[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Ohio
Much has been said concerning idolatry in Israel, and we all could find many O.T. scripture to build a case, but I still have a gnawing question -- why did the Lord never address idolatry in the gospels. The Lord rebuked the Jewish leaders severely, even calling them "snakes" to their face, but never brought up the word "idol" or its many variants. This troubles me.

The Lord did address many serious heart matters repeatedly, such as hypocrisy, loving traditions of men, lording it over others, stubbornness, unbelief, etc. but He never once mentioned idolatry in Israel, when He walked the earth. Why is that? Did He forget? In fact, the N.T. is dead silent on idolatry until Stephen brought up Israel's history in Ac 7.41-43.

Dear Ohio,

The O.T. Scriptures are for our learning. God did not fill the O.T. with warnings about idolatry just to fill the pages with print. According to the Bible, whatever is there is for our learning. The Bible says:

Rom 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

(Note: both of these passages are referring to the O.T. because it was the only “scriptures” they had when Paul wrote these words.)

Are you suggesting that if Jesus didn’t mention something that is clearly mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, His words, to the exclusion of others in the Scriptures, should become a standard for our understanding the Word of God? This strikes at something very fundamental in what we believe, which is that all Scripture is God-breathed. I don’t believe the red letter verses are more the Word of God than others, do you?

If the standard for understanding the Word of God is “Did Jesus mention or not mention something?” then you can reduce your Bible to the red letters and whatever passages in the O.T. they refer to, and be done with it. To say that Jesus didn’t say something is not a biblical argument.

Does it “gnaw” at you if people talk about other things in the Bible that Jesus did not mention? I don’t remember him talking about Adam and the garden of Eden. I am sure we could think of other things in the O.T. that he didn’t talk about when he was on earth.

Also, we shouldn’t forget that the New Testament speaks about spiritual realities. The O.T. was given to help us understand concepts that are not easy to understand. We no longer have animal sacrifices and all the various offerings literally, but they help us understand the sacrifice of God's son and what that means spiritually. It is the same with idolatry. There is a spiritual application.

Jesus may not have said the word “idolatry” but he clearly expresses the idea when he says we cannot serve two masters and when he says we should love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, strength, referring to the ten commandments. What will you do with I Cor. 10:14 where Paul clearly told us to flee idolatry, after pointing back to the idolatry of the children of Israel. (BTW, this is a passage that you could use to argue that God doesn’t judge all ... because he said “some” repeatedly. I’m all for biblical discussion, even if I argue the other side a bit. It's always a good thing if we are handling the Word of God ourselves. J)

Originally Posted by Ohio
The Lord also nearly put no responsibility on the sheep. He placed it all squarely and pointedly and repeatedly on their leaders, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, fools, serpents, blind hypocrites!"

Your use of “nearly no” referring to the sheep and then “all” referring to the leaders is confusing. Which is it? We know that He puts responsibility on us as sheep for our own actions because we will have to give account in that day for the things done in our body. I think this means we should be careful not to try and lay blame that is ours elsewhere. I do agree, however, that the lionshare of blame goes on the leaders. Jer. 23 and Ez. 34 make that clear. This does not absolve us for submitting to bad leaders when they were in violation of the word of God, because we were commanded to serve God only.

Originally Posted by Ohio
When the N.T. finally confronted idols for the first time, it was circa A.D. 50, at the Acts 15 council, which was supposed to be all about circumcision and the way of salvation. Since James et. al. were overwhelmed by the testimonies of Simeon and the plain truths of scripture, James decided to divert their attention to "abstain from things sacrificed to idols." Talking about changing the subject! It was Jewish pride and religious prejudices in Jerusalem which first introduced the topic of idolatry to the church. Interestingly, when Paul did finally travel to Europe, and confronted the rampant Greek idolatry in Athens and Corinth, he played down the matter of "abstaining," and instead instituted the first "don't ask, don't tell" policy (I Cor 10.25).

I don’t have time to look into this now. You are only speculating about why James did what he did. I don’t agree that this was the first introduction to the church of the topic of idolatry. The Jewish people understood idolatry quite well having under their belt the history of the Babylonian captivity which took place when God judged them for their idolatries. This was not a foreign topic. Also, there were people who had practiced idolatry before, who were coming to Christ and being admitted to the church. Their past way of life would easily be a topic. (That’s some of my speculation.)

Originally Posted by Ohio
Martin Luther, in the early 16th century, as he was facing all the power of the Pope at the Diet of Worms, said that he would not budge unless convicted by "plain reason or the scriptures." Both have been offered here in abundance. Neither has been heard.

No, Ohio,scriptural arguments have not been offered in “abundance.” I think that’s exaggeration. So is your statement that “neither has been heard.” I once heard a counselor say not to mix up “hearing” with “agreeing.” It would be more true to say “neither has been agreed with or accepted.”

Originally Posted by Ohio

There is enough "Biblical balance" in this one recent post of mine, to meet all your requirements.

I’m sorry for hastily saying there was no biblical balance offered. So far you and Roger have brought forth two posts with biblical arguments. So, yes, there was a some, but I believe these were greatly outweighed by the volume of responses without biblical argumentation. My statement was probably influenced by the fact that I have put out numerous biblical arguments on this thread that no one has responded to, except for Peter D. who responded to one of them. Care to respond to what I wrote in post # 750?

Thankful Jane