There are seven new wonders of the world (www.new7wonders.com). I like that kind of stuff. Now, don't make fun of me for making this comparison - there is nothing wrong with people picking 7 new wonders of the world, etc. But, here's the thing - landmarks are changing. Proverbs 22:28 tells us not to remove the ancient landmarks.
So, I don't have time for a long thought today. Lunch doesn't look like a reality with today's schedule, but I wanted to ponder this: When is it ok to change the standards that heroes of the faith have held to? Billy Sunday preached against the theater, cards and dancing. And, I'm not going to take the time right now to list all of the others and the things they preached against. But today some Christians have taken down those landmarks - those boundaries (protective measures) - and have no problems doing these types of things.
Now, the Reformers also removed some ancient landmarks - things like the sale of indulgences, the authority of the pope, etc., but that was because those things violated Scriptures.
What qualifications should we put on an ancient landmark before we can take it down? Is it just because we don't want to have the same standards any more that we can chuck them? Should we play cards now (I assume he refers specifically to gambling, not Go Fish) just because we want to? Should we dance just because we want to - even though a generation ago dancing was worldly and evangelical Christians would have no part of it.
Anyway, just a thought...
17 comments:
The list of wonders is established based on the consensus of mans opinions. So it seems to be with the standards that we hold. They change over time based on what man likes and as those standards are man-centered, so are the wonders of the world. They are all man made structures.
So not only do we not see the acknowledgment of God's handywork in the list but we see that as time goes on, the wonders (like the standards) are ever changing - WHY? because if you compare the old set of 7 wonders to the new, most of the old are deteriorated or destroyed - YET GOD's WONDERS ARE STILL FILLED WITH BEAUTY (grand canyon, victoria falls, nothern lights etc etc.)
The 7 natural (GOD) wonders (see link below)prove that the handiwork of God is far more impressive and enduring.
http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/misc/gc_7wond.htm
Good thoughts. No further sentiments about the main thrust of the post. You put my comments in already :)
The new 7 wonders are quite amazing and interesting. I enjoyed looking at them for in them we can see the ability, determination and creativity that God has given to man. Too bad those wonderful blessings are not always used to give Him glory.
I don't think the Bible ever says that dancing was created for our joy...
God made our bodies, we do with them as we will - to say God made 'dancing' would be comparable to saying God made 'murder' or God made 'talking.' He gave us the ability to do with our bodies as we will. Doesn't mean that everything we do with them is what His will is.
Dave -
You wrote "David danced before the LORD with all his might....man, i pray the day come when i have that much joy in the LORD"
David was naked when he danced...just do not have THAT much joy - OK? : )
Dave, my post was about abandoning the landmarks that have been left by our spiritual fathers in the faith. I used the example of Billy Sunday - When is it ok to just abandon the warnings that they gave? You say the Bible doesn't condemn "dancing," but Billy Sunday did. My question is, Why did he? And because he did, should we just ignore it?
You can't say that a husband and wife dancing is what is meant when the Bible uses the term dancing. That is simply not the case. And you absolutely cannot say that what the world does when they go out and move their bodies in lascivious ways (using the word you used) that it refers to the same thing that dancing is.
Just because something uses the word today, does not mean that it has the same meaning as it did before. Just ask the guy with the gay clothing in James 2.
I've never said that it's wrong for a husband and wife to dance - in private - there are a lot of things they can do behind closed doors that would be sinful if they did them in public. I do think it would be wrong for a non-married couple to dance, as it is good for a man not to touch a woman.
Dave -
Seriously you need to settle down. Seriously. Can you review my posts and see where I said it was wrong to dance? Can you quote me on that? Oh, you can't? I have asked is it wrong not to and I made a joke about dancing naked. Take it easy with trying to rebuke me when I have yet to say it is wrong. Do not put words in my mouth - but rather be slow to answer when I am not saying what you think I am. Thanks.
I did not "attack" your post on Christina's blog. I asked you a question because by your wording it seemed like you were saying it is wrong not to dance. I think saying that is an "attack" is a little aggressive. Thanks for clarifying and your apology. I am sorry if you misunderstood my question as an attack.
Dancing in the Bible is a result of joy - the Bible doesn't say that dancing is the cause of joy...
Dancing in the modern connation is not what the Bible is referring to when it speaks of dancing to the Lord...
I love you guys!!!
Remove not the ancient landmarks!
This site seems so controversial and appears destined to divide the brotherhood. So sad really, I expected better.
Dave says dancing is mentioned 17 times in a good and 3 times in a bad. The difference between them is 14, God's perfect number two times! 17-3 is also the score of the last football game I played in. And there was no end zone dancing for my team, You know what that means right? Neither do I.
Consult the Hebrew! ...His phone number should be in the book.
Ahhh...Benson comes through with some insight that we all missed! Why did we not go to the Bible Code sooner! The word "dancing" has seven letters! It must be perfect!
I'm sorry, but you, author of this blog, seem to be a very legalistic Christian. You make broad generalizations about "sinful" behaviour, and do not speak about Christian liberty. You condemn dancing, television watching, overeating, all grey areas while you DO NOT ADDRESS how it came to be that you came to be in so much debt that you had to file for bankruptcy. Buying items on credit with no ability or INTENTION of repaying is stealing. I don't care if you were spending your time at a bible institute. The recession we are in? Overspending by people such as yourself is part of the problem. There are many bible verses that speak about about the moral obligation of repaying what you owe. Honest to God, reading your "messages" certainly makes me understand why the world regards the church with skepticism thanks to the hypocrisy of its members. Take a nice long look and see if you can find the plank in your eye before preaching to the rest of us.
That is a fair rant. Thank you - let me answer some...
I did many sins in my youth, of which I have repented. Borrowing money on credit with no intention to pay back - is not one of them. However, I am guilt of having too little self-control and spending more than I should have. The debt was incurred during a time of running my own business. Without going into unnecessary details, business went bad, and I was unable to pay it back. I made many attempts over the years, but the amount was too much for me to accomplish. (On the side, much of my Bible Institute tuition came as gifts from other people, not my own income.)
I recognize fully the beam in my eye. The vast majority of the posts on my blog have to do completely with the beam in my own eye!
To speak of Christian liberty: Paul tells us that we have liberty, but that we are not to use that liberty for occasion to the flesh. That is, the liberty we have is not to be used for our own pleasure - but for God's. Modern Dancing, TV watching, overeating - are they for the glory of God or for self-gratification?
I am guilty in my life of all of the specific sins mentioned in this comment - by no means am I perfect. But I have repented...
Thank you for suggesting that I seem to be "legalistic." I was afraid that I was going too soft. However, legalism is defined as requiring works or actions for salvation. I, by no means, am suggesting that any of the works talked about here are necessary for salvation. So, the tag "legalist" does not work for me, but I appreciate that I am still considered conservative in standards.
One last question, could you give me the "many bible verses" that speak about the moral obligation of repaying what you owe? I have some, I just want to be sure to have a full grasp of them all. Thanks.
Post a Comment