoe fits, wear it.

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Contra_Mundum]

 

[Radar]

I look forward to hearing you on the program, Contra

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Here's what you said Paul in your first response:
By Bruce's logic JB "can go watch girls at a strip club"

What you seem to be declaring is a functional equivalence to viewing salacious material and viewing idolatry. I reject that as a flawed analogy.

Because I am on a shared computer I have to duck out now. I will try to come back shortly. I would like to address Ezekiel . . .

 

[Contra_Mundum]

How Ezekiel 4 relates to this

Paul,
You seem to be saying that what one believer can do or can't do according to the precepts of the Word, is therefore the same for everyone. Let me point out two texts that plainly teach otherwise

Mt. 12:5 "Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless?"

Here Jesus points out that the priests objectively did that which, on the face of it, violated the prohibition from work (4th commandment). But as they were [i:ef1b9b0b9c]authorized[/i:ef1b9b0b9c] to do it, they were, in fact not guilty of such violation. So an act could be both a sin or not a sin, depending on who was doing it.

And Ezekiel 4. God commands Ezekiel to eat a cake cooked with human feces, which thing would make the food unclean and his action sinful (contrary to the Law; cf. Deut. 23:10-14; Lev 5:3; 7:21). But God had commanded it, and though he modifies his charge at Ezekiel's objection, Ezekiel must still go through with what would ordinarily be an act of defilement, cooking with cow's dung.

(The point of his prophetical illustration was to demonstrate that Israel would be reduced to eating defiled food--God would see to it that Israel was defiled as a people on every level, not even able to please Him outwardly. Calvin: "For a cake cooked in the dung of oxen was [also] unclean according to the Law )

So, Ezekiel obeys the Lord, and what he does cannot render him unfit to be a priest (Lev. 22:8-9). But this action, performed by God's minister under his authorization, was not a blanket sanction for simply any Israelite to do what was and remained forbidden.

I believe that for practically every Christian, whether he's a layman or an officer (compare an OT Israelite or a priest) the 2nd commandment is a plain precept.

And I know that you don't agree with that interpretation.

No, we don't live in an era of special revelation, so I don't think God is ordering his agents by direct revelation. He leads us by Scripture alone. I'm willing to give to men--whom I judge the church to have rightly called into positions of responsibility--the benefit of the doubt when they tell me that the conduct of their office may require them to do something distasteful or dangerous spiritually. That something may be sinful under any other circumstances than the one under consideration. Which is why I said in my first post it is my responsibility to pray he is right, and not wrong.

Your positive argument that all Christians are called in I Pet. 3:15 makes no alowances for being called in different ways, or called with respect to office.

No time left today. Back tomorrow, DV.

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by Contra_Mundum]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

(by the way, thanks for sharpening my iron)

We are really talking past each other, and not to each other . . .
[quote:8b58bfa9e1]unfortuantely you missed my entire challenge. All my reductio showed is that someone who is "specialy called' to do something, can therfore violate a law of God?!?!? [/quote:8b58bfa9e1]
[i:8b58bfa9e1]My[/i:8b58bfa9e1] statement from the beginning was that in a particular case (the "hypothetical" apologist), a biblical argument might be made that would justify his doing something that fell under a general biblical prohibition.

I did [i:8b58bfa9e1]not[/i:8b58bfa9e1] say that the 2nd commandment was an Absolute prohibition that covered every conceivable case. Others have. Please re-read my original for verification.

My argumentation has been focused on one [i:8b58bfa9e1]exceptional[/i:8b58bfa9e1] circumstance. There may be others, but I'm not tracking them. You seem to argue that my reasoning [i:8b58bfa9e1]in this case[/i:8b58bfa9e1] establishes a false general rule--one that is contrary to Scripture. But that argument is a logical fallacy itself--arguing from the [i:8b58bfa9e1]particular[/i:8b58bfa9e1] to the general. I am certainly not arguing that one exception 1) obviates a general rule which I believe (my 2nd commandment interpretation) or 2) establishes a general rule.

Another difficulty we face I aluded to in my first post. Since I never made a categorical assertion (all, every, none, etc.), and since my argument has not yet been overthrown sylogistically, your alternative example is reasoning by analogy. Such reasoning is difficult because my example is a particular case. Hence my focus on the particulars of your analogy, and where I thought they broke down (which you attributed to parody--sorry, not intended). You cannot simply "plug in" different subjects, objects, etc, and call that my argument and [i:8b58bfa9e1]reductio absurd[/i:8b58bfa9e1] it. That's a straw man.

I also have not claimed that [i:8b58bfa9e1]anybody[/i:8b58bfa9e1] who thinks he's "called" to a particular "ministry" is in fact so called.
Who is doing the calling?
"Self-ordination" is a species of lone-rangerism from which I utterly recoil. Furthermore, can you name one [i:8b58bfa9e1]reputable, meaningful[/i:8b58bfa9e1] church (small, large, presbytery, denomination, association, etc.) that would recognize the "call" of a man to the ministry you described, and then ordain him thereto?
[quote:8b58bfa9e1]Jim Black is called to defend the faith and is especially gifted at bringing men out of the p0rnography slavery. Therefore, since Black is "called" to do these things he can go watch girls at a strip club...because of his "special calling" and other christians should not. This is obviously absurd.[/quote:8b58bfa9e1]
I know I can't.
But I do know of decent churches that would recognize the call of a man to an apologetics ministry, and who [i:8b58bfa9e1]might[/i:8b58bfa9e1] recognize biblically based arguments as to why he [i:8b58bfa9e1]should[/i:8b58bfa9e1] go see a (hypothetical ) movie that is a danger to the souls of most everybody else, hence under a general injunction.

Re. Special Revelation: The Bible is Special Revelation. If an argument can be made BIBLICALLY that our Hypothetical apologist may or is obligated to go see the movie, then he can or he must.

I am not arguing for relativism at all. I am arguing for Biblical Authority over Generals and Particulars, over Callings and Ordination, over Churches and Individuals.

Back to you.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Well, I hardly deserve the advantage . . .
If God (in the judgment of the church, and according to Scripture) has authorized JW to see this movie, then he may go see it. He has so authorized him. Therefore he may see it.
(if p, then q; p (affirming the antecedent) therefore q. Mixed hypothetical syllogism, no formal fallacy)

I said early on that I hoped White was right, and that he was not sinning in going to see the movie. This is true whether or not he thinks the movie generally violates the 2C. The temptations to individual viewers' idolatry in this movie visually portraying the crucifixion of Christ are tremendous, given the subject matter involved. JW seems to have gone in to see it with an appropriate (I think) antagonism, whatever his 2C views.

At www.aomin.org White disclaims any effect of seeing Jesus portrayed, "Will I [now] envision Jesus as Jim Caviezel? No. Not for a moment. Not once during the film did I make that connection. That was Jim Caviezel up there, not my Lord." He also says, "Will I think of this film at the next Lord's Supper? Probably." What he means exactly by that last statement, . . . ?

I think White is an extraordinary man with a special calling-like a Green Beret commando in God's army. I'm positive the vast majority of people going to the movie are going without proper spiritual preparation, i.e. a putting on of the whole armor of God as a defense against sin's use of this cinematic experience. JW's foray into enemy territory to gather intelligence will help inform those of us in the wide world (actually the subset who actually cares :sniff: ) for whom the strictest application of the 2C unquestionably applies.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Paul,
I know you may not see this.
I wish you would respond, because I think we have had a good exchange going.

In going back to your reductio, you have constructed an argument of your own, and not mine. Your use of FORM is not proper. I will do the same thing with the FORM, and perhaps you will see what I mean. You chose the 7th commandment. I choose the 4th.

[b:5b349d054e]Matthew 5:12 Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless?[/b:5b349d054e]

If God (in the judgment of the church, and according to Scripture) has authorized the priests to profane the Sabbath, then they may profane it. He has so authorized them. Therefore they may profane it.

Do you agree with Jesus argument? I'm sure you do. Have I misrepresented Jesus words? You be the judge of me. I find the FORMs identical.

I will not attempt to prove my assertion that JW has been authorized to see the movie except to say that he is a minister in subjection to his brethren, who have (I will charitably assume according to Scripture) judged him so authorized.

Naturally I have no dispute with your categorical syllogism. We are all to be ruled by the Word of God in everything.

I'm sorry our exchange was not more amicable. My purpose from the beginning was to try and defend a difficult position on the face--Why a conscience-bound believer like myself could never go see this movie, and yet see in SOME person(s) biblical warrant to see it. It hasn't been easy . . . :wr9:

Yours sincerely,

 

[Contra_Mundum]

But since I can put an argument you AGREE with (re. 4th commandment?) into the same FORM, doesn't mean that attacking my contention by appealing to the FORM is invalid? Doesn't that force you away from simply creating an argument I never made (re. 7th commandment) and knocking it down? Let's grapple with the Second Commandment, its implications, its applications, when and where and how.

Don't you have to demonstrate that my conclusion (re. 2nd commandment) does not follow from premises I do hold?

You have put up several categorical syllogisms (all formally valid), well and good. Most of them I'm sure we both deplore, being occasions of gross sin.

None of them, as far as I can tell, have been reconstructed from anything I have actually written. The one that you constructed on 2C I suppose we could begin to dig into, even though it was not my contribution, and makes no prima facie case for or against the position I have taken.

You called on me to do the work of recharacterizing my own argument into a syllogism for the purposes of clarification. So, naturally I did it in a way (formally valid) that at least gave me a fighting chance to argue. All I have been doing since is asking that your side prove (use the Bible of course) that my premise, [b:414a17613b]mine[/b:414a17613b], is wrong.

If you can, then I have lost my attempt to justify this view (that [i:414a17613b]someone[/i:414a17613b], not me personally, might be warranted biblically to see the Passion movie) against cries of "Inconsistency!" and will have to confess that NO ONE should see it, under any circumstances.

 

[pastorway]

To both sides in this discussion (with charity) :

Forget the forms already and just tell us what the Bible says or does not say.

We are not here to win by being more "formal" than those with whom we debate. It is not logic (smoke) and form (mirrors) that converts the soul and renews the mind. It is the Word of God.

Just answer the Scriptures on the matter!

My :wr50:
Phillip

 

[pastorway]

I am not anti-logic.

I am anti-logical absurdities that are used to try to make a point or deny a point about Scripture.

We could all put up our little syllogisms but that changes nothing of the truthfulness of the Scripture.

Logic is not the foundation. Scripture is. And when logic runs in circles it obscures the truth.

Phillip

 

[Gregg]

Does anybody think it's logical that a little smiley face could really bounce like this?

[Edited on 3-2-2004 by Gregg]

 

[pastorway]

In re-reading this thread I think that the syllogisms are doing two things:

presenting hay with which to build straw men

talking past each other

So I am not against forms. I just want a little clarification in the debate.

From Contra's side, does his point about the priests being "excused" for profaning the Sabbath have any merit to it in regard to this movie?

Yes or No? Why or Why Not? Answer with Scripture!

 

[Gregg]

[quote:8a47e6bee1][i:8a47e6bee1]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:8a47e6bee1]
[quote:8a47e6bee1][i:8a47e6bee1]Originally posted by Gregg[/i:8a47e6bee1]
Does anybody think it's logical that a little smiley face could really bounce like this?

[Edited on 3-2-2004 by Gregg] [/quote:8a47e6bee1]

yes,....hey Gregg, is that AWOL bouncy

-Paul [/quote:8a47e6bee1]

Reply...

Last I heard of him, he was workin as a cook in a logging camp up North.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Bringing it all together

To prove: That God authorize a certain minister with relevant calling to go see the Passion movie.

With respect to the issues raised thus far:

1. Any challenges to my contention by an appeal to the validity of my argument fails on formal grounds. The argument is properly constructed.
2. Any challenge to my contention by an appeal to the Form, in which both premises and conclusions have been altered fail on two grounds:

a. Those arguments are now straw men
b. Jesus used the same Form to refute his accusers in re. The 4th commandment-see Mt. 12:5-validating the use of the Form where appropriate.

Additional Issues
3. How to determine if any specific person has a call by ordination to any ministry whatsoever?

a. Cannot be by an appeal to specific Scripture, because our names are not therein.
b. Must be by application of Scripture principles-positive precept (interpreted), approved example, the deductions of good and necessary consequence-and the discernment of the Church exercised through its government.

4. Whether God ever authorizes his minister to operate in spheres denied to the common person?-Established by an appeal to I Cor. 4:1; Heb 5:4; etc. (see WCF 27.4; WLC #158, 169, e.g.)
5. Whether God ever authorizes ministers (or anyone else) to operate exceptionally to general maxims? Established by Mt. 12:5, Eze. 4:12-17, etc.

And Finally
6. Has God ever authorized the slightest deviation from the express command of 2C by approved example?

[quote:4d8da35761][b:4d8da35761]II Kings 5:18, 19 "In this thing the LORD pardon (excuse) thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, LORD pardon (excuse) thy servant in this thing. And he (Elisha) said to him, Go in peace."[/b:4d8da35761][/quote:4d8da35761]

Naaman here asks for Jehovah's exception to the 2nd Commandment out of necessity for the duties of his SECULAR office. And it is granted.

Objection: But Special Revelation was given to Naaman, or Ezekiel, or the priests.

Answer: The Bible is Special Revelation. Since God no longer speaks extraordinarily it is to the Bible we must turn. The issue is necessity in conjunction with calling.

Does the church recognize and approve by Scripture application (positive precept, approved example, or good and necessary consequence) the right, necessity, or obligation for Someone to go see the Passion movie? I conclude that they may, and they have.

[Edited on 3-3-2004 by Contra_Mundum]

[Edited on 3-3-2004 by Contra_Mundum]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Straw man arguments replace the entire argument. This is simply the definition of a Straw man. I won't debate it definitionally.
Paul's reformulated premises are clearly not mine.
Paul's restated conclusion
--therefore, JB can profane the 7th commandment
is not the same conclusion as
--therefore JB can profane the 2nd commandment
nor is it the opposite conclusion (which if proved from premises I do hold would be a bona fide reductio ad absurdam), i.e.
--therefore JB can NOT profane the 2nd commandment

Paul has made zero connection to the Second commandment except to say that:
if JB could profane 2C, then in follows he could profane 7C too.
To which I rebut:
if the priests could profane 4C, it does NOT follow that they could profane 1C, 2C, 3C, 5C, . . . any precept outside their exceptional authorization.
To insist that my argument must follow the former instead of the reasoning of Jesus (Mt. 12:5) or that Jesus' reasoning is actually the former is a true absurdity.
[quote:1a1d636c98]finally, i anticipated your move. i have shown by special revelation that all christians are called to defend the faith (I Pet 3:15), therefore, your argument allows all Christians to see the movie.[/quote:1a1d636c98]
This verse tells us that the least well-versed Christian is able and responsible to God to tell the faithless what great things God has done for him.
The issue here jumps to the matter of Ecclesiology. Are all "callings" the same? Or are they all equally valid when they are claimed? Is it OK for anybody to preach and adminster the sacraments? After all, arent we all called to spread the gospel? What is the definition of "Ministry"? The 21st century definiton? Or the classical one? Just because Naaman was excused to "bow down thyself before them" (Cf. Ex. 20:5 and 2Ki. 5:18) in the house of Rimmon, was everyone, everywhere, to any god?

How do we know that Pastor X is called to the ministry of First Church of Y? How do we know First Church of Y should even be in existence? The church exercises biblical discernment in calling its pastor. It exercises discernment in calling someone to be a minister in apologetics (for example). In each case there are necessitites to be determined for the conduct of the job. Every case is not spelled out in so much simple language in the Scriptures.

 

[pastorway]

TGIF
[i:402dd25bdc]Thank Goodness Its Friday[/i:402dd25bdc]

We can take this up at a later date, but for now, let's take a break.