The Soda Shop Message Boards

Okay. So would you say that all the verses in Psalms and Chronicles that talk about worshiping with musical instruments were only for the Old Testment and Jewish services?

In my opinion, the difference is the lyrics, and the motive behind the songwriting. If you're doing it to glorify God, and the lyrics show that, I think there's good reason to set yourself apart as a Christian band, so that Christians can know who to go to for good, worshipful lyrical content.

I keep thinking of questions that I'd like to ask you throughout the day, but then I forget them by the time I come back on here. I'll probably think of something soon. And then I'll try to come on here and post it before I forget!

Like I said I enjoy a good Christmas carol and there's nothing wrong with worshipful music with instruments I just think currently they don't have a place during service and to be perfectly honest I like the chanting so much more and find it much more conducive to worship. But this is a small t tradition so at some point this could change, the Ethiopian Orthodox church uses some musical instruments for example.

I don't see a need for worshipful lyrics in every song though. And some bands like Five Iron Frenzy or Reliant K that are Christian bands have entire albums where they don't mention God or church once yet they're Christian bands? And I think that if a band sets out with the motive to write something that is beautiful and true and they do a good job of achieving that then their motives are good. To be honest I probably listen to more non-Christian bands than Christian bands. But in any case this isn't exactly relevant to this thread and I do understand where you're coming from and I can't articulate a good argument, if you ever have the chance though read that book by Frank Schaeffer.

Try and write them down next time

What are your views on the connection between Israel and the Church. Do you think it's a valid point to draw parallels between the two? Do you think the Church is the "new Israel," the "spiritual Israel," or totally separate from Israel?

On a related note, what is your eschatalogical bend? Are you pre-, a-, or post-millenial, or none of the above? And what, if any, relation does national Israel have with your end times views?

I really don't think the Church is the new or spiritual Israel, but what connotations would you attach to the Church being the new or spiritual Israel?

As far as end times both I and the Eastern Orthodox Church take a very apathetic view on the end times, it's going to happen but in our opinion there's really not much point in wondering how it's going to play out.

My belief that the Church is spiritual Israel would lead me to believe that God's promises to Israel of a kingdom that would last forever and a land that they would possess eternally were not literal promises about the physical nation of Israel, but rather spiritual promises about the kingdom of Christ in the hearts of His people, the Church, and the new heaven and earth, which we will inherit and in which we will live eternally. I don't think there is a need for a "milennial kingdom" where Christ rules on the present earth for 1,000 years and the Jews get their land back.

Okay... so how would you interpret the Book of Revelation? All of the seal, trumpet, and bowl judgments, for example (e.g. worldwide earthquake, mountain falling from the sky, fiery hail, stinging demon beasts, etc.). Are those literally going to happen or symbolic for spiritual events?

I agree there won't be a millennial kingdom. As to the rest that sounds right.

As for everything happening in the Book of Revelation I really don't know. I imagine it might be a combination of literal and figurative events but I don't place much importance on trying to figure that out.

Wow! No way! We actually agree on something! This is truly amazing.

I don't think I have any more questions...for the time being. =)

-- Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:47 am --

What do you think about women wearing head coverings in worship services? Most, if not all, of the early church fathers supported it, as well as the Reformers, the Catholic church, and some denominations today. Here is a Wikipedia article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_ ... _Testament

I grew up in the Plymouth Brethren church and all the women wore head coverings. In Orthodoxy most women wear head coverings too. I think it's a good thing to do, I wouldn't make a rule about it or anything.

That's sort of where I am with it. There's at least one woman at our church who intentionally wears a head covering every time she comes. Then there are a couple of others who are always wearing hats. Most of the women and girls don't wear them, but I haven't really figured out my own personal views about them. Knowing now that so many historical figures of Christianity were in support of them, I may have to dig into it more.

So I find it interesting that you place an importance on what historical Christians believed, how much do you value their views?

I value it about as much as you say you do. If there seems to be a consensus among commentators and leaders who had an understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture, I think what they agree upon is worth considering. If they can support their views from Scripture, I will look into them. If they rely heavily upon tradition, however, I tend to not value their input as much.

Question: If you couldn't use your preferred Bible translation that comes from the Septuagint, and you had to pick a more mainstream version, which would you pick?

What do you mean by sufficiency of Scripture? And what if they do support themselves from Scripture but use Tradition to interpret it like in the case of the nature of the Eucharist.

When I look up verses on Bible Gateway I use the NKJV.

I mean that Scripture alone is the rule and standard for the Christian life. Scripture is everything we need to know. Anything apart from Scripture is not authoritative or from God.

In cases like that, I'm trying to get better at recognizing when tradition is taking preeminence over their interpretation. In the case of those who believe that tithing is still supposed to be an exact 10%, or Sabbatarians who believe that the Christian Sabbath should be observed just as strictly as the Jewish Sabbath... I think they are unknowingly influenced by tradition and need to be alerted to that. But, like I said, I try to stick to "Scripture alone" as closely as possible, though I'm sure that there are areas of my practice that don't measure up to that standard very well.

See I think Scripture alone leaves a lot up to interpretation, a lot of Tradition is just having an agreed upon interpretation like with the Trinity in the Nicene Creed; that's all there in the Bible but it takes a certain interpretation to have the correct belief about the Trinity. Would you say the Nicene Creed isn't authoritative or from God?

Yes those are examples of groups who are overly caught up in small t traditions and legalism but when it's something like "is the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ" I think you have let Tradition and Scripture work together to get to the proper belief.

How long have you been in the Eastern Orthodox Church?

How many people are in your congregation?

It'll be two and a half years in April.

My parish has about 175 members on the rolls with about a 100 showing up for Sunday.

What are your views on the Eucharist/communion? Is Christ physically present in it?

I believe that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ. I don't claim to know how the change happens just that it does.

Eleventh Doctor wrote:See I think Scripture alone leaves a lot up to interpretation, a lot of Tradition is just having an agreed upon interpretation like with the Trinity in the Nicene Creed; that's all there in the Bible but it takes a certain interpretation to have the correct belief about the Trinity. Would you say the Nicene Creed isn't authoritative or from God?

I do not believe that the Nicene Creed is inspired, if that's what you mean; and I don't believe that it is on the same level of authority as the Bible. But it is authoritative, in some sense, because it was the consensus of the early church. Just as I would view things that my pastor says authoritative in my life, I would view the Nicene Creed as authoritative, because it agrees with Scripture.

Eleventh Doctor wrote:Yes those are examples of groups who are overly caught up in small t traditions and legalism but when it's something like "is the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ" I think you have let Tradition and Scripture work together to get to the proper belief.

I don't believe I have to have Tradition to tell me that the elements are the body and blood of Christ. Christ outright says that when He administers them at the Last Supper. However, I do think I need a certain amount of tradition to tell me that the drink was real wine... I'm still trying to figure that out.

Hmm, your old church and your dad say that there would be a 1,000 year kingdom on earth that will end, meaning the Nicene Creed is wrong when it says God's kingdom will never end. Yet you have decided that there will not be a 1,000 year kingdom, how did you reach that decision?

I wasn't aware you viewed the Eucharist as anything more than symbolic?