Well for one you are taking it out-of-context. This occurs at the Temple that DID house the presence of God after he had turned over tables of merchants who had turned the Temple into a strip mall. Moreover the new covenant that places the Holy Spirit in us (at this time it was in the Temple) had yet to be established. So yes- the Temple was a Holy place at that time. However now the temple is us- we are the temple (1 Corinthians 6:19). The moment Jesus Christ rises from the dead and then ascends the New Covenant is sealed. There is no reason now for holy relics- all of us have a direct hot line to our maker. Now we are the Temples. When we accept Christ we receive the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit and we become holy. And when two or more are gathered in His name? You have the church.

The presence of the Lord makes even the most commonplace setting very special and deserving of our reverence. The Lord is present in the church building, not just in us.

I believe everyone is overmagnifying the question.

 

The issue, simply stated, is this: can a particular locale (church, temple, land, or otherwise) be consecrated in the name of God? Certainly. There are many scriuptural examples, just as there are many scriptural examples of the consecration of items, food, sacrifices, etc.

 

Now, if you want to debate whether we defile or dishonor sacred locations or items by our modern actions/activities, then that might be more appropriate. I am sort of with Habib that if Christ were physically present with us today, he would be overturning pulpits and pews in many of our current churches.

I believe everyone is overmagnifying the question.

 

The issue, simply stated, is this: can a particular locale (church, temple, land, or otherwise) be consecrated in the name of God? Certainly. There are many scriuptural examples, just as there are many scriptural examples of the consecration of items, food, sacrifices, etc.

 

Now, if you want to debate whether we defile or dishonor sacred locations or items by our modern actions/activities, then that might be more appropriate. I am sort of with Habib that if Christ were physically present with us today, he would be overturning pulpits and pews in many of our current churches.

 

I agree with this statement. :thumb:

Then you don't understand that a church represents His person and presence.

 

I would contend that it SHOULD represent His person and presence.

 

However, I have been around enough churches to know that that it does not ALWAYS do so.

 

When it does not, the name does not make it sacred. I think the OT backs that up.

So, you disagree with the bible, Jesus himself?

 

Isn't it written, 'My house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations?'

 

And yet it wasn't being so at that time, that's why Jesus went on a tirade and drove the money changers out of the temple. It had cease to be sacred at that moment and needed to be renewed by the presence of God.

Then you don't understand that a church represents His person and presence.

 

Is that view Societal or Biblical?

 

I am not discounting the societal reasons that we should have certain expectations of behavior in certain buildings but am wondering if this is a societal issue?

FWIW, I (and I assume RTS) are NOT saying that, without church buildings, there would be no Church. Just that certain buildings/areas exist for worship of God, and some behavior is inappropriate at those buildings/areas.

 

The bolded is a mindset that I fear Christians have taken to heart to give them reasons that they act one way at church and another way during the other parts of the week.

 

Our lives exist for worship of God. Not our buildings.

 

Well for one you are taking it out-of-context. This occurs at the Temple that DID house the presence of God after he had turned over tables of merchants who had turned the Temple into a strip mall. Moreover the new covenant that places the Holy Spirit in us (at this time it was in the Temple) had yet to be established. So yes- the Temple was a Holy place at that time. However now the temple is us- we are the temple (1 Corinthians 6:19). The moment Jesus Christ rises from the dead and then ascends the New Covenant is sealed. There is no reason now for holy relics- all of us have a direct hot line to our maker. Now we are the Temples. When we accept Christ we receive the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit and we become holy. And when two or more are gathered in His name? You have the church.

 

RR does a good job stating what I am meaning.

The presence of the Lord makes even the most commonplace setting very special and deserving of our reverence. The Lord is present in the church building, not just in us.

 

You are hitting on what we are saying but constraining it to only the church building.

 

YES, ABSOLUTELY the presence of the Lord makes even the most commonplace setting very special and deserving of our reverence. And when I have my bible studies at McDonald's on Wednesday mornings, God is present there with us at McDonald's.

 

So, as the church building when the congregation is there is a holy place, so is McDonald's when our bible study is going on.

The bolded is a mindset that I fear Christians have taken to heart to give them reasons that they act one way at church and another way during the other parts of the week.

 

Our lives exist for worship of God. Not our buildings.

Can't it be both? For the 23420th time, just because a building is built for God does not mean that the rest of our lives are exempt from being Christian.

Can't it be both? For the 23420th time, just because a building is built for God does not mean that the rest of our lives are exempt from being Christian.

 

I KNOW you feel this way.

 

But I fear that there are many that lean on the crutch that I am reverent and worship during my hour or two (former minister's wife called it paying their Fire Insurance) of worship at church because that is where I am supposed to worship. I keep my church stuff at church and my life stuff separate.

 

And to coin a phrase from the popular Christian book series, they are going to be surprised to be Left Behind.

 

One of the best characters to drive home the point was the assistant minister at a church who was left behind when the rapture came. When asked why, he said, he knew everything about CHristianity and understood it but wasn't really living it.

I KNOW you feel this way.

 

But I fear that there are many that lean on the crutch that I am reverent and worship during my hour or two (former minister's wife called it paying their Fire Insurance) of worship at church because that is where I am supposed to worship. I keep my church stuff at church and my life stuff separate.

 

And to coin a phrase from the popular Christian book series, they are going to be surprised to be Left Behind.

 

One of the best characters to drive home the point was the assistant minister at a church who was left behind when the rapture came. When asked why, he said, he knew everything about CHristianity and understood it but wasn't really living it.

 

I agree with everything you say but it is a whole seperate argument. To say that Church buildings and sacred sites aren't holy places because some people only act like Christians while physically in the building is a weak argument against the idea that we should show respect in places of worship

I agree with everything you say but it is a whole seperate argument. To say that Church buildings and sacred sites aren't holy places because some people only act like Christians while physically in the building is a weak argument against the idea that we should show respect in places of worship

 

I am not saying that.

 

I am saying that they are not a holy place just because we say they are a holy place called a church.

 

They are a holy place because God's presence is there and it is NOT limited to that building. That a McDonald's could be a Holy Place as much as a church can be a holy place.

 

Men by placing a name on a building do not make it a Biblically Holy Place.

 

YES, absolutely we can name it something and make it a building that demands a societal respect for it but because society places a name on it does not mean it is what we have called it.

 

The Bible is pretty clear that God's presence determines whether it is a holy place or not.

 

In our town a downtown building which was the Western Auto (at your whippersnapper age you probably don't remember the Western Auto's:D:D) is now becoming a church. What has changed it to make it a holy place? How about if the owners of the WA were Christians and outreached to people in our small community who were doing business in their store. They witnessed and shared the Gospel message with their customers. Was the WA any less of a place than the church with that going on?

I would contend that it SHOULD represent His person and presence.

 

However, I have been around enough churches to know that that it does not ALWAYS do so.

 

When it does not, the name does not make it sacred. I think the OT backs that up.

 

And yet it wasn't being so at that time, that's why Jesus went on a tirade and drove the money changers out of the temple. It had cease to be sacred at that moment and needed to be renewed by the presence of God.

Agree on both points.

Is that view Societal or Biblical?

 

I am not discounting the societal reasons that we should have certain expectations of behavior in certain buildings but am wondering if this is a societal issue?

My answer would be:

 

"Observe my Sabbaths and have reverence for my sanctuary. I am the LORD" (Lev. 19:30, 26:2)

You are hitting on what we are saying but constraining it to only the church building.

 

YES, ABSOLUTELY the presence of the Lord makes even the most commonplace setting very special and deserving of our reverence. And when I have my bible studies at McDonald's on Wednesday mornings, God is present there with us at McDonald's.

 

So, as the church building when the congregation is there is a holy place, so is McDonald's when our bible study is going on.

But....Would you sit there and eat a Big Mac and fries in church?