Why Have Denominations? [Archive]

Joseph_Botwinick

04-30-2005, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by gb93433:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
What, specifically, do you think we need to do differently?
Anytime a group of people takes pride in their group they have lost the battle.

God blesses humility. We must realize that we are all sinners saved by grace. We are no better than anyone else just better off.

It is quite irritating for me to hear from Baptists how great they are. I would have to only take you to the central coast of California to show you that almost every SBC church is dying and are at about 30 percent of what they once were 30 years ago. Every Baptist church is dying except those who have taken a different route. Those who remove their pride and seek to reach people are reaching them. In that same area are churches that are virtually no different than a good Baptist church and they are springing up all over and doing very well.

I think a major problem with so many is they look to the headquarters to give them guidance. They forget about the role of the Holy Spirit and seek to get help through some program.

A walk with God and a church that grows must be dependent upon God not some program that comes out of Nashville or some other place. It is God who is at work not a program that can mock Him and attempt to be a substitute for Him. I am at a church now that is exploding with growth. The church has gone from 70 to 2000 in seven years. At its low point the people were fighting and doing it the Baptist way. The pastor leading point people to God and leads them to seek God not some program coming out of headquarters.

A friend of mine pastored a GARB church and the deacons asked him to leave. So he started a church on his own. Today the church is about 4.5 years old and they have planted nine new churches. The church that was started by him is 4.5 years old and it has about 800 in attendance each Sunday. When you walk in the building you know God is at work. People are changing and God is at work.

People really do not care what the name says. What they care is that people are real and Christ is worshiped.

George Barna writes about a church in one of his books that went to Willow Creek and came home to do everything Willow Creek did. The church in the first year grew in attendance to about 500 and then the next year went back down to the 50 it once was and stayed there. God will not be mocked by our programs but He will work when we humbly seek Him first. His ways are not our ways. So we must do things His way if we expect to get His blessing. [/QUOTE]gb,

It seems to me that the original post dealt a lot more with confusion about doctrine than it did with the attitude of Baptists. What specifically should we do to change that confusion in doctrine.

BTW,

It does not surprise me one bit that California Baptist church attendance is waning. I agree that programs, etc... are simply a band-aid and not a good, permanent fix to the issue (even cookie cutter approaches that come out of California (not Tennessee). I am disturbed that you think a highly attended church = a Godly Church. I have always disagreed with the bean counter mentality. The reason I care about what the name says is because it tells you more about what kind of doctrine they might be teaching there and there is less confusion, which is the original problem stated in the original post. For example, if I walk into a Southern Baptist Church, at least out here, there is a good chance that I will not here messages about accepting homosexuality, and other sins. Such would not be true if I went to, say, an Alliance of Baptist Church. I do not hear messages about name it and claim it, and barking in the spirit. Such would not be true at a charasmatic church, or most non-denominational churches these days, ironically enough... ;)

So, as much as you would like to lament the differences between denominations, or the fact that we even have them at all, to me, it is a good thing to have on the sign so that there is not confusion of doctrine.

Also, please don't assume that because church attendance numbers are not as high as yours that this means the church is dying. And don't assume that because you have a mega church that God is blessing what you do. Neither assumption is fair nor necessarily true.

13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Matthew 7:13-14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=7&version=31)

Joseph Botwinick

tamborine lady

04-30-2005, 10:42 AM

graemlins/type.gif

One thing that needs to happen is that pastors need to listen to the people.

Heres what I mean. Lets say brother Jones receives a revelation from God that such and such church down the street has it right on this certain thing.

Instead of just kicking the varment out, they need to check it out! He could be right!

But so many times,"Brother Jones" is just dismissed, and he leaves that church, takes some of the people with him and starts ANOTHER denomination!

There we go, instead of unity we have division, and on and on it goes.

We need to start consolidating instead of dividing.

Selah,

Tam

Joseph_Botwinick

04-30-2005, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by tamborine lady:
graemlins/type.gif

One thing that needs to happen is that pastors need to listen to the people.

Heres what I mean. Lets say brother Jones receives a revelation from God that such and such church down the street has it right on this certain thing.

Instead of just kicking the varment out, they need to check it out! He could be right!

Selah,

Tam If Bro. Jones' "revelation" from God doesn't square with scripture, they should disregard it and if he persist, kick the varment out.

Perhaps you could give an example of the kind of revelation you are talking about. For the record, I don't believe that unity is always a good thing. Unity at the cost of sound doctrine is a bad thing.

Joseph Botwinick

tamborine lady

04-30-2005, 07:29 PM

graemlins/type.gif

No, don't compromise sound doctrine, but sometimes churches split over dumb things, like for instance:

One group says,"we need to dress up in our best clothes when we come to church".

Other group says" it don't matter as long as you are decent".

Don't laugh, I saw a church split over exactly this reason.

Tam

BobRyan

05-01-2005, 01:10 AM

But when a church splits like that (in the cases you mentioned above) isn't that really ONE congregation - ONE localchurch in one denomination becoming TWO church congregations in ONE denomination?

Ben W

05-01-2005, 01:45 AM

In the Salvation Army church that I grew up in, that split in half at one stage over the issue of public speaking in toungues, half of the group had been going along to a Pentecostal group that met on a Friday night, and had wanted to have a pentecostal type service at the Salvationist Church on the Sunday, yet the other half did not want it, so half stayed and the other half joined the local Apostolic church.

bmerr

05-01-2005, 03:39 PM

To All,

bmerr here. I am humbled by the number of responses. Several of you make good points and observations. BobRyan specifically mentioned those who recognized error in the RCC and split from that organization. In so doing they set a good example. Not that the conclusions they came to were all sound, but their aim was to abandon error and seek after truth. In that respect, they are to be commended.

Living4Him took us to Eph 4, where we find the seven "ones" of Christianity.

One body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all.

I think one cause of division among us is perhaps the different thoughts (or the lack of serious thought) concerning these seven "ones", or points of Christian unity. Joe B. and tambourine lady both make the observation that true Christian unity is never gained at the expense of truth. I think most of us would agree.

I have had the experience of being banned from two different websites thus far. One after more than a year, and one after only a week or so. Something I noticed on both forums (and actually on this one, too), is that oftentimes people are very confident in the idea that they already know what a person believes as soon as they find out where they're from.

For example, I am a member of the church of Christ.

Admit it: many if not all of you immediately thought, "bmerr believes immersion in water is essential for salvation", or something similar.

It's okay! If one of you told me what church you belonged to, I'd probably do the same thing. I just think we'd all benefit more from our discussions if we were less sure of ourselves regarding what others believe or teach.

1 Thes 5:21 says, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." Paul tells us to check things out, and hold to the things that do. Skepticism can be a good thing, as long as it's open-minded skepticism.

gb said that a major problem is that many churches look to their earthly headquarters for their doctrinal positions. He is correct. Many hold the decisions of a synod, or convention, or council, etc., over the plain words of Holy Writ. This should not be.

Don't we see? It is these such things that have caused the divided religious landscape which we have inherited.

In the Bible we have been given "...all things pertaining to life and godliness" (2 Pet 1:3), and everything "...profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim 3:16, 17).

God didn't give us His Word to confuse us. He wasn't trying to fool anyone. He loves us, and He wants us to be saved. He would not give us instructions for salvation that we could not understand. How eternally cruel He would be if He had!

We all desperately need to return to the Scriptures to see what saith the Lord. It would require us to be prepared to possibly abandon long-held beliefs if evidence to the contrary warrants such. Objectivity is essential.

Would any be interested in a study of the seven "ones" of Eph 4? I do not propose this as one who has all the answers. I will admit up front that I already hold beliefs concerning the topic. I will also say that I am willing to be convinced otherwise if evidence shows my positions to be in error.

However, I will not assume that I already know what anyone else believes until they tell me themselves. As I said earlier, that kind of thinking is not condusive to profitable Bible study.

If this is an agreeable proposition, we could start with "one body". If thread space gets tight, we could start another, provided the site administrator has no objections.

Anyone would be welcome to participate, and all would be encouraged rise above the name-calling and personal attacks so often found in religious discussions. I think we can all be mature. We have so far.

I'll look forward to your responses.

In Christ,
bmerr

billwald

05-01-2005, 08:11 PM

Because no one knows exactly what Jesus had in mind or what the Bible "says" or means.

bmerr

05-01-2005, 09:47 PM

billwald,

bmerr here. I'm chuckling as I write this. I took a quick look at your profile and you listed "arguing" as your interest. I love it! Many times my wife or one of my children has peeked in on me and said, "Arguing again?" That's what these forums are for though, isn't it?

In keeping with this train of thought, I'd respectfully disagree with you as to whether or not we can know what the Bible says or means.

Jesus taught (and His teachings are trustworthy) that we can know the truth. In John 8:32 He said, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Not only can we know the truth, we must know the truth in order to be free from sin.

The apostles knew the truth. They understood what Jesus had in mind. They had the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth (John 16:13).

When Paul wrote the Ephesian letter, he said in 3:3-5, "How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit."

If we read what the apostles wrote, we can understand the truth that the Spirit guided them into.

Think about it: If we were not able to understand that writings of the Bible, why were they written?

It is the Word of God that is the sword of the Spirit (Eph 6:17). God's word is that by which the Spirit does His work in the hearts of men, both sinners and saints.

One of the hardest things for men to do when it comes to understanding the Bible is to read it objectively.

Too often we are guilty of examining Scripture in the light of our preconceived ideas or beliefs, when we should be examining our beliefs in light of the Scriptures.

I believe it is possible for people to understand God's word alike, and to obey it. Want a Biblical example? Remember in Exodus, just before the last plague? God told the Israelites (a couple million or so of them)to put lambs blood on their door frames in a certain way or they would suffer the death of their firstborn.

Now it may be the case that a few didn't understand God's directions, but the Bible doesn't record it. If there were someone who didn't understand, I'm sure their neighbor would explain it to them. The only thing that could trip them up would be to be too stubborn to accept the correction.

Jesus had in mind the salvation of man. If no one can understand His word, then no one can be saved. Sounds pretty hopeless.

In Christ,
bmerr

BobRyan

05-01-2005, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by billwald:
Because no one knows exactly what Jesus had in mind or what the Bible "says" or means. The Pope knows -- lets all listen to "him" graemlins/laugh.gif

Kathryn

05-01-2005, 10:37 PM

In the Great Commission Jesus sent out a teaching church:

Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you : and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Matt 28:19-20 How can one "contend earnestly for the faith" as Holy Scripture teaches, if "no one knows exactly what Jesus had in mind or what the Bible "says" or means." ?

bmerr

05-01-2005, 10:47 PM

Kathryn,

Exactly!

in Christ,

bmerr

DHK

05-02-2005, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by billwald:
Because no one knows exactly what Jesus had in mind or what the Bible "says" or means. The Pope knows -- lets all listen to "him" graemlins/laugh.gif [/QUOTE]It is a good thing that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. And, furthermore, He himself has promised that his word will never change. It is good that Christ Himself taught sola scriptura, in order that we don't have to depend on the pope or his magesterium.

What if we did. The news reported today that Pope Benedict XVI had two strokes and continues to have heart troubles. Where does that now leave the Catholic Church?
DHK

Living4Him

05-04-2005, 06:34 AM

It is good that Christ Himself taught sola scripturaReally? Where?

Matt Black

05-04-2005, 07:07 AM

Good one! John 16:13 expressly contradicts the view that Christ taught SS

Yours in Christ

Matt

jacob62

05-04-2005, 07:55 AM

Funny how a denomination changes its veiws and doctrines through the ages,claiming its own to be the only truth,then it splits, with each branch again claiming all others are wrong.Amazing how this differs with Jesus the same today,yesterday and tommorrow.How many"true and only"doctrines do we have now?

bmerr

05-04-2005, 10:51 PM

Matt,

bmerr here. John 16:13 was spoken to the apostles. Many hold the idea that this was for believers of all time. If we go back to John 14:26, we read also that the Holy Ghost would "...bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

Jesus has said nothing to me, or anyone else since His acsension, personally. The apostles however, are a different story.

Also, if the Holy Spirit guided us into all truth today, then there would be no need to "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15), and there wouldn't be all the denominations we see around us. There would only be one church, one doctrine.

One last thought, in John 12:48, Jesus said that the word which He has spoken would judge us in the last day. This would include the words of the apostles and other inspired writers, since they received their doctrine from the Holy Spirit, Who received it from Christ (John 16:13-15), and it is their words by which we believe today (John 17:20).

Only the Scriptures are authoritative and reliable to guide us to Heaven.

jacob62,

That's why I plead with men to return to the New Testament as their sole source of authority in religion. If everyone limited themselves to teaching and practicing what is found in the New Testament, we would all be one body, one church. Problems and division arises when men add to and/or take away from what is written.

In Christ,
bmerr

jacob62

05-04-2005, 11:49 PM

Amen bmerr

BobRyan

05-05-2005, 09:42 AM

Matt 28
Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you : and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Matt 28:19-20

Kathryn said --
How can one "contend earnestly for the faith" as Holy Scripture teaches, if "no one knows exactly what Jesus had in mind or what the Bible "says" or means." ? Good point - if the RCC was correct that is exactly where we would be stuck. We could not trust the "wicked popes" that even the RCC admits to -- and we could not figure out the Bible just by reading the plain english translations AND we could not get it from the ECFs (as we see in Matt's rejection of Tertullian AND the Didache) and we could not get it from anyone else that the RCC sought to "re-interpret when it pleases them" -- so we would be stuck "without a mission".

Unnable to fulfill what Christ HAD taught (in Matt 28's context) because we have to claim that we are less able to learn that the unneducated fishermen that HE was talking to in his day!

At least that would be true if we were still in the RCC-dominated dark ages and had only myth, supersitition and the dogmatic word of priests and popes (at war with each other) to go by.

Thankfully - we have the Word of God "instead".

Thankfully - we have the teaching ministry of the "Spirit of Truth" -- "instead".

Though the RCC is adamant about telling us just how "insufficient" all that really is.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

05-05-2005, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by bmerr:
Matt,

bmerr here. John 16:13 was spoken to the apostles. Many hold the idea that this was for believers of all time. If we go back to John 14:26, we read also that the Holy Ghost would "...bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

Jesus has said nothing to me, or anyone else since His acsension, personally. The apostles however, are a different story.

Also, if the Holy Spirit guided us into all truth today, then there would be no need to "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15)
Pure nonsense!

You "divide God against Himself" to make your argument!

You divide THE Holy Spirit from the WORK of the Holy Spirit and place them in opposition.

Peter said that the scritpure is given by divine revelation and that "Holy men of old MOVED by the Holy Spirit SPOKE FROM GOD" in writing that text that you place in "opposition" to the Holy Spirit.

Your argument is in effect "HOW can we really trust and rely on the Holy Spirit to teach us if we are STILL stuck reading HIS WORD!??".

What kind of nonsensical reasoning is that??

I can't believe some of the things that get posted!

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

05-05-2005, 09:52 AM

bmerr

, and there wouldn't be all the denominations we see around us. There would only be one church, one doctrine.
If mankind had no choice there would be no sin.

If mankind as God's children were perfect in all regards once saved - then the Jews would have accepted Christ and there would be no reason for a Christian church to split off from them.

If the Christian church were invincibly "true" then Paul would not have predicted error "From within" in Acts 20 and a "falling away" in 2Thess 2 and would not have had to leave Timothy in Ephesus JUST to squash error after error after error.

If the Christian church were immune from the sins and misdirection of its leaders there would have been no RCC. No Catholics going to war against catholics, no dark ages no need for a reformation.

But NONE of that is the fault of the Bible OR the "insufficiencey" of the teaching ministry of the "Spirit of Truth" that "CONVICTS THE WORLD" in John 16 (NOT just the apostles!).

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

05-05-2005, 09:56 AM

bmerr

Only the Scriptures are authoritative and reliable to guide us to Heaven.

jacob62,

That's why I plead with men to return to the New Testament as their sole source of authority in religion. If everyone limited themselves to teaching and practicing what is found in the New Testament, we would all be one body, one church. Problems and division arises when men add to and/or take away from what is written.
This is silly. The NT QUOTES THE OT!! You would need to do a huge scissors/cut-and-paste of the NT to DELETE OUT every quote of God's Word "scripture" quoted from the OT!

You would have to delete ALL the Gospels if you wanted to delete ANY word that was in harmony with the pre-cross Word of God AND THEN delete all references to it in Paul's letters etc.

What a "tiny Bible" you would have!

God is bigger than that.

His Word is better, bigger and more reliable than that.

Christians should have a better understanding of history and the Bible text than to think that the OT can be cut out without doing a hatchet job on history (the NT saints were READING the OT and calling it "scripture" and "authorotative" in the NT) - and a hatchet job on the NT text (remove the gospels and cut-and-paste references to the OT text when it is used "authorotatively").

I am amazed!

In Christ,

Bob

bmerr

05-05-2005, 04:47 PM

Bob,

bmerr here. Steady big fella! I think you're taking what I said way beyond what I was saying. The OT is Scripture, no question about it. I don't disregard the OT, I just don't look to it for autority in religion. There are truths about God and His dealing with man that can only be learned in the OT.

Also, 1 Cor 10:11 tells us, "...all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."

You are correct in citing the many examples of NT authors referenceing and quoting OT passages. However, they did not do so to get authority for practice in Christianity. I think if we were to follow OT references out, the majority of them would be in reference to Jesus being the Christ, or comparing OT types with NT antetypes.

The main point I was making, (and I apologize for not being clearer), was that Christianity is God's authorized religion under the New Testament, therefore that is where we need to look for our authority concerning the mission, organization, worship, and message of Christ's church.

For example, we wouldn't go to the Old Testament for authority to offer animal sacrifices for use in our worship. Likewise the burning of incense. We wouldn't set up a priesthood after the example of the Levitical priests. That's all I meant.

As far as dividing the Holy Spirit from the work of the Holy Spirit, I'm not sure what you mean. The Holy Spirit works, and has always worked through the word of God. It's His sword (Eph 6:17), His tool by which He does His work.

As one studys God's word, the Spirit of God works on the heart of man through the influence of the word, convincing men of sin and righteousness.

In closing, the apostasy of the RCC and many other false doctrines are fortold in the Bible. The cause of these divisions was man's departure from the apostles' doctrine. If men today would return to that doctrine, denominationalism would cease to be. Sadly, that will probably not happen.

I appreciate your zeal, Bob, but I think you misunderstood me. No harm done. Talk to you later.

In Christ,
bmerr

TexasSky

05-05-2005, 04:57 PM

Before you decide to "do away with denominations" you need to figure out which ones you want to go and why?

The Baptist and the Church of Christ both teach that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. They both teach that you must make a personal committment to Christ. They both teach you should be baptized. Difference in beliefs? The C o C believe that the water literally washes away the sin, and if you die between when you ask Christ into your heart, and when you enter the baptistry, you end up in hell.

I know a few Methodists who teach exactly what we teach. I know some United Methodists who actually teach that the Lord's Prayer is irrelevant to modern times.

We have a church here in town that is famous for having a female, lesbian minister. They call themselves "Second Baptist."

If you understand the organization of the Baptist Church, and the SBC, there is no "headquarters that gives marching orders." There is a fellowship of churches that offer support to sister churches through a variety of methods.

A man of God I respect very much once pointed out that some people feel more comfortable with strict rituals, and some are more comfortable with relaxed services. He said, "Look at what they teach, in that building, that church," and choose that way. Question your own Pastor. If he is telling the truth, the scripture will back him up. If he is not, the scripture will reveal it.

The first denominational differences, in my opinion, were between Paul and Peter. I think they both did a wonderful work for Christ though.

music4Him

05-05-2005, 05:53 PM

We have a church here in town that is famous for having a female, lesbian minister. They call themselves "Second Baptist."

I live in Texas and haven't heard of "Second Baptist? Where is this at?

bmerr

05-07-2005, 11:21 PM

TexasSky,

bmerr here,

I'd like to end up with as many denominations as we can find in the New Testament. None.

Jesus only said he was going to build one church. Surely we can investigate the NT and find out what they preached and how they worshipped. If we can find that, we'll have found His church.

As I've said before, and you alluded to, truth is universal. Anyone can make a true statement. Truth is not dependent upon human assent.

When a Baptist preacher says that Jesus is the Son of God, it's just as true as when a gospel preacher from the church of Christ says it.

I would correct the statement you made about our belief that water washes away sin. The Bible does not teach that, and neither do we. It is Jesus' blood that washes men clean from sin. (See, another true statement.)

However, what we and the Bible teach is that God has commanded man that in order to have his sins washed away, he must be baptized (Acts 2:38; 22:16). In order for one to be saved, he must be baptized (Mark 16:16; 1 Pet 3:21). We didn't come up with it on our own.

On the other hand, nowhere in Scripture is an unbeliever ever told to "ask Jesus into your heart". That is something man has come up with, and is not effectual for salvation.

As far as the Lord's Prayer, it is a pattern for prayer which is mostly relevant to us today. It would be incorrect for us today to pray "thy kingdom come", since the kingdom is already here. The kingdom is the church.

Concerning "Second Baptist", do you see how yet another denomination had to be formed in order to accomodate yet another departure from the word of God? Why do you suppose the lesbian minister couldn't get work at "First Baptist"?

In regards to "headquarters", what does "SBC" stand for? Is it not Southern Baptist Convention"? I used to be a Southern Baptist, and I thought that was what it meant. I could be wrong.

Do you remember a few years ago when the SBC decided that wives should graciously submit to their husbands? Doesn't the Bible already teach that? Why did the SBC need to meet to decide if the Bible was right or not?

That godly man gave some good advice. Most people look for a church that suits them. Very few go to the NT and ask, "What does God desire in worship?" Far and wide, religious services are conducted with an emphasis on what the people want, instead of on what God wants.

In order to know if our "pastor" is telling the truth, we must know it ourselves. It was after I began studying seriously on my own that I realized my "pastor" was not speaking the whole council of God on a number of issues. That's why I left the Southern Baptists.

I've never heard the assertion that there was a "denominational difference" between Paul and Peter. Would you care to elaborate?

In Christ,

bmerr

Ed Edwards

05-07-2005, 11:42 PM

Speaking of the existence of denominations in 21st century
America, Bmerr says: "This is confusion, and God is not its' author (1 Cor 14:33)."

You have misused this scripture.
What you probably mean is that this situation
does not match human logic.
The scripture speaks against that which is
not in the proper order

1Co 14:33 (KJV1769 with Strong's numbers):
For1063 God2316 is2076 not3756 the author of confusion,181
but235 of peace,1515 as5613 in1722 all3956 churches1577
of the3588 saints.40

G181
ἀκαταστασία
akatastasia
ak-at-as-tah-see'-ah
From G182; instability, that is, disorder: - commotion, confusion, tumult.

If denominational-ism is God's method of
winning the world with many witnesses,
we err to gripe against it.

TexasSky

05-08-2005, 12:29 AM

Bmrr -

I'm sorry, but time and time again the bible tells us, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." Baptism is an act of obidience. Now, you can argue as much as you like, but I know this is true because of the two weeks between when I ~knew~ Christ was in my heart, and ~knew~ He had forgiven me, and the time it took for me to attend a service, make a public profession of faith, and be baptised.

My life, my soul, my everything changed the moment I asked Christ to be my Lord and savior. In the two weeks between when I was saved and when I was baptized, I lead three other people to Christ. I couldn't have kept quiet about His love and my love for Him if someone had threatened to torture me if I didn't. The thief on the cross wasn't baptized, but he was in heaven with Christ when he died. His belief in Christ was his salvation.

"Ask Christ into your heart," is a phrase used to sum up the experience. It is not found in the bible, but what it describes is. Asking Christ to forgive you, accepting/believing that He is, indeed, Lord, accepting the pardon and love He offers. All of these are part of "Asking Christ into your heart." It is our way of doing more than the demons. Even the demons acknowledge that Christ is Christ. We must acknowledge that He is OUR Lord and Savior.

I have a tremendous problem with you over the Lord's prayer. First - How can ANY Christian say that ANY of the words of Christ, especially the words He gave to us as an example of how HE wants us to pray - "don't apply today."

If you say that the prayer of Christ no longer applies, then you say that what Christ taught no longer applies.

Second - If you say His Kingdom is here, please explain to me why He speaks of returning, "I go to prepare a place for you, and if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again." Why did He tell us to go into all the world and preach the gospel? Why did HE speak of returning like a thief in the night?

If you say His Kingdom is here - explain to me Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Hugh Hefner, Adolph Hitler - is this world, with its selfishness, its disregard for God and the laws of God, its hate - is THIS world, with its hate and evil the glorious Kingdom of God? John 18:36 says, "My Kingdom is not of this world." Yet, you say it is. Who should I believe? You or Christ?

As to the Southern Baptist Convention - Whether you attended an SBC church or not, the fact is, the SBC is not organized in such a fashion that a "headquarters" gives orders to the individual churches. If you didn't understand that when you were part of an SBC church, I'm sorry. Perhaps you should have known more about your church organization. The facts are the facts. SBC churches are NOT dictated to by anyone. They are autonomous bodies of believers.

The SBC works through 1,200 local associations, and 41 station conventions and fellowships, churches who choose to join the SBC share basic biblical beliefs. They also share a committment to share Jesus Christ with the world. The churches in the convention work in friendly cooperation, they are not dictated to.

A church that wishes to join the convention is saying that they agree that Jesus Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose from grave. That He lives today, and that He offers abundant and eternal life to all who believe in him and repent of sin.

Southern Baptists hold firmly to the principle of church autonomy and self-rule. The SBC does NOT ordain ministers, assign staff to churches, levy contributions to denominational causes, dictate literature or calendar, or assign persons to churches. ALL of these decisions are made by individual congregations/churches.

Members of the SBC are wary of interdenominational councils. They may work with other churches on issues which they share a common interest in, but they do not enter into covenants with them.

The convention is an alliance of churches in a friendly cooperation working toward common goals. The convention in no way dictates to those churches. Individual churches are independent. For this reason you may find a lot of differences in how they conduct worship. I've been in SBC churches that require anyone who partakes of communion to be a member of that church. I've been in SBC churches that require only that you profess to be a Christian to partake of communion.

The SBC offers Baptists a chance to get together, to discuss ways to share the word of God, to benefit from the knowledge of others of like faith and order. It does not dictate though.

As to the old and new testament. Christ often referred us back to the old testament, and Christ told us that He came to fulfill the law, not to excuse the law. His own commandments, as I already pointed out, strengthened most of the godly points. He didn't just say "don't commit adultry," he said, "If you think it in your heart, you're guilty." I realize that some things did change between the old testament and the new testament, but as I've walked with Christ longer and longer, and read more and more of God's word, I've realized that God never changed, and His commandments never changed. God has always said, "Obey me," God has always provided a way to achieve forgiveness of sin, God has always loved more than we are worthy of. This is unchanged from the Genesis to Revelation. What did change was HOW we could receive forgiveness.

I often hear unbelievers in Christ tell me that there is no proof there is God, no witnesses. I once heard a wonderful man of God say, "Every true Christian, from the day He rose to today, is a witness."

I often have people come to me and say they doubt someone else's Christianity. After reminding them it isn't our place to judge, I tell them, if you are REALLY concerned that they may not really know the Lord, ask them to tell you about the day they came to know Christ as Lord and Savior, and you will find that what a real believer shares is not shaking the preacher's hand or being baptised in the baptistry. A true believer will always tell you how Christ changed their life that day.

That doesn't mean we didn't shake a preacher's hand, or that we didn't follow Christ in believer's baptism. It just means that our lives were changed ~before~ the rituals of public profession were performed.

In that light, a person I know came to me a few years ago and said, "You know how you used to talk about a preson's testimony? It used to really bother me because I believed I was a Christian, and I had been baptized, but I didn't really get what you were talking about. I went to church, and I read the bible, and I thought I was a Christian. Then, one day, when I was really upset about something, I started reading my bible and praying, and I realized that in all the fuss I'd said I believed in Him, but I'd never actually ASKED Him to forgive me and be my Lord. So I did, and my life changed forever."

If you put too much emphasis on the water, you may forget the importance of Christ, and Christ is ALL that matters in the end.

If you dismiss the majority of God's holy word, how can you believe any of it? You have tossed out the old testament are irrelevant, most Church of Christ people toss out Revelations as irrelevant, and now you are telling me that you are dismissing words from Christ Himself as irrelevant.

What part of the bible DO you believe? And how can you call yourself a Church of CHRIST if Christ's own words "don't apply" today?

[ May 08, 2005, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: TexasSky ]

Ed Edwards

05-08-2005, 09:43 AM

Ed is right in the middle of obEDience!

bmerr

05-08-2005, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by TexasSky:
Bmrr -

I'm sorry, but time and time again the bible tells us, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." Baptism is an act of obidience.TexasSky,

The only place I'm familiar with where these words are spoken is Acts 16:31, in the account of the conversion of the Phillipian jailer (PJ, for short.)

If we were to read beyond verse 31, we'd see the same pattern of salvation we see in every other account of individual conversion, hearing the word of God, believing it, repentance and baptism. The whole experience is wrapped up with the phrase, "believing in God with all his house" (verse 34).

I think what clouds the understanding of so many is that when they see "believe", or "faith", they understand it to mean "believe only", or "faith only". Most are aware of the warnings about adding to or taking away from God's word, and they would never add or subtract from the text. However, these same people add and subtract often in their understanding of the text.

Also, you are correct in saying that submitting to baptism is an act of obedience. It is in obedience to God's commands that our faith is made perfect, or complete (James 2:22).

Add to that the fact that Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to those who obey Him (Heb 5:8, 9), and we begin to understand that baptism, though an act of obedience, is neccessary for us to be saved.

Now, you can argue as much as you like, but I know this is true because of the two weeks between when I ~knew~ Christ was in my heart, and ~knew~ He had forgiven me, and the time it took for me to attend a service, make a public profession of faith, and be baptised.I can't begin to express how dangerous it is for us to base our faith on how or what we feel. Emotions can be very easily manipulated by certain music, or by a skilled speaker.

Matt 7:21-23 describes many who undoubtably will have felt saved, and who were convinced that they were doing God's will, but will find in the end that they had been decieved.

Look back on your salvation experience. Compare it to what you can read in your New Testament. Are they the same? That's the standard, not how we might feel at one time or another.

My life, my soul, my everything changed the moment I asked Christ to be my Lord and savior. In the two weeks between when I was saved and when I was baptized, I lead three other people to Christ. I couldn't have kept quiet about His love and my love for Him if someone had threatened to torture me if I didn't.Please understand that it is not my intention to ridicule or belittle anyone for believing what they have been taught. All of us have been taught things at some time or another that turned out not to be true.

What I am trying to do is convince people to compare their beliefs with Scripture and cast off those things which the Bible does not teach.

That being said, your change of attitude toward Christ and the desire to tell others about Him is commendable, but I've seen people equally as changed who have embraced Mohammedism, Buddhism, and a host of other "isms". A change of attitude is certainly expected in a new Christian, but is poor proof of one's standing before God.

Consider for a moment Saul of Tarsus, on his way to Damascus to persecute Christians. He saw the risen Christ, believed on Him, and repented of his sins. He spent three days fasting and praying, still blind from His encounter with Christ. But what did Ananias tell him to do? "And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16).

After all his praying and fasting, his belief and repentance, Saul was still in his sins. He was not yet saved. It is without question that he "felt" differently than he did a few days earlier, but he was still in his sins and lost.

The thief on the cross wasn't baptized, but he was in heaven with Christ when he died. His belief in Christ was his salvation.The thief on the cross (ttoc) was also saved under the Old Testament. Christ being still alive when He promised ttoc paradise, the New Testament was not yet brought in.

Heb 9:15-17 says,

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16 For where a testament is, there must also of neccessity be the death of the testator,

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Jesus lived and died under the Old Testament. It was in dying that the Law was fulfilled. That's why He said "It is finished". His work in the redemptive plan of God was done.

"Ask Christ into your heart," is a phrase used to sum up the experience. It is not found in the bible, but what it describes is. Asking Christ to forgive you, accepting/believing that He is, indeed, Lord, accepting the pardon and love He offers. All of these are part of "Asking Christ into your heart."If what you say is true, there should be no trouble in giving Scripture references to show where sinners were commanded to "Ask Christ to forgive you", "Accept/believe that He is, indeed, Lord", and "Accept the pardon and love He offers".

TexasSky, I think I know what you're saying here. I have been under similar teaching. But the simple fact of the matter is that it's not found in the Bible.

It is our way of doing more than the demons. Even the demons acknowledge that Christ is Christ. We must acknowledge that He is OUR Lord and Savior.Agreed, our faith must go beyond that of the demons (who possess "faith only"), but in expressing our faith through works, we must be sure that our works of obedience are works that Christ commanded. Only then can we be sure we are doing the will of God.

I have a tremendous problem with you over the Lord's prayer. First - How can ANY Christian say that ANY of the words of Christ, especially the words He gave to us as an example of how HE wants us to pray - "don't apply today."Not a problem in the world with your having a problem with me. I get that all the time. I won't take it personally, and I trust you know that I don't mean to offend, though I often do offend.

I didn't mean that Jesus' words had no meaning, just that for us to pray "thy kingdom come" would be to show disrespect for the church, which is His kingdom, which came on Pentecost of Acts 2.

Likewise, it would be foolish to go about the task of building an ark in preparation for a world-wide flood. That command is not applicable for us today, since the flood happened back in Gen 7-8.

For us to pray "thy kingdom come" is to pray for something that has already happened.

If you say that the prayer of Christ no longer applies, then you say that what Christ taught no longer applies.No, I don't. I'm saying that some things commanded of Jesus' disciples and of 1st century Christians do not always apply to us today, because of the fact that some things that were to happen in their future, have taken place in our past.

Second - If you say His Kingdom is here, please explain to me why He speaks of returning, "I go to prepare a place for you, and if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again." Why did He tell us to go into all the world and preach the gospel? Why did HE speak of returning like a thief in the night?The Bible tells us when Christ would be given His kingdom. In Dan 7:13, 14, we read this prophecy,

13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

We see from these verses that Christ would be given His kingdom when He came with the clouds of heaven (Acts 1:9), and when He came to (not from) the Ancient of days (The Father).

In Mark 1:9 we read that the kingdom of God would come "with power".

In Luke 24:49, we read that the apostles were to tarry in Jerusalem until they were endued with "power from on high".

In Acts 1:8, we read that the apostles would receive power when the Holy Ghost would come upon them.

And in Acts 2:4, we read that the Holy Ghost came upon them on the Pentecost following the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

With all of this in mind, we can see that the kingdom of God came with power way back in Acts 2.

You may also consider that prior to Acts 2, all references to the kingdom were in the future tense, while after Acts 2, the kingdom is always spoken of as being present.

If you say His Kingdom is here - explain to me Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Hugh Hefner, Adolph Hitler - is this world, with its selfishness, its disregard for God and the laws of God, its hate - is THIS world, with its hate and evil the glorious Kingdom of God? John 18:36 says, "My Kingdom is not of this world." Yet, you say it is. Who should I believe? You or Christ?Explain bad people doing bad things? People have free will. Many choose to do things contrary to the will of God.

Consider what is being asked in John 18. Jesus is asked by Pilate if He is the King of the Jews. The Jews were under the boot of Rome at this time. For Jesus to claim to be a king over a territory which was currently under Roman control would have been treason, and reason to put Him to death, according to the laws of man.

Pilate understood that an earthly kingdom was not what Jesus was king over, for he said of Jesus in verse 38, "I find in him no fault at all".

In Luke 17:21, Jesus said, "...the kingdom of God is within you".

What expanse of land did Christ not create? What would be His gain to exercise earthly rule over a portion of His own creation?

The kingdom of God is comprised of those human souls who have submitted to His authority, and live according to the precepts and commands found in the word of God, more specifically, the New Testament.

Not that the Old Testament is not worthy of study. I do not cast aside the Old Testament as worthless, just as being a source of authority for worship.

As to the Southern Baptist Convention - Whether you attended an SBC church or not, the fact is, the SBC is not organized in such a fashion that a "headquarters" gives orders to the individual churches. If you didn't understand that when you were part of an SBC church, I'm sorry. Perhaps you should have known more about your church organization. The facts are the facts. SBC churches are NOT dictated to by anyone. They are autonomous bodies of believers.If I was in error, I stand corrected. But explain to me, if you will, the existence of "The Baptist Faith and Message", a pamphlet handed to me as being authoritative.

How is it that the SBC (as well as pretty much all denominations) have a "Confession of Faith", which states what each organization believes, which does not contain all of the Bible?

If one's creed-book contains less than the Bible, it contains too little.

If one's creed-book contains more than the Bible, it contains too much.

If one's creed-book contains exactly what the Bible contains, it is not needed, as we already have the Bible.

As to the old and new testament. Christ often referred us back to the old testament, and Christ told us that He came to fulfill the law, not to excuse the law. His own commandments, as I already pointed out, strengthened most of the godly points. He didn't just say "don't commit adultry," he said, "If you think it in your heart, you're guilty." I realize that some things did change between the old testament and the new testament, but as I've walked with Christ longer and longer, and read more and more of God's word, I've realized that God never changed, and His commandments never changed. God has always said, "Obey me," God has always provided a way to achieve forgiveness of sin, God has always loved more than we are worthy of. This is unchanged from the Genesis to Revelation. What did change was HOW we could receive forgiveness.No problem with that. The question is, What has God commanded for us to obtain forgiveness under the New Testament?

If you put too much emphasis on the water, you may forget the importance of Christ, and Christ is ALL that matters in the end.I don't put any more emphasis on baptism than the Bible does. It may seem more than you're used to, but that may be because what you're used to de-emphasizes the importance of baptism.

If you dismiss the majority of God's holy word, how can you believe any of it? You have tossed out the old testament are irrelevant, most Church of Christ people toss out Revelations as irrelevant, and now you are telling me that you are dismissing words from Christ Himself as irrelevant.That is a gross misrepresentation of my position, and I must say I'm shocked at your implied claim to supernatural knowledge of my mind.

I don't dismiss ANY of God's word. I just recognize the fact that not every promise in the Bible is for me.

As I've stated before, one of the biggest hindrances to intelligent discussion of the Scriptures is the idea that "I know what you believe".

I have been guilty of that mind-set in the past, and found it to be a source of embarrassment more often than not, since each person is different. Why don't we all try to refrain from knowing everything about each other's beliefs and keep searching the Scriptures for answers?

What part of the bible DO you believe? And how can you call yourself a Church of CHRIST if Christ's own words "don't apply" today? Do I need to say it again? The kingdom is here. There's no use praying for it to come. Just as there is no profit in praying for miraculous spiritual gifts. The time for those things is long since past.

Gotta tuck the children in.

In Christ,

bmerr.

TexasSky

05-08-2005, 11:29 PM

Bmerr,

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I may sound like I'm trying to be difficult, but I'm not. I really, truly don't understand some of what you are saying in regards to the scripture or in regards to how you put it.

Regarding belief

John 3:14-21 (This is to pick up verses before and after 16-18) (Christ speaking).

Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up that that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life; For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemnded already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son . This is the verdict; light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

(Note, each reference is to belief as the key to salvation, non-belief resulting in condemnation, no mention of baptism itself at all.)

John 5:24 (Christ speaking) "I tell you the turth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. ;

Again - no mention of baptism as a component of forgiveness. It is an act of obedience.

John 6:47 (Once again, Christ speaking.) "I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

John 7:37-39 "On the last and greatest day of the feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.By this he meant the Spirit whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.

Acts 10:42-47
He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed in judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him ; that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have. So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

(Note - the Holy Spirit came and filled them BEFORE they were baptized with water. Not after.)

Acts 13:38-48

"Therefore my brothre, I wan you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of MosesTake care that what the prophets have said does not happen to you. "Look, you scoffers, wonder and perish, for I am going to do something in your days that you would never believe even if someone told you." As Paul and Barnabas were leaving the synagogue, the people invited them to speak further about these things on the next Sabbath. When the congretation was dismissed, many of the Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who talked with them and urged them to continue in the grace of God. On the next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered ot hear the world of the Lord. WHen the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and talked abusively against what Paul was saying. Then Paul and barnabas answered them bolly: "We had to speak the word of God to you first. since you reject it and do not consider yoruselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiels. For this is what the Lord has commanded us. "I have made you a light for the Gentiesl, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth." When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord, and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

(Once again - no mention of baptism as the component of salvation - only of belief. Baptism was an act of obedience.)

I could go on and on as there are many verses that refer to belief as the key to salvation.

There there is the simple fact that John the Baptist, who seemed to be correct fairly often, states in John 1:33-34 "I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water, told me, the man on whom you see the spriti come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit."

Acts 1:5 Christ "For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptised with the Holy Spirit."

Christ doesn't need water to wash away sins.
We use water to obey him and follow his example. A way of professing him before men.

As to my experience. It isn't "emotions," that I speak of. I can't possibly explain what how a Christian knows the presence of God in his life, and honestly, I shouldn't have a need to. There is, without a doubt, a change in your life when Christ moves into your life. Paul is living proof of this, as are millions of others throughout the ages, and it isn't "an emotional feeling." I wasn't on some "great musical lead emotional high," the night I asked Christ to be my Lord and savior. I was praying quietly in my room, and I went from a person who didn't really understand it all, to a person who hadto tell others about Christ, over night and instantly. It wasn't, as you seem to think, an emotional high.

I really do NOT mean to misrepresent your position in regards to the scripture. I sincerely feel that you've told me you reject the majority of God's word. You dismissed the old testament because it is pre-Christ's arrival. Yet Christ quotes it to us. You told me the Lord's Prayer doesn't apply to us because in your opinion Christ's Kingdom is here. Yet, Christ gave this prayer as an example for us. Many of your faith have, that Revelations is irrelevant for numerous reasons that fall along the lines of "Christ's kingdom is here". So I honestly am at a loss about what part of the scripture we are supposd to consider relevant in that context. You say not every promise is for you, but what you've said goes far beyond that stating that not every promise is for everyone. What you said is not about promises, it is about a tremendously large portion of the bible. From Genesis through John at least.

And you keep saying that God's Kingdom has come, and yet, that prayer says "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Do you ~really~ believe that God's will is being done here, the way it is being done in heaven?

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I am trying to understand.

steaver

05-08-2005, 11:40 PM

I'm sorry, but time and time again the bible tells us, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." Baptism is an act of obidience. Now, you can argue as much as you like, but I know this is true because of the two weeks between when I ~knew~ Christ was in my heart, and ~knew~ He had forgiven me, and the time it took for me to attend a service, make a public profession of faith, and be baptised. You are right TexasSky. The teaching that water baptism is a requirement for salvation is unreconcilable with scripture and real life application making it a false, unbiblical doctrine.

Hundreds upon hundreds are saved daily world wide through faith alone in Jesus Christ, many who have yet to even hear about being baptized by water. So the reallity is plain to observe. I personally was saved at age ten, went undiscipled and unchurched for twenty-five years, then was lead by God to study His Word. Once I learned about John's baptism by water, I took the plunge to declare my allegence to Jesus Christ and repentance of sin in my life before my fellow believers.

Was my faith in Jesus Christ in vain for twenty-five years? Would I have died and found myself in hell only to hear Jesus say 'well I know you were trusting in me to save you, but you wasn't baptized by water, so sorry about your luck'.

God Bless!

bmerr

05-10-2005, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:

If denominational-ism is God's method of
winning the world with many witnesses,
we err to gripe against it. [/QB]Ed,

bmerr here. You are correct, IF denominationalism is God's method. If it's not, then we have a duty to "gripe against it".

One thing required of witnesses in order for them to establish a case is that they all agree with one another. I think you would agree that in the denominational world, there are many points of disagreement. To the world of the rank heathen, this is confusing.

As I mentioned at the start of this thread, I have a good friend who's dad is a Baptist preacher. Nonetheless, my friend is a member of the Nation of Islam. He has told me himself that the main reason he rejects Christ as the Savior is the existence of so many denominations, all teaching conflicting doctrines, and all claiming to be teaching the Bible.

Denominationalism is NOT an effective witness for Christ.

In fact, there is a Biblical example of the uselessness of having many conflicting witnesses. In Matt 26:59-61, we read,

"59 Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;
60 But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet they found none. At the last came two false witnesses,
61 And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.

Now I realize that these were witnesses against Christ, and the issue at hand is witness for Christ, but the principle still applies.

So how do we explain the fact that though many false witnesses came, none were found? The reason is that no two gave the same testimony.

Remember that "...at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established" (Deut 19:15).

So all those people who came to bear false witness against Jesus, to a court that was already against Him, were of no use because of the difference in their testimony.

But, at the last, the council found two witnesses with the same testimony against Jesus, and the kangaroo court proceeded to condemn Christ.

Now, let's look at the denominational world with it's many differing doctrines and testimonies, and see how hopeless and confusing it must be for a lost person to find the truth.

Even among those of the same denomination there are often vast differences in beliefs, let alone between those of different denominations.

Finally, consider the prayer of Jesus in John 17. Beginning in verse 20, we read,

20 Neither pray I for these alone [the apostles], but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

What was the condition to be met that the world may believe that the Father had sent Jesus? That believers would be ONE. As in "...one body [church], and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Eph 4:4-6).

Jesus only built one church. Jesus only established one faith. How is it that today there are many churches and many faiths? Many bodies and many doctrines? This was not God's plan.

In order for the cause of Christ to be won, we MUST "...speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions [denominations are divisions] among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor 1:10).

Believe me, Ed, I want nothing more than to provide the world with a witness for Christianity, to the end that they may believe, but that can only be done by uniting on the solid foundation of truth, and abandoning our church manuals, creed-books, catechisms, etc.

There are no good references to divisions in the New Testament. No denominations.

In Christ,

bmerr

bmerr

05-10-2005, 12:57 AM

TexasSky,

bmerr here. I apologize if I seemed a bit hot under the collar. Please don't take it personally. In past experiences on other discussion boards I was misrepresented frequently and consistently, and I guess I'm stilla little raw from it. (Deep breaths, everyone.)

Okay, regarding the absence of the mention of water baptism in the passages you cited. Have you ever heard of a synecdoche (syn-ECK-do-kee)? Don't feel bad if you haven't. It wasn't very long ago that I heard of it myself.

Anyway, it's a figure of speech that places a part for the whole. Like if you drove up in a new car, and I said, "Hey, TexasSky, I like your new wheels!"

I wouldn't mean that I only liked the wheels, but you and I both would understand that I liked the whole car, even though there was no mention of the paint, chrome trim, or interior. See what I mean?

When talking about salvation (the most important subject, by far), we've got to be careful not to add "only" or "alone" to our understanding of the Bible. Let me show you how this could get one into trouble.

If I added "alone" to my understanding of 1 Pet 3:21, and understood it to mean "...baptism alone doth also now save us...", then I'd be justified (at least in my mind)in hiring a bunch of wrestlers or something, and traveling around with a portable dunk tank, having my hired thugs to grab people and throw them into the water, and thus proclaiming them all to be saved.

How crazy would THAT be?

Something else that would be required for me to go to the ludicrous extremes described above, is for me to explain away or disregard other verses that didn't seem to go along with my postion. I'd have to ignore the "whole council of God" on the matter of salvation.

Getting back to the verses you cited, repentance is likewise not mentioned, but would you say that one could be saved if he didn't repent of his sins (Luke 13:3, 5)? I don't think you would.

Or how about confession (Rom 10:9, 10)? We're not going to throw that out, are we? But it is not mentioned, either.

So why do away with baptism (Mark 16:16)?

Back to the point, unless we see "faith only", or "only believe", or something along those lines, we should probably understand that a synecdoche is being used, a part for the whole.

You also mentioned baptism as a work of obedience. I could go along with that. But the Biblical pattern has always been obedience by faith, and then the promised blessing.

For example, would Noah have been saved if he had believed that God wanted to build an ark, but didn't build it? No, he had to obey God by doing what He commanded him to do in order to receive the promise of salvation from the flood.

Or how about Naaman (2 Kings 5)? He would have died a leper if he had not obeyed the command of God and dipped himself in Jordan 7 times.

"But water can't wash away leprosy!" one might say. No, it can't. But God can. It didn't make any sense to Naaman. But it worked when he obeyed. Go figure.

Likewise with baptism in the NT, nobody in the church of Christ teaches that water washes away sin. What we do teach, and what the Bible teaches, is that God has commanded mankind to be baptized in order to have their sins washed away. It's the operation of God (Col 2:12). It doesn't make any sense. But it works when we obey by faith.

Quickly now, for it's far past my bedtime.

The deal with the Old Testament, briefly, is that Christ took the Mosaic Law, the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, out of the way, nailing it to His cross (Col 2:14).

There are precepts that have been true from creation, through the Mosaic Law, and even unto today for the rest of time. Things such as murder is sin, don't eat blood, etc.

However, the Law of Moses, which was only given to the nation of Israel, has been fulfilled, and is thus done away (Matt 5:17, 18). The Levitical preisthood, the sacrificial system, the Temple, all of it.

So, while there are many lessons to be learned from the OT, and there are many examples for our learning (1 Cor 10:11), we are not to look to the OT for authority in worship and doctrine concerening Christianity.

NT references to the OT are often for the purpose of showing the connection between the OT types, and the NT antetypes.

During the earthly ministry of Christ, the OT was still in effect. That's why He spent so much time trying to straighten out the Pharisees and friends.

But do you remember in Matt 17, where Jesus takes Peter, James, and John up on a mountain and is transfigured before them? Who shows up with Him? Moses (representing the Law) and Elijah (representing the prophets).

Peter starts talking about a building program, when a cloud overshadows them, and a Voice speaks out of the cloud. Remember what the Voice said?

"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him."

Now who had they "heard" up 'till now? Moses and Elijah, the Law and the prophets. Now they were to listen to Christ. Jesus supercedes the Law and is the fulfillment of the prophets.

That's why, under the NT, we look only to it for authority, while the OT is still referred to for it's lasting precepts and lessons. We believe it all, we're just under the authority of the NT, which is by Christ.

I've GOT to get to bed. 5 AM comes awful early, and it's already past midnight. I'll finish up later.

In Christ,
bmerr

billwald

05-10-2005, 12:15 PM

Why does the Holy Spirit give conflicting information to the various denominations? For example, he tells half the denominations that paedobaptism is OK and he tells the other half that it isn't.

billwald

05-10-2005, 12:18 PM

As one radio preacher said, "It ain't enough to believe IN Jesus, you gots to believe ON Jesus."

bmerr

05-10-2005, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by billwald:
Why does the Holy Spirit give conflicting information to the various denominations? For example, he tells half the denominations that paedobaptism is OK and he tells the other half that it isn't. bmerr here. You make a good point, sir. The issue you mention, and countless others are the result of men not being content to be governed by the New Testament.

I have often heard people say things like, "the Holy Spirit led me to do/say such and such", or "God gave me a message this morning. I was going to preach on topic A, but God said, 'No, I want you to speak on topic B.'"

I don't think people realize what they're saying when they say things like this. What is being made is a claim of inspiration, like the writers of Scripture had.

Think about it: If the Holy Spirit really was to speak through someone, then it would be a sin to reject their message, for one would be rejecting the word of God.

So, to take billwald's example, either one side or the other is rejecting the council of God. There's no way out of it. Two opposite views of an issue cannot both be correct. One of them must be wrong. So either those in favor of infant baptism are correct, or those opposed to it are.

I think it's called the "Law of Non-contradiction", or something like that. Everything is either "A" or "not A". Nothing can be "A" and "not A" at the same time.

We need to understand that in the Bible, God has provided us "all things pertaining to life and godliness" (2 Pet 1:3). 2 Tim 3:16, 17 tells us that God's word is sufficient to prepare us for "all good works".

If there's a good work out there to do, the Bible has already instructed us to do it. Perhaps not in the details, but in precept. "Love thy neighbor as thyself", for example, covers a multitude of things one might do for others. The "golden rule" is another example.

What it gets down to is this: The Holy Spirit does not speak to anyone today, except through the Word of God, which is His sword (Eph 6:17).

The days of inspiration have long since passed, and God's revelation to man is complete. The Holy Spirit is not the origin of the multitude of conflicting doctrines out there. Man is.

Which brings me right back to the beginning of this thread. If religious people would lay aside their church manuals, creed-books, catechisms, confessions of faith, etc., and simply and carefully base their doctrine and worship on what the New Testament authorizes, denominationalism would cease to exist. There would only be "one faith", and "one body", which is the church Jesus built.

However, most people can't even fathom the idea of Christianity without denominations, or divisions. Jesus said that a kingdom divided against itself would be brought to desolation (Luke 11:17). That is the state of "Christendom" in the world today.

billwald, if someone says to you, "the Holy Spirit said ________", you, and all of us need to be ready to say, "No, the Holy Spirit didn't say _______, because the Bible says this about it. The Holy Spirit has already spoken about that."

Many today have the Holy Spirit contradicting Himself with their claims of divne revelations!

In closing, let me add that those in favor of infant baptism are in error, since an infant cannot believe or repent, which are both prerequisites to baptism. The Holy Spirit said so (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38)!

In Christ,

bmerr

TexasSky

05-11-2005, 12:36 PM

Bmerr,

I'm not offended, and I hope my statement doesn't offend, but I think you are the one guilty of synecdoche. Many, many, many times the scripture says, "Believe and thou shalt be saved," and yet, you insist on adding the words, "and be baptized" where it is not written.

I have many issues with telling people that water washes away sin.

First - Christ never said that. In any form at all.

Second - It puts salvation back in the control of man, rather than in the control of God. By saying that the water is what washes away the sin you're reducing the power of Christ, and you're saying that if a man wants to accept Christ, truly begs God for forgiveness, truly, with all his heart wants to follow Christ - but a human says, "Sorry. I don't have time to baptize you right now," and he dies - he goes to hell because a human being told him "later?"

Do you really think God leaves that much power in the hands of man?

Do you really think God is that cruel?

gb93433

05-11-2005, 01:49 PM

But the scripture does say in Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21, 22,

Acts 2:38, "Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

1 Peter 3:21, 22, "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him."

The words must be taken in the context of what it meant to be a believer. Baptism was the proof of their belief. Those who were baptized made the public proclamation that Jesus was now their Lord and not the emperor. For renouncing the emperor as their lord and naming Christ as their lord they could have been executed. Knowing that and they were still baptized I would have confidence of their allegiance and who was their Lord.

gb93433

05-11-2005, 01:56 PM

1 Cor. 1:17, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void."

If a person is saved by faith in Christ and through baptism was the man on the cross hanging next to Jesus saved? I believe Jesus said he was saved and he was not baptized.

There are people I have baptized as believers who were dunked as non-believers without ever believing and just hoping that something would happen when they got dunked.

bmerr

05-11-2005, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by TexasSky:
Bmerr,

I'm not offended, and I hope my statement doesn't offend, but I think you are the one guilty of synecdoche. Many, many, many times the scripture says, "Believe and thou shalt be saved," and yet, you insist on adding the words, "and be baptized" where it is not written.

I have many issues with telling people that water washes away sin.

First - Christ never said that. In any form at all.

Second - It puts salvation back in the control of man, rather than in the control of God. By saying that the water is what washes away the sin you're reducing the power of Christ, and you're saying that if a man wants to accept Christ, truly begs God for forgiveness, truly, with all his heart wants to follow Christ - but a human says, "Sorry. I don't have time to baptize you right now," and he dies - he goes to hell because a human being told him "later?"

Do you really think God leaves that much power in the hands of man?Actually, I do. Think about it. To whom has the task of qreaching the gospel been given to? Man. Who ends up lost if men don't preach the gospel? Everyone. God has given Man a huge responsibility to act under the authority of Christ and spread the gospel. The salvation of men IS dependant upon men, and God planned it that way.

Acts 9:6, and 10:4, 5 give examples of Jesus Himself, and an angel from heaven (respectively) NOT telling men how to be saved. Both Saul and Cornelius were put in touch with men who would tell them the way of salvation.

Also, no one who understands the importance of baptism would ever tell someone to "come back later". There was an urgency, an immediacy in the Bible, because they knew that it was essential.

Do you really think God is that cruel? God is not cruel. I know it was a rhetorical question, but God has in mercy and love for mankind, provided His only begotten Son as a sacrifice for sins. The cruelty is on the part of man, by rejecting God's plan of salvation, and teaching others to reject it.

In Christ,

bmerr

DHK

05-11-2005, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by bmerr:
The cruelty is on the part of man, by rejecting God's plan of salvation, and teaching others to reject it.

In Christ,

bmerr Apparently you do not know what God's plan of salvation is. It is called the gospel. Paul defines it very simply for us.

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

It is the gospel that saves: that Christ died for our sins, that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day. This is a very simple message. It is the gospel that Paul preached. Baptism is not, and never was included. Paul didn't preach baptism. He preached the gospel by which a man is saved.
Your so-called gospel is a false gospel.
Paul also said that if anyone should bring any other gospel to you, let him be accursed. You will find that in Gal.1.
DHK

jacob62

05-12-2005, 12:08 PM

DHK stated "you apparently dont know what Gods plan of savation is." Are you questioning someones salvation?

dianetavegia

05-12-2005, 01:05 PM

On the contrary, DHK is not questioning the salvation of anyone but the heretical teachings of the Church of Christ which say one is not saved until their experience includes a water baptism. Also, this poster is claiming the Holy Spirit no longer speaks to us outside scripture which is NOT scriptural.

DHK states (loosely translated) 'evidently you don't know what scripture says it takes to be saved'.

bmerr,

Matthew 12:32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

Mark 13:11 But when they arrest you and deliver you up, do not worry beforehand, or premeditate what you will speak. But whatever is given you in that hour, speak that; for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.

Luke 12:11 Now when they bring you to the synagogues and magistrates and authorities, do not worry about how or what you should answer, or what you should say. 12 For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."

John 14:25 "These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

2 Peter 1:21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Churches of Christ: The independent Churches of Christ movement was one of several associations and denominations that developed from Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott and Barton W. Stone’s restoration movement of the early 19th century, which was designed to promote unity among Protestants. Many (but not all) Churches of Christ today, however, differ from traditional Protestant doctrine in two key areas. Many maintain that water baptism and/or other commandments (rather than salvation by grace through faith alone) are a requirement for salvation (see Baptismal regeneration, Salvation by works). Some also believe that today’s Churches of Christ are the only true churches on earth and that they can literally trace their history to the first century church in Jerusalem. International Churches of Christ, Kip McKean, Los Angeles, CA: Formerly called the Boston Church of Christ movement, this worldwide splinter from the traditional Churches of Christ originally developed out of the controversial "Crossroads" Church of Christ campus ministry in Gainesville, FL. Former members and critics allege mind control. Practices shepherding, teaches baptismal regeneration, and claims to be the only true church. Publishes Upside Down magazine. Aggressively recruits on college and university campuses throughout America and internationally. Church of Christ, Temple Lot Community of Christ, Joseph Smith, III, Independence, MO: Smaller of the two main groups that originated from Joseph Smith’s alleged restoration of the true church. When Smith died, those who accepted Brigham Young as Smith’s successor followed him west to Utah; they are known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). Those who rejected Young and accepted Smith’s son, Joseph Smith, III, remained in Missouri and became known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS). The doctrines of the two groups eventually became radically different. On April 6, 2001, the name of the RLDS group was officially changed to Community of Christ. The Community of Christ church has a slightly different version of the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, and they reject the Pearl of Great Price as scripture. They do not hold to many of the LDS distinctive doctrines, including the polygamy of the 19th century LDS Church and the LDS belief (still held) that God was once a man. In recent years the church has experienced divisions, with more conservative Restoration Branches becoming independent. Historically, the RLDS—now Community of Christ—church also has had a leader who was a direct descendant of the Mormon founder, Joseph Smith, Jr. The current leader and prophet of the movement, Grant McMurray, was the first exception to this practice. INFO ON CULTS, CLICK HERE! (http://www.watchman.org/watchman.htm)

Charles Meadows

05-12-2005, 01:15 PM

Bmerr,

I don't think anyone here would disagree with your assertion that we should attempt to follow the teachings of Christ and attempt to emulate the NT church.

You have acknowledged that you attend the COC.

I admit that the Stone-Campbell movement may have been borne out of good intentions but it led to many problems.

The NT is authoritative for worship. But in my experience many COC members tend to be quite picky about small things in NT worship. Several things... Instrumental music is clearly not prohibited by the NT. In fact the word used for sing in Ephesians generally meant (in Classical Greek) to pluck a stringed instrument or to sing with an instrument. Being a member of a "baptist" church does not preclude salvation. Lack of water baptism does not preclude salvation.

If you are suggesting that we all try to realize that our different denominations can get in the way fro time to time - that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and should treat one another accordingly - then I'll agree heartily with you.

If you are going to explain to us that being a member of a denomination is not compatible with being a Christian or that having instrumental worship music is sin or that believing in salvation by faith alone is damnable doctrine then you're going to get nowehere here.

DHK

05-12-2005, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by jacob62:
DHK stated "you apparently dont know what Gods plan of savation is." Are you questioning someones salvation? Are you questioning the plan of salvation that Paul clearly sets forth in 1Cor.15:1-4? It is that gospel, and that gospel only that saves. Paul came not to baptize.
DHK

jacob62

05-12-2005, 02:15 PM

Frank

05-12-2005, 02:48 PM

Diane:

The church of Christ does not have her origin in any man. The church was present in America several years before Campbell arrived in our country. The church was meeting in Celina Tenn. and Northport Al. in 1804 and 07 respectively. It is impossible to found that which already exists. Acts 2. Campbell began preaching in America in 1811. These dates may be verified through the county records. Mac Lynn has published this info in his book the Churches of Christ in America.

Furthermore, in the interest of objectivity and truth, I would suggest you read reference material about Campbell from those who actually knew him and heard him teach. Alexander Campbell: The Preacher by Archibald Cox is a book written by one who heard and was converted by his preaching. Campbell preached unity based on the new testament of Christ. In fact, he rejected the fellowships of the methodist and presbyterians because they refused to leave their creeds and articles of faith that were contrary to the new testament. So , I am not surprised to find misguided people make claims about him that are false.

Campbell was a restorationist, not a reformist. There is a difference!

I am a Christian no more no less. My loyalty is to Christ, not any ist or ism. As for Campbell, Stone, or Racoon John Smith or any other man, I will say amen to them when they teach the truth, and will oppose them when they do not. If any of these men have, or take a position contrary to the new testament of Christ, I would oppose them in an appropriate manner.

I do not consider teaching the new testament of Christ as heretical teaching. You would have to be more specific about this assertion.

Frank

dianetavegia

05-15-2005, 04:13 PM

Frank, any teaching outside scripture is heresy.

Do you not agree with the Statement of Faith of our board?

bmerr

05-15-2005, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by dianetavegia:

bmerr,

Matthew 12:32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

Mark 13:11 But when they arrest you and deliver you up, do not worry beforehand, or premeditate what you will speak. But whatever is given you in that hour, speak that; for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.

Luke 12:11 Now when they bring you to the synagogues and magistrates and authorities, do not worry about how or what you should answer, or what you should say. 12 For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."

John 14:25 "These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

2 Peter 1:21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.dianetavegia,

bmerr here. I don't mean to give the impression that the Holy Spirit NEVER spoke through men, just that He hasn't since the close of the revelation of the NT.

The verses you cited (except the first and last), were spoken to the apostles for their comfort concerning the trials they would face. These verses were not meant for people of all time.

In the book of Acts, we find accounts where apostles were before synagogues, magistrates, and authorities, where they spoke, being filled with the Holy Ghost (4:7-12; 5:27-32; 6:10-7:56; 13:9-11; etc).

The Scriptures tell us that they are sufficient to equip us for "all good works" (2 Tim 3:16, 17), and that we have been given "all things pertaining to life and godliness (2 Pet 1:3).

They also warn us several times against adding or subtracting from God's word.

Now consider this: If someone today claims the Holy Spirit told them to say something, and what they say is not contained in Scripture, what does he imply, whether he knows it or not?

He says by implication, that his words are equal in authority to the Bible, since it was the Holy Spirit that inspired men to speak and write the words contained in the Bible.

We today, as uninspired men, are capable of giving voice to some insightful and meaningful truths, but no man today speaks by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Regarding the historical info on churches of Christ, I am not enough of a student of restoration history to affirm or deny much of it.

It doesn't matter though, since men, however well-intentioned they may be, or have been, are not the standard by which I determine right and wrong.

John Calvin made lots of true statements, and I can agree with him on several points. On others, however, he is in error, and I have an obligation to try and bring correction when I encounter such matters.

Anyone is capable of speaking truth. I don't disagree with anyone based on where they come from, or what church they are a member of.

There were truths spoken in the Baptist church I used to be a member of, that helped to bring me out of a life of adultery. Nonetheless, the error that was taught there was the reason I sought out the church of Christ.

Again, let me encourage us all to resist the temptation to stereotype each other. While there is usually some truth behind stereotypes, the broad brush-strokes we tend to make with them are seldom profitable.

In Christ,

bmerr

Frank

05-15-2005, 08:56 PM

Dianne:
I simply asked for you to be specific as to the heresy. I read the new testament of Christ. I know that it is the statement of faith for Christianity . So, why would I need to read another one? If the statement of faith of this board is the same as the new testament, why have one?

Have you read the new testament? If so, how is this board's statement different than the new testament?

dianetavegia

05-15-2005, 10:17 PM

Frank, your account is going to become inactive immediately for an incorrect email address and the removal of some required information. Please contact me with that information.

Diane
tavegia@bellsouth.net

bmerr

05-15-2005, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Instrumental music is clearly not prohibited by the NT. In fact the word used for sing in Ephesians generally meant (in Classical Greek) to pluck a stringed instrument or to sing with an instrument.Charles,

bmerr here. It's true that the NT does not specifically prohibit the use of musical instruments. That being said, I would also say that it would be quite a different thing from NT Christianity if we were to base our religion on what the Bible does not prohibit.

The far safer and surer path would be to simply do those things which the Bible does authorize, and not add anything to it. In this way we can be sure that we are doing the will of the Father.

Regarding the Greek word "psallo", let me say up front that I am a long way from being a novice when it comes to the Greek, let alone a scholar! I've got a Strong's concordance and a Berry's Interlinear Text, but that's about all I have to work with. This is what I've found in Strong's.

"psallo" (#5567) does indicate the plucking or twanging of a stringed instrument. This word is translated as "sing" in Rom 15:9, 1 Cor 14:15, and James 5:13.

The word translated "singing" in Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16 is "aido" (#103), and it is simply a verb which means "to sing".

"humneo" (#5214) is translated "sing" in Heb 2:12, and means, to sing a religious ode, or to celebrate in song.

In both Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16, the idea of congregational singing is indicated by words like "yourselves", "one another", and "hearts", all of which are plural.

In a recent sermon on this very topic, I learned that the commands in these verses are called "reflexive reciprocal" commands, meaning that all the members of the group are singing to one another, teaching and admonishing each other.

It kind of rules out concepts like soloists, or choirs, who sing while the rest listen. It describes the whole congregation being invoved in the same thing. No one is left out.

Now, if you want to hold on to the idea that some of these words might authorize an instrument, that's fine, provided everyone in the congregation is playing one.

As a final thought on this topic, would you agree that one can worship acceptably without the instrument? Is acapella (which means "as in the church") music pleasing to God? or is the instrument required? If it's not, then why risk adding something that God may not desire?

Being a member of a "baptist" church does not preclude salvation. Lack of water baptism does not preclude salvation.Being a member of any church other than the one found in the pages of the New Testament will be really disappointing at the last day. Christ said He would build only one church. It behooves each one of us to investigate the New Testament to find the identifying marks of the Lord's church, and make sure we're a part of it.

As far as baptism is concerned, there's a whole other thread devoted to that, so I'll forego comment here, except to say that we need to find out what the Bible says about it.

If you are suggesting that we all try to realize that our different denominations can get in the way from time to time - that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and should treat one another accordingly - then I'll agree heartily with you.The temptation to change my stance for the benefit of having someone agree with me is real. Alas, I cannot put my name to your suggested statement, except that we should all treat each other with respect and dignity which all who are created in the image of the Almighty are due. Too often, I find myself at fault in this regard.

If you are going to explain to us that being a member of a denomination is not compatible with being a Christian or that having instrumental worship music is sin or that believing in salvation by faith alone is damnable doctrine then you're going to get nowehere here.Well, I've been nowhere before, and I can't say that I liked it much, but that is my position, I'm afraid.

Again, let me say that my desire is to join in a search of the Scriptures to find what is written about such things as denominations, instrumental music in worship, and salvation.

If we can all look objectively to the word, and discover all the evidence linked to the things we study, we are bound to at the least grow in our knowledge of God's word, if not come to agreement on everything.

Whatever the outcome, the goal of returning to the Scriptures is a noble one, and one that has been sought after by better men than I. Certainly we all could profit from following their example.

In Christ,

bmerr

Eric B

05-16-2005, 01:46 PM

bmerr here. It's true that the NT does not specifically prohibit the use of musical instruments. That being said, I would also say that it would be quite a different thing from NT Christianity if we were to base our religion on what the Bible does not prohibit.
The far safer and surer path would be to simply do those things which the Bible does authorize, and not add anything to it. In this way we can be sure that we are doing the will of the Father.

As a final thought on this topic, would you agree that one can worship acceptably without the instrument? Is acapella (which means "as in the church") music pleasing to God? or is the instrument required? If it's not, then why risk adding something that God may not desire?
We don't base it on what is not prohibited, but then we cannot base our Christianity on what the Bible doesn't mention either. For hymn books, church boards and all that other stuff aren;t mentioned either; but the CofC sees no problem with that. It is just a matter of choosing something to make a pet issue over.
Being a member of any church other than the one found in the pages of the New Testament will be really disappointing at the last day. Christ said He would build only one church. It behooves each one of us to investigate the New Testament to find the identifying marks of the Lord's church, and make sure we're a part of it.
So who was saved before the modern Church of Christ came to be? (whether it started with Campbell/Stone or not). The Waldensians, Albigenses, Catharii, and anabaptists? Those were supposed to represent the "true NT Church" (by all groups who claim this). But they were far different from the groups claiming this (including the CofC), and from each other, AND from the NT! So for anymodern group to place salvation in their Church body is ridiculous. The RCC and EOC have a stronger case than that!

To answer the original question of the thread, denominations are corporate bodies formed around doctrinal and often cultural differences within the Christian Church. If we had one corporate body over all (as some have been suggesting), then it would be too much power in a few hands. Plus, people just cannot get over their culture and traditions, so it would never work anyway. I would say if we just went back to an unorganized series of home fellowships, then we would all be one (spiritual) body of fellowship and people could keep their opinions and traditions to themselves without splintering over them. But who wants to give up all this structure and the money and power that comes with it?

chadman

05-16-2005, 02:32 PM

It is crazy listining to all of this, from all sides. Lets tell it like it is. Bmmer you are right to some degree.

But the objective truth I think, is that everyone of us, thinks we are right. Of course our intrepretation is better, we have the Holy Spirit. How hilarious this must certainly appear to the non Christians and even our Catholic friends here. And we puff up and pride ourselves on who has the least error.

Example, Bob mentioned the Orthodox Christians leaving the RCC (the umltimate show of faith?) and the Anglicans, etc. I mean give me a break seriously. Orthodox are catholic, pray to Mary, pray to icons, but they left their errors...sure. I met Anglicans that pray the Rosary, they can't even agree on sacraments. Oh, but they are somehow one level or two better because they are not RCC? Does anyone see the humor in this type of thing? Objectively speaking? Of course...we Babtists look just as absolutely crazy to the other side.

And of course of we Baptists, in all our infinite wisdom, have a gospel the style of which no ealry Christian would recognise. Unless we use the Bible, which has no alter calls or sinners prayers as a means of conversion. We would have probably had a chapter written about us in Irenaus' 'Against Heresies'. You know we would have.

Hey, we all pick what we think is right, even if it is different from history, as long as we can contrive some seed of it in the NT. As that any different than what the RCC does? And the Holy Spirit is NOT in charge of spreading all of these divisions. So who is teaching the faithful? We all to some degree, base our understanding of Scripture on what WE percieve that Holy Spirit has told US. Bottom Line. We are in effect mini-popes if you will, just to ourselves. We are the final word in interpretation in the end. We all hope we are right.

Hard for us to look in the mirror?

tamborine lady

05-16-2005, 03:19 PM

graemlins/type.gif

Chadman said:How hilarious this must certainly appear to the non Christians and even our Catholic friends here. And we puff up and pride ourselves on who has the least error.

God probably has a good laugh at us sometimes when He hears all of our arguments,(I'm right, no I am, etc). That is when He's not crying because we don't get what HE is saying.

selah,

Tam

Charles Meadows

05-16-2005, 06:21 PM

Bmerr,

Whatever the outcome, the goal of returning to the Scriptures is a noble one...

I'll agree with that.

But my experience with most COC members is that they wind up with something far less than scriptural.

Sola fide is damnable doctrine?

Not by scripture.

Instrumental musci sinful?

Not according to scripture.

Denominations evil?

What are denominations? They are not even mentioned in scripture - so you cannot say that belonging to one is evil.

Charles Meadows

05-16-2005, 10:12 PM

Sorry - didn't get to finish the thought...

The best explanation of the denominational phenmenon would be the fact that humans (being imperfect) cannot completely grasp all of God's revelation. To permit denominations among Christians is to admit that though we are not all in agreement on all points of faith we are attempting to know Him more fully and serve Him more correctly. Since we are human none of us will get it completely right.

For a COC member to say that the denominational organization of Prostetant Christianity is suboptimal is reasonable.

For a COC member to state that a believer who has put his trust in Christ with a pure heart has not salvation because he/she attends a baptist or methodist church is to do no less than deny that Christ's blood is efficacious to save men.

Eric B

05-17-2005, 11:23 AM

Certainly true.
And the Church of Christ and all other Campbellistic groups are just as much apart of this "denominationalism", even though they speak against it. Just more groups coming up with some doctrine, and claiming all others are wrong! And as I said above, you don't even have the history to prove it. You use the same groups that Baptists, JW's and all others use to try to trace back to the NT, but it falls apart at closer examination. At least most of the other groups (Baptist, Methodist) accept each other in Christ.

bmerr

05-19-2005, 04:56 PM

Eric B,

bmerr here. Not true, sir. The church of Christ in America does not attempt to trace a lineage back to apostolic times. It has been proven too many times, that such an endeavor is an exercise in frustration and failure.

Tolerate an illustration.

Imagine the game of baseball degenerated to the point that it bore only a token resemblance to the original game. Those of the "old days" would all be gone, and the original game would be lost. Nobody living would have any remembrance of it, and there would be no interest in it.

But suppose someone found the rule book put out by Abner Doubleday. If a group of people took that book, and started playing baseball by the original rules, their game would be quite different from what others who claimed to be playing baseball would be playing.

Question: Would this group using the original rule book be playing a "new game"? Would this group have an need to trace their game back through history to Abner Doubleday?

No. They would simply be playing by the original rules. The goal of the churches of Christ, and of many others throughout history has been the same thing; to go back to the Bible for authority. Some have had more success than others, to be sure.

Eric, if you can find something in the Scriptures that I'm leaving out, please tell me. Or, if there's something I'm teaching that cannot be found in the NT, tell me about that, too.

If I'm in error, I don't mind changing. That's why I left the Baptists.

In Christ,

bmerr

Deepertruth

05-19-2005, 05:02 PM

The reason we have denominations is because the flesh alters God's Word.

Charles Meadows

05-19-2005, 05:18 PM

Bmerr,

I read your post to EricB.

Regarding the analogy... We have the rulebook. It was never lost.

And while I agree that the goal of the Stone-Campbell movement was noble the results have not always been so.

I agree that baptists have gotten in wrong in many places - and they could in many ways stand to be reproved. But when I look at the COC I see alot more problems. The motives were good but the outcome was less so.

How do I mean that?

How do COC members choose to differ from baptists?

1. No salvation by faith alone. It's pretty clear in the Bible that faith ( and not the WORK of baptism) saves. Jesus said that whoever seeks Him will not be cast away - the sinner is not required to belong to a body whose building says "COC".

2. Instrumental muscis evil? Of all things to nitpick at... There is no prohibition of instrumental music. Issue done. Even if they did not use it in NT times (they probably didn't have alot of instruments or people who could play anyway) the issue obviously was not important enough to warrant a biblical command.

3. Denominations. As we've said denominations are NOT ideal - but they do represent the fact that imperfect humans cannot get everything right. It's impossible. Some denominations have bad doctrine - in some cases bad enough that they teach a NONCHRISTIAN message. Reprove them!!

But the assertion that being in a denomination means one is not a Christian is totally without support in the Bible. I'm a baptist because I like many things about baptist worship and baptist respect for the Bible. I realize "baptist-ism" is an ism - and that the denominational "distinctives" are subordinate to biblical truth.

But you cannot assert (without denying tha ability of faith to save) that belonging to a group of Christians (who label themselves) means that one cannot be a Christian.

Like I said I appreciate your point about returning to NT ways - I just think the COC has done a largely poor job at truly emulating a true NT church.

BobRyan

05-19-2005, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by bmerr:
[QB] Bob,

bmerr here. Steady big fella! I think you're taking what I said way beyond what I was saying. The OT is Scripture, no question about it. I don't disregard the OT, I just don't look to it for autority in religion.
Ok so you admit that you do not accept scripture as having authority in religion (at least not scripture that you choose to ignore).

So is that ALL scripture or just pre-cross scripture?

The Gospels were written POST Cross - but are primarily filled with pre-cross teachings - do you toss them out as well (in terms of scripture that you will freely ignore when it comes to teaching authority)??

What about when Paul quotes the OT -- does that go too??

What about when Paul AFFIRMS the CONTINUED teaching authority of the OT text - should we take scissors to him there as well??

How big is "your bible" anyway. (The Bible you use for "teaching authority")

2 Tim 3
14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
From Childhood Timothy was reading the OT text. How "interesting" - I wonder if that "Scripture" is STILL "to be used for doctrine, correction, instruction"???

Or is it just "SOME scripture" that is to be used for that today??

2 Tim 3
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work
oops! That would be "ALL scripture" and you already admitted that the Bible is ALL scripture! (Not just the NT).

Well I guess we have a new text to start reading "authorotatively" now - eh?

Welcome to the group. We can now search ALL SCRIPTURE to discover what God's WORD is teaching. No need to continue turning a blind eye to most of it.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

05-19-2005, 08:04 PM

Bmerr

There are truths about God and His dealing with man that can only be learned in the OT.
For example the "details" on creation week. "Details" that are not "repeated in the NT post-Gospel text.

bmerr
Also, 1 Cor 10:11 tells us, "...all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."

You are correct in citing the many examples of NT authors referenceing and quoting OT passages. However, they did not do so to get authority for practice in Christianity.
Oh "really"!!??

So when they SAY they used it for "Doctrine and correction and instruction" they don't actually mean it??

Where did you get that idea from?

How about when they use it in ACts 17 for the doctrines on Christ - the Messiah - the Savior of the World. Is that DOCTRINE not found right where they said it would be found??

How about in Heb 8 where they use it for the DOCTRINE on the New Covenant - is THAT doctrine NOT found right where they said it would be found.

How about in James 2 where they use it for the DOCTRINE on the LAW -- the LAw of liberty AND the Royal Law - is that also NOT found in the OT right where they claim it is to be found?

How about in Eph 6 where Paul argues that we ARE to obey and honor parents BECAUSE "The is the FIRST commandment with a promise" in that set of 10. Is that gigantic "BECAUSE" really just a mistake on Paul's part??

In almost every case of the OT quoted by NT authors it is ALWAYS quoted authorotatively to MAKE a point stick and to give force to doctrine (just as we would use ANY scripture today).

Notice that in 1Tim 2 Paul makes an argument about church order and then PROVES that it has binding authority from scripture by quoting Genesis.

In Acts 17 they read the OT text to "SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO" -- this is EXACTLY how we use scripture today to see IF someone has correct doctrine.

How can this be missed?

I think if we were to follow OT references out, the majority of them would be in reference to Jesus being the Christ
Is it your position that the teaching about God the Son being the Messiah (the Christ) the Savior of the World -- is NOT a doctrine taught in your church???

I don't mean this in anything like a meanspirited way - I am just surprised at the kind of logic you are using to turn from the bulk of scripture when it comes to teaching authority.

In Christ,

Bob

Ed Edwards

05-19-2005, 11:14 PM

Ed notes that 27% of the existing denominations
in the USofA were started in an attempt to
unify Christianity

God is Good -- All the time;
All the time -- God is Good!

God is using the current diversity of
denominations to magnify the number of
Christians in the world. Note that today
some 33% of the people in the world are
called 'Christian'. This is the largest
percentage (and, of course, the largest number)
ever since Christ asscended. Jesus is coming
back, are you ready?

Frank

05-20-2005, 10:03 AM

Eric:
You said,
" We don't base it on what is not prohibited, but then we cannot base our Christianity on what the Bible doesn't mention either. For hymn books, church boards and all that other stuff aren;t mentioned either; but the CofC sees no problem with that. It is just a matter of choosing something to make a pet issue over."

Song books, lights, pues, buildings, microphones, boats, airplanes are expedients. I Cor. 6:12. Expedients carry out lawful commands. Things that violate specific commands are unlawful. For example, fruit of the vine for the Lord's supper eliminates coke or milk because fruit of the vine is specifically commanded. Your logic would allow coke and milk.

By your reasoning, it would be wrong to fly in an airplane to teach the gospel. Why? because it is not expressly stated. By your logic, one could not ride a horse to another town to preach because the bible does not make a declarative statement to do so. Language teaches three ways: declaratively, by example, and necessary inference. By the way, I do not know of a church of Christ that endorses a " church board." This is news to me.

Frank

05-20-2005, 10:17 AM

Charles:

Jesus said faith itself is a work. John 6:27-29.

For over five hiundred years, instrumental music was non-existent in new testament worship. Who authorized it's use?

Jesus said we can know the truth. John 8:32. The new testament declares we must know it. Eph. 5:17. Our eternal destination depends upon it. John 12:48.

mman

05-20-2005, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:

[QUOTE]1. No salvation by faith alone. It's pretty clear in the Bible that faith ( and not the WORK of baptism) saves. Jesus said that whoever seeks Him will not be cast away - the sinner is not required to belong to a body whose building says "COC".The N.T. nowhere teaches faith alone. It does teach salvation by faith. Heb 11:6 says without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God. In that chapter it tells us that by faith we accept things we cannot prove, such as the creation of the heavens and the earth. It also gives examples of faith that is necessary to please God. Notice, Heb 11:30 states that by faith, the walls of Jericho fell. I'm sure you are familiar with the story. Look at all that was required of the children of Israel. None of their actions caused or "earned" the destruction of the walls, but the power was with God. This is a N.T. example of faith that is pleasing to God. By many peoples definiton of faith (belief only), the walls would still be standing, but using God's definition of faith (believing and obeying his instructions), the walls fell.

Baptism is not a work. The bible does not call it a work, but an act of faith (Gal 3:26-27). It is faith on man's part, work on God's part (Col 2:12).

What is your definiton of work? Something man does? I cannot think of a definition of work that would exclude confession or repentance and include baptism. Confession is something man does. It requires effort. It has to be done in front of others. Many of the rulers believed but would not confess (John 12:42), so it is certainly possible for this to occur.

2. Instrumental muscis evil? Of all things to nitpick at... There is no prohibition of instrumental music. Issue done. Even if they did not use it in NT times (they probably didn't have alot of instruments or people who could play anyway) the issue obviously was not important enough to warrant a biblical command.The had all kinds of instrumental music, even back in David's day (Ps 98:5-6 and many other places). Instruments had been present in O.T. worship and were no doubt present in that day. Don't you think it strange he ommited this from his commands. Why do you meet for worship? God said to (Heb 10:25). Why do you partake of the Lord's supper? God said to, (Acts 20:7). Why do you give of your means? God said to (I Cor 16:2). Why do you sing? God said to (Eph 5:19, Col 3:17). Why do you worship with instruments???

The commmand is to meet. We carry out that command, we do not add to it or take away. If we meet in a building, we are carrying out that command. If we sit on a pew or the floor, while we are meeting, it is still carrying out that command to meet. When we partake of the Lords supper, we use unleavend bread and fruit of the vine. If it is passed around in trays or some other method, the command is being carried out, not added to or taken away. If we add a sacrafice of a lamb to the ceremony, that would be wrong. God has not ordained it, even though they sacrificed animals in the O.T. Nowhere in the New Testament is if forbidden to sacrafice an animal during the Lord's supper. But someone might say, I like it when animals are sacrificed.

The bottom line is, "How do we know what God wants?" He has told us. It doesn't matter what I want or like. You cannot use instruments of music by faith, because faith comes from hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rom 10:17).

If song books are used, it is carrying out the command to sing. No other music is added. God's authorized music is singing.

3. Denominations. As we've said denominations are NOT ideal - but they do represent the fact that imperfect humans cannot get everything right. It's impossible. Some denominations have bad doctrine - in some cases bad enough that they teach a NONCHRISTIAN message. Reprove them!!Nowhere is division accepted or even tolerated in the New Testament. How can we be of the same mind and same judgment? (I Cor 1:10) We have to go back to the bible. Speak where the bible speaks and be silent where the bible is silent. When we introduce things such as instrumental music because someone likes it, it causes division. It caused division in the denominations when it was first introduced, dividing them ever further. Again, how do we know what God wants and is acceptable? He has told us. He has given us ALL things that pertain to life and godliness (II Pet 1:3) and nowhere does it include instrumental music, therefore it is not required for godliness. II Tim 3:16-17 says we are thoroughly furnished and it does not include instrumental music. It is accepted, with very little to no opposition, that the early church did not use instrumental music.

But the assertion that being in a denomination means one is not a Christian is totally without support in the Bible. I'm a baptist because I like many things about baptist worship and baptist respect for the Bible. I realize "baptist-ism" is an ism - and that the denominational "distinctives" are subordinate to biblical truth.To my knowledge there is not one approved example of any type of division or any statement condoning it. It was wrong in the first century and I can not find where it would be acceptable today. Can you?

But you cannot assert (without denying tha ability of faith to save) that belonging to a group of Christians (who label themselves) means that one cannot be a Christian. I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say. The Lord adds the saved to THE church (Acts 2:47). Outside the church, there are no christains, since the Lord has added them to the church. Chirst is savior of the Body (Eph 5:23) and the body is the church (Eph 1:22-23, Col 1:18). I cannot find where Christ will save anyone outside of His Church, and I can only find one way INTO the chruch.

Like I said I appreciate your point about returning to NT ways - I just think the COC has done a largely poor job at truly emulating a true NT church. I am curious as to why you think this? I am convinced that when we go back to the bible and truly try to emulate the N.T. church, that is the only possible way to be of the same mind and judgment, with no divisions. As long as people base their religion on feelings, what they like or don't like, and on what God didn't say, we can never have unity. We are not governed by what God didn't say, but what he said. I can only know what he wants by what he has said.

Eric B

05-20-2005, 12:22 PM

bmerr here. Not true, sir. The church of Christ in America does not attempt to trace a lineage back to apostolic times. It has been proven too many times, that such an endeavor is an exercise in frustration and failure. Not the ones I've seen have. The very first CofC tract I was given, down south listed all of the denomination, with starting dates and founders--many wrong (RCC--Boniface IV, 325AD), and only the C of C going back to the NT, and "mentioned" in Rom. 16:16--which is the only use of "churches of Christ". IT is called "church[es] of God) 12 times, however) That's the whole basis of "nobody can be saved outside of the Church Christ founded". There has to be proven to have been a "true Church" all those centuries, else no one was saved.
Imagine the game of baseball degenerated to the point that it bore only a token resemblance to the original game. Those of the "old days" would all be gone, and the original game would be lost. Nobody living would have any remembrance of it, and there would be no interest in it.

But suppose someone found the rule book put out by Abner Doubleday. If a group of people took that book, and started playing baseball by the original rules, their game would be quite different from what others who claimed to be playing baseball would be playing.

Question: Would this group using the original rule book be playing a "new game"? Would this group have an need to trace their game back through history to Abner Doubleday?

No. They would simply be playing by the original rules. The goal of the churches of Christ, and of many others throughout history has been the same thing; to go back to the Bible for authority. Some have had more success than others, to be sure. So if you admit that you are freshly picking up the book, then you place yourself in the same boat as everyone else attempting to do this today. You then have to say you have gotten it right, while everyone else is wrong. Hypothetically possible, granted; but unlikely. So then it will be an ongoing debate. Hence all the denominations and division. and as I said, the C of C is just another part of it, even though they try to exalt themselves above it.

Charles Meadows

05-20-2005, 12:30 PM

Mman,

Why do I say that the COC is not an ideal NT church?

Several reasons.

As it pertains to the instrumental music thing..

It's pretty likely that music was NOT used in NT times. Several reasons likely account for this. The first of these is that most musicians played at pagan worship ceremonies. The NT church did not want to bear any resemblance to these. The other is that they didn't have lots of instruments or people who could play - or any instruments which (like a piano) would be suitable for song accompaniment.

Today's churches (OK, most of today's churches) use music that is reverent and appropriate, bearing no resemblance to pagan music. Music is a major means of ministry actually!

The fact that some COC churches make SUCH a big deal about music shows a fundamental WRONGHEADEDNESS. If you don't like music in church - fine. If musicless services were deemed important I think that the Bible would have said something about it. And besides that the words used for sing actually means to pluck an instrument.

Regarding salvation by faith...

I've always had great disdain for the practice of "prooftexting" to support doctrines. Jesus' views on salvation are pretty clear in scripture (as are Paul's). And one must read and digest all of scripture - not just quote a verse.

One must truly believe that Jesus is the Christ. Salvation is unmerited and is something that God gives to us. There is no particular act (such as RCC sacraments) which magically confers salvation. Even baptism itself is something that believers do as a symbol of faith and obedience. But physically getting dunked does not save anyone any more than the rituals of the Torah could actually SAVE anyone.

Once again - it is fundamental WRONGHEADED to believe that faith cannot save. It shows a complete misunderstanding of the scriptures.

I have plenty of theological disagreements with other Christians, many of them fellow baptists. But they are still my brothers in an UNDIVIDED body of Christ.

I respect the theological positions of others as long as they realize that Jesus is the Christ, who came born of a virgin, died for sins, rose bodily, and will return again.

But the COC insists to me that belief in Jesus' sacrifice is insufficient, that a man must perform these things - and must NOT do those things in order to be saved. That reduces makes Jesus a legalist. That reduces Christianity to an OLD TESTAMENT CHURCH!!!!!!!

To me this represents serious misunderstandings of the very message of the Bible.

Eric B

05-20-2005, 01:18 PM

graemlins/thumbs.gif graemlins/applause.gif
Song books, lights, pues, buildings, microphones, boats, airplanes are expedients. I Cor. 6:12. Expedients carry out lawful commands. Things that violate specific commands are unlawful. For example, fruit of the vine for the Lord's supper eliminates coke or milk because fruit of the vine is specifically commanded. Your logic would allow coke and milk.

By your reasoning, it would be wrong to fly in an airplane to teach the gospel. Why? because it is not expressly stated. By your logic, one could not ride a horse to another town to preach because the bible does not make a declarative statement to do so. Language teaches three ways: declaratively, by example, and necessary inference. The had all kinds of instrumental music, even back in David's day (Ps 98:5-6 and many other places). Instruments had been present in O.T. worship and were no doubt present in that day. Don't you think it strange he ommited this from his commands. Why do you meet for worship? God said to (Heb 10:25). Why do you partake of the Lord's supper? God said to, (Acts 20:7). Why do you give of your means? God said to (I Cor 16:2). Why do you sing? God said to (Eph 5:19, Col 3:17). Why do you worship with instruments???

The commmand is to meet. We carry out that command, we do not add to it or take away. If we meet in a building, we are carrying out that command. If we sit on a pew or the floor, while we are meeting, it is still carrying out that command to meet. When we partake of the Lords supper, we use unleavend bread and fruit of the vine. If it is passed around in trays or some other method, the command is being carried out, not added to or taken away. If we add a sacrafice of a lamb to the ceremony, that would be wrong. God has not ordained it, even though they sacrificed animals in the O.T. Nowhere in the New Testament is if forbidden to sacrafice an animal during the Lord's supper. But someone might say, I like it when animals are sacrificed.

The bottom line is, "How do we know what God wants?" He has told us. It doesn't matter what I want or like. You cannot use instruments of music by faith, because faith comes from hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rom 10:17).

If song books are used, it is carrying out the command to sing. No other music is added. God's authorized music is singing. Speak where the bible speaks and be silent where the bible is silent. When we introduce things such as instrumental music because someone likes it, it causes division. It caused division in the denominations when it was first introduced, dividing them ever further. Again, how do we know what God wants and is acceptable? He has told us. He has given us ALL things that pertain to life and godliness (II Pet 1:3) and nowhere does it include instrumental music, therefore it is not required for godliness. II Tim 3:16-17 says we are thoroughly furnished and it does not include instrumental music. It is accepted, with very little to no opposition, that the early church did not use instrumental music.
The problem here is that both of your definition of "adding to" and "expedient--carrying out lawful commands" shift from issue to issue. YOU decide what is expedient, and when it violates a command! If you were consistant, then if playing an instrument violates the command to sing, then so does using a song book (which has "another form" of music in it--sheelt music--written music). So does using an amplification device (microphone) for the voice. (Most of the sound is coming from an electrical impulse affecting a vibrating speaker, rather than from vocal chords).

It's not MY logic that would lead one to shun airplanes or horses. You guys are the ones saying "such-and such was NOT MENTIONED, so it's FORBIDDEN!", so don't try to shuck that off on me now. That is what I am arguing against!
Continuing from your logic; So why do you use Song books? Dod God say to? Why do you use lights, did God say to? Why do you use pews? Did God say to? Why do you use specific buildings? Did God say to? (No, the biblical evidence shows it was in the homes!), Why do you use microphones? Did God say to? Why do you use boats, or airplanes? Did God say to?
Why do you separate these things as "Expedient", but make such an issue of instruments?
The command is to sing. Instruments do not add to it (any more than a song book or microphone) or take away from it. The people are still singing. They help carry out a command to make music, just as much as a song book or a microphone! IF you say because it was to be "in your hearts", then that would make song books unnecessary too. You should be singing them from memory, not reading and reciting something from a page. (Which can be very distracting).
And issues and divisions have been raised over some of those other items. Look at the Amish. They shun everything electric. They can claim that that was the way things were in the NT, and God never authorized modern inventions!
God has given us ALL things that pertain to life and godliness (II Pet 1:3) and nowhere does it include Song books, lights, pews, buildings, microphones, boats, airplanes, therefore they are not REQUIRED for godliness. II Tim 3:16-17 says we are thoroughly furnished and it does not include Song books, lights, pews, buildings, microphones, boats, airplanes. It is accepted, with very little to no opposition, that the early church did not use Song books, lights, pews, buildings, microphones, boats, airplanes". (Isn't all of this true? They are not "required"; not "mentioned", and not originally "used"? But then does that, mean we go and make a prohibition out of these facts? If so, then all of these other things are likewise forbidden!

On the other hand, once again, milk or Coke is clearly different from fruit of the vine. That is a SPECIFIC; not something done in addition to. How is an instrument done in addition to singing the same as that? Animal sacrifices were shadows of Christ's death. To continue to perform them is to negate Christ. You try to extend this "principle" to why intruments were "allowed" in the OT, but the arguments are so weak it isn't even funny. Then, you make up your own suppositions as to why they weren't "mentioned" in the NT! Probably the same reason why written music, buildings, seating and other such things weren't mentioned. With all the pressing issues of the day, their use or lack of use was unimportant. Use whatever you can. Point is, just get the Gospel out.

So we see you cannot even keep the analogies straight. But you continue to seize on instruments to one-up the rest of Christendom over a completely ridiculous issue. This is carnal.
I am convinced that when we go back to the bible and truly try to emulate the N.T. church, that is the only possible way to be of the same mind and judgment, with no divisions. As long as people base their religion on feelings, what they like or don't like, and on what God didn't say, we can never have unity. We are not governed by what God didn't say, but what he said. I can only know what he wants by what he has said. You say "speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where it is silent". But you are NOT being "silent" where it is silent. You are addressing an issue not even raised in it! The person who introduces intruments is not "SPEAKing" where it has not spoken, but then for you to come and make an issue of it where there is none in the Bible, YOU are the one guilty of speaking where it has not spoken!

By the way, I do not know of a church of Christ that endorses a " church board." This is news to me. How do they run the church, then? (I was referring to local congragation, not some para-church organization). Isn't that required in non-profit law? Who "hires" (ugh!) new pastors, and makes the decisions?

Frank

05-20-2005, 02:33 PM

Eric:

Expedients must carry out a lawful command. Note: changing the command is not lawful or expedient. The use of an instrument CHANGES the command. Singing and playing are not the same, if they were, we would not be having this discussion.
Moreover, using milk and steak instead of bread and fruit of the vine, CHANGES the command to eat bread and drink the fruit of the vine for the Lord's supper. The use of a microphone or a song book in worship does NOT change the command to sing, plucking the strings of the heart. Therefore, they are lawful to use. I Cor. 6:12.

David commited adultery, violated God's law by taking an illegal census, and was an accessory to murder, but I would not endorse or do these things just because David did them. The prophet Amos teaches us David invented music to God. I do not wish to follow this example any more than the other things David did. Would you? if so, why?

I preach at a local church of Christ. I am under the oversight of the elders of the congregation. I Tim. 3. There is no board. As per the new testament, the elders shepherd the flock. I Pet. 5. They feed the flock. Acts 20:27,28. The word pastor means elder and may or may not be a preacher. The preacher may be a single or married man. He does not have to have children. However, the pastor, bishop, shepherd, oversseer, episkopos must be a married man with one wife. He must also have believing children. I Tim. 3.

Furthermore, pastor is never singular in referring to the office. God ordained a plurality for this purpose. Titus 1. This term is also synonymous with bishop, elder, shepherd, overseer episkopos.

I have no contract. I am paid by a gift. This is in accordance with tax laws for non-propfit religious organizations. This does not preclude contracts. It is simply a preference on my part and the elders, as the money provided is not adequate to support all the needs of my family.

The elders are given the task by God to ensure the flock is fed. They are responsible for all the souls under their oversight, including myself as the preacher. This is in accordance with the new testament and civil law which God requires all to obey. Romans 13:1-5.

Do you have a problem with the church obeying civil and spiritual law?

Eric B

05-21-2005, 01:09 PM

Well, your organizations sounds more like the biblical NT pattern. ("pastor" has been blown way out of proportion in most churches, and then they complain of being "burned out", etc). I still do not quite understand your references to civil law. What is this "gift", and what do the tax-exempt laws say about it?
If you have a Church building, is there a corporation, and who runs it? If it is the elders, then would they constitute a "board" even though you aren't calling them that?

Expedients must carry out a lawful command. Note: changing the command is not lawful or expedient. The use of an instrument CHANGES the command. Singing and playing are not the same, if they were, we would not be having this discussion.
Moreover, using milk and steak instead of bread and fruit of the vine, CHANGES the command to eat bread and drink the fruit of the vine for the Lord's supper. The use of a microphone or a song book in worship does NOT change the command to sing, plucking the strings of the heart. Therefore, they are lawful to use. I Cor. 6:12.
Can't you see that instruments are in the same category as microphones and song books, and not milk and steak? The same argument you use against instruments can be made against microphones and song books.

Vibrating a speaker, that drowns out the actual "strings of the heart", can certainly be seen as "CHANGING the command", as can reciting from a book, instead of from in the heart/mind. The Campbellists, Primitive Baptists, and whichever others who teach this just didn't think that far when raising this issue.
David commited adultery, violated God's law by taking an illegal census, and was an accessory to murder, but I would not endorse or do these things just because David did them. The prophet Amos teaches us David invented music to God. I do not wish to follow this example any more than the other things David did. Would you? if so, why? David's census and adultery clearly was always wrong before God. The music was not rejected by God. There is no reason to assume then that eveything that David did should be avoided.

Frank

05-22-2005, 09:46 PM

Eric:
No, playting and singing are two different things. A microphone does not CHANGE THE COMMAND TO SING!

QUOTE
Vibrating a speaker, that drowns out the actual "strings of the heart", can certainly be seen as "CHANGING the command", as can reciting from a book, instead of from in the heart/mind. The Campbellists, Primitive Baptists, and whichever others who teach this just didn't think that far when raising this issue.

Eric, Jesus sang a hymm with the others in Mat. 26:30. It was most likely a Psalm which would have been written on a tablet. They were also reciting the Psalm. In like manner, spiritual songs are written in a book. They are recited as per Col. 3:16, Eph. 5:19.

Microphones are used to reflect sound, not " drown it out." I have no idea why you would say such an inane thing.

David violated God's law as it pertains to music. The bible says in Amos 6:5, *That chant to the sound of the viol, and invent to themselves instruments of musick, like David;

QUOTE
Can't you see that instruments are in the same category as microphones and song books, and not milk and steak? The same argument you use against instruments can be made against microphones and song books.

No, instruments change the comand. Microphones and songbooks carry out the specific command to sing. Instruments make a sound that, to borrow your phrase, drowns out the plucking of the heart strings. Microphones and songbooks do not change the act of singing. I do not think you even believe your own arguement. No offense intended.

bmerr

05-22-2005, 11:32 PM

bmerr here.

Instrumental music has gotten quite a bit of attention on this thread, and that's not a bad thing. So far the general consensus seems to be that churches of Christ are the odd-man out by not using the instrument in worship.

I think most of the verses that show what God has authorized have been cited, and so I will not list them again, but, just for a change of perspective, I thought it might be interesting, and maybe a bit educational, to see what some "spiritual giants" of the past have said on the subject.

I understand that the following quotes are from uninspired men, and are not authoritative. However, I think we can all agree that there is some benefit in learning from those who have gone before us. With that in mind, I have some quotes from a few men whose names will likely be familiar to many of you.

John Spencer Kerwin - musical historian:

"Men still living can remember the time when organs were very seldom found outside the church of England. The Methodists, Independents, and Baptists rarely had them, and by the Presbyterians they were stoutly opposed." (circa 1880)

John Calvin - founder of the Presbyterian church, commenting on Ps 33:

"Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the utter shadows of the Law. The Baptists have borrowed this, and many other things, from the Jews."

Adam Clark - Methodist minister and commentator, on 2 Chron 29:25:

"The whole spirit, soul, and genius of the Christian religion are against this."

"And those who know the church of God best, and what constitutes its' genuine spiritual state know that these things (musical instruments) have been introduced as a substitute for the life and power of religion, and that where they prevail most, there is least of the power of Christianity. Away with such portentious baubles from the worship of that infinite Spirit Who requires His followers to worship Him in spirit and in truth, for to no such worship are those instruments friendly."

Adam Clark - Commenting on Amos 6:5:

"I believe that David was not authorized by the LORD to introduce that multitude of musical instruments into the worship of which we read, and I am satisfied that his conduct in this respect is most solemnly reprehended by the prophet, and I further believe that the use of such instruments of music in the Christian church is without the sanction, and is against the will of God, that they are subversive of the spirit of true devotion, and that they are sinful."

"I am an old man, and an old minister, and I here declare that I never knew them productive of any good in the worship of God, and have reason to believe that they were productive of much evil. Music as a science I esteem and admire, but instruments of music in the house of God, I abominate and abhor."

"The late, venerable, and most imminent divine, the reverend John Wesley, who was a lover of music, and an elegant poet, when asked his opinion of instruments of music being introduced into the chapels of the Methodists, said in his terse and powerful manner, 'I have no objection to instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither seen nor heard'"

"I say the same, though I think the expense of purchase had better be spared."

Charles H. Spurgeon - great Baptist preacher of old, commenting on Ps 42 from The Treasury of David:

"David appears to have had a peculiarly tender remembrance of the singing of the pilgrims, and assuredly it is the most delightful part of worship, and that which comes nearest to the adoration of Heaven. What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettiness of a quartet, the niceties of a choir, or the blowing off of wind from inanimate bellows and pipes."

"We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it."

David Benedict - Fifty Years Among the Baptists:

"Staunch old Baptists in former times would as soon have tolerated the Pope of Rome in their pulpits as an organ in their galleries, and yet the instrument has gradually found its' way among them and their successors in church management, with nothing like the jars and difficulties which arose of old concerning the bass viol and smaller instruments of music."

Like I said earlier, these quotes are not meant to be authoritative, but they illustrate the fact that in former times, the instrument was not used even by the denominations represented by many of you in this discussion.

The reality of the situation is not that the church of Christ has come up with a new thing in rejecting the instrument, but that we have simply held to ground which the denominational world long since gave up to the enemy.

I hope this opens a few eyes.

In Christ,

bmerr

Eric B

05-23-2005, 12:35 AM

No, playing and singing are two different things. A microphone does not CHANGE THE COMMAND TO SING!And neither does playing. People play and sing at the same time (well, most instruments --other than wind, anyway)
Eric, Jesus sang a hymm with the others in Mat. 26:30. It was most likely a Psalm which would have been written on a tablet. They were also reciting the Psalm. In like manner, spiritual songs are written in a book. They are recited as per Col. 3:16, Eph. 5:19. I'm not the one who believes that would change the command. It's your line of reasoning, if taken consistently that would make that wrong.
Instruments make a sound that, to borrow your phrase, drowns out the plucking of the heart strings. Not if done to the right balance. Microphones are used to reflect sound, not "drown it out." I have no idea why you would say such an inane thing. The sound you are hearing is that of a vibrating speaker, not the vocal chords themselves, which are drowned out by it. (the instruments are supposed to compliment the vocals, not supplement it as amplification does. The only difference is that the speaker copies the sound of the voice (not really "reflects").
This whole issue is a silly inane argument.

David violated God's law as it pertains to music. The bible says in Amos 6:5, That chant to the sound of the viol, and invent to themselves instruments of musick, like David;
Will you please READ THE CONTEXT! It is amazing how people tear out a verse from it's context like nothing, yet are so sure they are instructing everyone else on God's comands. The people there are being chastized for various sins (you'l have to read the surrounding chapters too), yet making merriment. Of course, that is offensive to God. David played music in worhip of God, they were doing it in sin, so how dare they play, "like David"! Were feast days, solemn assemblies, and offerings "violation of the Law" as well (Yes, they were superseded in the NT, but they were still apart of the Law!) If David "violated" God's laws, HE would have said so! No, instruments change the comand. Microphones and songbooks carry out the specific command to sing. Microphones and songbooks do not change the act of singing. I do not think you even believe your own arguement. No offense intended. My comparison may not be perfect, but it is basically the same type of argument. The CofC (and these other authorities cited) has decided to raise up some issue that if consistently applied, would lead one to discard much of what is used in churches in the modern day. But you don't want to go that far, so you come up with this loophole of "expediency", where some other addition (the CofC accepts) is somehow OK or "that's different", though someone could raise a similar argument if they wanted to. Once again, playing an instrument does not change the command anymore than using a song book (which I find distracting) or microphone (which can be distracting if too loud or staticky or whatever), or doing anything else WHILE in the act of singing.
All those "authorities" are projecting their own idea based on what they think true spirituality is. Don;t forget, they were coming out of the dark ages, where much of church life was shaped by platonic philosophy anyway.

Charles Meadows

05-23-2005, 06:57 AM

Bmerr,

Like I said earlier, these quotes are not meant to be authoritative, but they illustrate the fact that in former times, the instrument was not used even by the denominations represented by many of you in this discussion.

And that means????

There is no prohibition against instrumental music. The work translated "sing" originally meant to play an instrument.

You can disagree with instrumental worship - that's fine. But to make much of a deal of it is to spend lots of time on a comparatively unimportant issue. Which is why I think many COC bodies are WRONGHEADED in their approach to worship.

Frank

05-23-2005, 10:59 AM

Eric:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, playing and singing are two different things. A microphone does not CHANGE THE COMMAND TO SING!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And neither does playing. People play and sing at the same time (well, most instruments --other than wind, anyway

The bible does not authorize playing and singing at the same time. It authorizes singing. Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16, I Cor. 14;15, Romans 15:9, Mat. 26;30, Acts 16 25,26, Hebrews 2:12.

Now, if you would please post the scriptures in the new testament that authorizes playing-singing.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric, Jesus sang a hymm with the others in Mat. 26:30. It was most likely a Psalm which would have been written on a tablet. They were also reciting the Psalm. In like manner, spiritual songs are written in a book. They are recited as per Col. 3:16, Eph. 5:19.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not the one who believes that would change the command. It's your line of reasoning, if taken consistently that would make that wrong.

In your previous post, you challenged the idea of songbooks and microphones being expedients. You asserted that steak and milk were unlawful. Then, you placed the instrument in the expedient or lawful arena with the songbook. Mat. 26:30 simply proves songbooks ( written word forms) are expedients.
By the way, when I preach I use a microphone. Are you saying it drowns out the production of words that emanates from my vocal cords? I guess the 60 people listening to me on Sunday did not learn one thing as they did not hear the message. Roms. 10:17. I have been self deceived. I actually thought they heard me lo these 10 years. I am being facetious. Your argument is absurd and without biblical evidence.

I have read the context of Amos 6:5 many times. Have you ever studied the meaning of the word invented? When you have, then get back with me.

Now, please post a passage that proves a mechanical instrument is an expedient. You have claimed that songbooks and instruments are in the same category. Prove it! Book, Chapter and Verse.

Eric B

05-23-2005, 10:12 PM

The bible does not authorize playing and singing at the same time. It authorizes singing. Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16, I Cor. 14;15, Romans 15:9, Mat. 26;30, Acts 16 25,26, Hebrews 2:12.

Now, if you would please post the scriptures in the new testament that authorizes playing-singing.
Where are the ones that authorize reading and singing? Or doing anythign else and singing?
Youre changing the rules of how to know what is allowed. ONLY with instruments is it "if it's not commanded; it's forbidden". With everything else; "if it's not commanded; it's an 'expedient' that 'carries out' the command".
In your previous post, you challenged the idea of songbooks and microphones being expedients. You asserted that steak and milk were unlawful. Then, you placed the instrument in the expedient or lawful arena with the songbook. Mat. 26:30 simply proves songbooks (written word forms) are expedients. No it doesn't. They memorized much of the scriptures, so one can argue that it must be "in/from the heart", so you can use your book all you want when reading to memorize, but not when actually singing. That is not "commanded", there, and thus "not authorized"
By the way, when I preach I use a microphone. Are you saying it drowns out the production of words that emanates from my vocal cords? I guess the 60 people listening to me on Sunday did not learn one thing as they did not hear the message. Roms. 10:17. I have been self deceived. I actually thought they heard me lo these 10 years. I am being facetious. Your argument is absurd and without biblical evidence.
But you base your argument on "the strings of the heart" (vocal chords). When you use a microphone, people are not hearing directly your vocal chord, but rather an electronic imitation of it. If this is OK; then we could just as well play a tape of us singing every Sunday, because that is the same thing; an imitation of the voice.
Yes, the argument is absured; but you refuse to see that it is your argument taken to the next consistent level. Bt you don't want too take it that far, because then you would be as wrong as you say everyone else is, so you invent the loophole of "expedients". Anyway, you should at least see how the rest of us feel when your group comes with this silly, time-wasting, unprofitable, unfruitful argument (certainly not "expedient" to anything other than human pride--"we're better than the rest of you").
I have read the context of Amos 6:5 many times. Have you ever studied the meaning of the word invented? When you have, then get back with me.2803 chashab "a prim root. to plait or interpenetrate i.e. (lit) to weave, fabricate, plot, contrive (usually in a malicious sense)hence, think, regard, value, compute--[now the words translated from it] (make) account of, conceive, consider, count, cunning, (man, work, workman), devise, esteem. find out, forecast, hold, imagine, impute, invent, be like, mean, purpose, reckon, (-ing be made), rgard, think"

None of this changes the context. Even some of the more figurative meanings such as "contrive in a malicious sense" would refer to the sin of the people then, not David's instruments! This is similar to Bob and I's old arguments on "observe=watch with evil intent" in Gal.4!). It would be evil of them to go on and praise God with instruments thinking they will pass with Him despite all the sin they were committing the rest of the time. And that would be if that is even the intended meaning of the word there. Otherwise; it simply means "invented". If you're trying to say there were no instruments before David; still, that does not mean God rejected it as "unauthorized", and the fact that He doesn't proves that it did not have to be "commanded" to be acceptable.

Ten there's a whole argument that God simply "allowed" it, but it was never His will; piney.org goes as far as to say that the OT was basically pagan worship, but we NEVER see any of this expressed anywhere in scripture; except read into verses like Amos, which are usually torn from their contexts. (and piney is against tall singing altogether; using the same types of reasoning, and they simply have some other allegorical interpretation of Eph.5:19, meaning to "preach" and "pray". So on and on it goes. People will come up with anything to best other Christians; like there is nothing else better to do!)

Now, please post a passage that proves a mechanical instrument is an expedient. You have claimed that songbooks and instruments are in the same category. Prove it! Book, Chapter and Verse. No; it's up to you to prove, book, chapter and verse, that it is forbidden. You are the one coming and raising an issue where there is none among those you are approaching. We are on the defensive here, you are making a case, so you have to prove your view, and "it isn't commanded" is just not proving it.

bmerr

05-23-2005, 11:30 PM

Eric B,

bmerr here. In your last post, you requested evidence from the Scriptures that instruments are forbidden. I think you would agree that proving a case based on a lack of evidence is difficult. Nonetheless, I will attempt to at least demonstrate that the silence of the Scriptures is prohibitive. If that precedence can be set, it may help our understanding of the issue.

In the book of Hebrews, the author contrasts the Old and New Testaments, and demonstrates why the New is superior to the Old. A portion of the letter deals with the putting away of the Old, in order to bring in the New.

Beginning in Heb 7:11, he makes the point that if the Levitical priesthood were perfect, there would be no need for a priest after the order of Melchizedec. In verse 12, he states that since the priesthood is changed, there must also be a change in the law.

{Side note: there is still a law under the NT, but not the same as the Mosaic}

The OT priesthood came from the tribe of Levi, hence, "Levitical" priesthood. The Hebrews which were the recipients of this letter were considering a return to the Mosaic system. The book urges "Don't go back!" In Christ they had a better High Priest.

Anyway, to show why Jesus could not be a priest under the Levitical system, verses 13 and 14 read,

13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

The Mosaic Law never came right out and said, "There shall be no priests from Judah, or Dan, or Napthali, etc". God simply said that the priests were to come from the tribe of Levi. By specifying Levi, God prohibited everyone from any other tribe from being a priest. His silence concerning priests from the other tribes was prohibitive.

Similarly, in commanding "gopher wood" for the building of the ark, God prohibited any other kind of building materials, including other kinds of wood. (Imagine Noah yelling, "Hey boys! Go fer wood!") Sorry, that was pretty lame.

God could have said, "Noah, build an ark." In that case, Noah could have used whatever he chose to build it, and fashioned it into any shape and size he chose.

Or, God could have said, "Noah, build and ark of wood." This would have limited Noah to wood, as opposed to fiberglass, or steel, but he would have been free to use any kind of wood he chose, again in whatever size and design he wanted.

But God told Noah to build and ark of gopher wood, and He gave him specific instructions on the design and the size it was to be. In this case, only an ark of the right size, design, and material would be accepted as an act of faith.

And, though Noah wasn't perfect, the Scriptures record, "Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he." Surely we can do the same, if we choose to.

Can you see what we're saying? When God specifies a certain thing, then only that thing will be pleasing to Him.

The type of praise we are to offer to Jehovah in worship is divinely described in Heb 13:15:

"By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name."

It's not a question of whether or not we like music. I'm a musician. I like music just fine. But worship is not about what I like. It must be done out of love for God, according to His commands. In spirit and in truth.

I hope this helps.

In Christ,

bmerr

DHK

05-24-2005, 01:30 AM

Genesis 4:19-22 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.
21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.
22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

Sometime near the beginning of time, when Adam and Eve were still alive, 3 children were born to Lamech. Though Lamech himself was a wicked man, a murderer and bigamist, his children were very gifted and civilization as we know it today owes much to their contribution. For the Bible says about Jubal:

"he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ."

As Jabal became the father of those that handle cattle, and Tubal-cain the father of those that work with brass and iron, it was Jubal that became the father of music. This was in the time of Adam--still in an era long before even Abraham's time.
God evidently thought that music was important for man to have. He gave man the ability to make instruments. He gifted one individual in Adam's time as the "father of all music" to invent musical instruments, even as David later on invented musical instruments with his genius. David also worshiped God with his harp and other musical instruments which he speaks of in the Psalms. When Solomon deditcated the Temple there were many instruments that were played.
How can instruments in and of themselves be wrong when God Himself puts soch a great emphasis on them all throughout the Old Testament.

They are included in the worship of the Old Testament saints. They are included in the worship of the saints in heaven. We read about harps, and trumpets, and other instruments in the Book of Revelation. There are musical instruments in Heaven.
That much being said, did not Jesus teach us to pray:
"Thy will be done, on earh as it is in Heaven.
Worship in heaven is with instruments.
If his will in heaven is with instruments, then his will on earth (concerning worship) must be with instruments as well. smile.gif
DHK

Matt Black

05-24-2005, 05:14 AM

Wow, I agree with DHK! Clearly the End of the World is indeed nigh :D

Yours in Christ

Matt

violet

05-24-2005, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Wow, I agree with DHK! Clearly the End of the World is indeed nigh :D

Yours in Christ

Matt graemlins/laugh.gif

Frank

05-24-2005, 09:21 AM

Eric:
Speaking to yourselves is a reciprocal receptive phrase. It requires people to sing words to one another. These words are to teach a spiritual truth from God. The singing of these words is to edify or teach. Eph. 5:19. Let the word of Christ dwell in you with all wisdom. Col. 3:16.
The specific will of God precludes instruments because of the follwing:

1. Instruments are not persons ( you, speaking to yourselves). They are not personal pronouns. It is the you and speaking to yoursleves who are being directed specifically as to the act in question.

2. Instruments do not use words. ( words, spiritual songs and hymns).

3. Instruments have no mind. ( singing with grace in your heart to the Lord).

4. Instruments do not possess human body parts or soul. ( fruit of the lips, a mind).

5. Instruments do not reciprocate. ( no plurality of instruments using words).

In order to allow mechanical instruments one must set aside how language works. One must change the meaning of you, speaking to yourselves, words, in you with all wisdom, singing with grace in your mind to the Lord. While you can, and some men do, change the meaning of these words in the name of dogma, they would fail an eight grade language arts class.

Charles Meadows

05-24-2005, 01:09 PM

Frank,

There are 2 facets to this debate I think.

You suggest that NT worship did not use instruments. You are probably correct.

You suggest that the lexis of the Greek words used permits a meaning of "sing" - which is also correct. In classical Greek this word meant to pluck a string or to pull back a bow so there is the possibility that instrument playing is also in view.

Now the main problem with the COC stance.

Instrumental worship is not prohibited in the NT. Whether or not it was used there is no command to suggest that THE ISSUE IS ONE OF ANY IMPORT.

Moreover look at Jesus' dealings with sinners and the "Pharisees" - Jesus was an antilegalist and was against attachment of ritual significance to acts. He knew hearts. The line of reasoning that says that God will reject worship from a true heart if is accompanied by an instrument is fundamentally and OT argument.

If ritual significance is attached to acts such as singing a capella (or even to water baptism) then Christians are in an OLD TESTAMENT CHURCH. They have a bible instead of a Torah, and a church instead of a synagogue - but they are STILL UNDER THE WORKS OF THE LAW. That is fundamentally wrong.

What disturbs me about the COC is that (for some at least) alot of weight is given to such "works" - diminishing the sacrifice of Jesus. Is Jesus' resurrection so limited that it cannot save someone if he/she does not comply with all the right rituals?

Eric B

05-24-2005, 01:42 PM

In the book of Hebrews, the author contrasts the Old and New Testaments, and demonstrates why the New is superior to the Old. A portion of the letter deals with the putting away of the Old, in order to bring in the New.

Beginning in Heb 7:11, he makes the point that if the Levitical priesthood were perfect, there would be no need for a priest after the order of Melchizedec. In verse 12, he states that since the priesthood is changed, there must also be a change in the law.

{Side note: there is still a law under the NT, but not the same as the Mosaic}

The OT priesthood came from the tribe of Levi, hence, "Levitical" priesthood. The Hebrews which were the recipients of this letter were considering a return to the Mosaic system. The book urges "Don't go back!" In Christ they had a better High Priest.

Anyway, to show why Jesus could not be a priest under the Levitical system, verses 13 and 14 read,

13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

The Mosaic Law never came right out and said, "There shall be no priests from Judah, or Dan, or Napthali, etc". God simply said that the priests were to come from the tribe of Levi. By specifying Levi, God prohibited everyone from any other tribe from being a priest. His silence concerning priests from the other tribes was prohibitive.

Similarly, in commanding "gopher wood" for the building of the ark, God prohibited any other kind of building materials, including other kinds of wood. (Imagine Noah yelling, "Hey boys! Go fer wood!") Sorry, that was pretty lame.

God could have said, "Noah, build an ark." In that case, Noah could have used whatever he chose to build it, and fashioned it into any shape and size he chose.

Or, God could have said, "Noah, build and ark of wood." This would have limited Noah to wood, as opposed to fiberglass, or steel, but he would have been free to use any kind of wood he chose, again in whatever size and design he wanted.

But God told Noah to build and ark of gopher wood, and He gave him specific instructions on the design and the size it was to be. In this case, only an ark of the right size, design, and material would be accepted as an act of faith.

And, though Noah wasn't perfect, the Scriptures record, "Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he." Surely we can do the same, if we choose to.

Can you see what we're saying? When God specifies a certain thing, then only that thing will be pleasing to Him.

The type of praise we are to offer to Jehovah in worship is divinely described in Heb 13:15:

"By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name."
Specifying a particular tribe as opposed to other tribes in the same group, or a particular wood as opposed to all the other types of wood naturally is exclusive. "Sing" is not exclusive of "play instruments". It is just not the same thing! "Sing" and "play instruments" are not a set of tangible THINGS; where you can only have either one OR the other; where only one can occupy the same SPACE at the same time. So an instrument does nothing to the command to sing! It in no way removes the "lips".
The specific will of God precludes instruments because of the follwing:

1. Instruments are not persons ( you, speaking to yourselves). They are not personal pronouns. It is the you and speaking to yoursleves who are being directed specifically as to the act in question.

2. Instruments do not use words. (words, spiritual songs and hymns).

3. Instruments have no mind. ( singing with grace in your heart to the Lord).

4. Instruments do not possess human body parts or soul. ( fruit of the lips, a mind).

5. Instruments do not reciprocate. ( no plurality of instruments using words).
Witht ht exception of #2, neither do microphones or books. And while the microphone and the song book duplicates the words, still, as per the other points; it they add to the command for living beings to be communicating to other living beaings (both are inanimate objects actually doing the "communicating").
In order to allow mechanical instruments one must set aside how language works. One must change the meaning of you, speaking to yourselves, words, in you with all wisdom, singing with grace in your mind to the Lord. While you can, and some men do, change the meaning of these words in the name of dogma, they would fail an eight grade language arts class. Unless you buy the above argument; no they do not. As I said above; they do not change or in any way take away from the speaking. (Unless, of course, they are played too loud).

bmerr

05-24-2005, 05:15 PM

Eric,

bmerr here.

Specifying a particular tribe as opposed to other tribes in the same group, or a particular wood as opposed to all the other types of wood naturally is exclusive.I'm glad you see the prohibition of different tribes or different kinds of wood based on what God has commanded, as opposed to what He has expressly forbidden. Many refuse to even acknowledge the concept.

"Sing" is not exclusive of "play instruments". It is just not the same thing!Actually, it is the same thing. For all the types and styles of music, there are only two "kinds". They are vocal, and instrumental. God has specified what "kind" of music He wants in our worship.

"Sing" and "play instruments" are not a set of tangible THINGS; where you can only have either one OR the other; where only one can occupy the same SPACE at the same time.I personally know people who can sing, but can't play an instrument. I also know people who can play an instrument, but don't sing. "Playing" and "singing" are two different verbs, two separate actions.

I can sing with my hands in my pockets, but I can't play my instrument with them there.

I can play my instrument with duct tape covering my mouth, but I can't sing that way.

They ARE different, and to be commanded to do one, and insist on also doing the other is doing more than what has been commanded.

How is it you can see the difference with tribes and wood, but not with singing and playing?

With the exception of #2, neither do microphones or books. And while the microphone and the song book duplicates the words, still, as per the other points; it they add to the command for living beings to be communicating to other living beaings (both are inanimate objects actually doing the "communicating").First, regarding the song book. A song book merely contains the words to the songs we sing, in a similar manner as the Bible contains the inspired words of God. The book itself does nothing. The words on the pages of the book do nothing, and no one not looking would even know they were there unless they heard someone else reading or singing the words in them.

A song book is not an action. Have you ever told someone about a worship service where you sang and songbooked? What would you think if the song leader for your congregation ever said, "Turn to hymn number 327, we will be sing and song book verses 1, 2, and 4"? You'd think he was crazy!

Secondly, regarding microphones. Honestly, Eric, you're really stretching on this one. To say that a mic through a PA system somehow voids the act of singing, is like saying the Bible is not God's word, since it was produced by a printing press.

A mic and a printing press merely transmit the spoken word.

In any case, during congregational singing, the only person who might be near a microphone would be the song leader, not the whole congregation.

As I said above; they do not change or in any way take away from the speaking. (Unless, of course, they are played too loud).

The subjectiveness of your argument is showing, Eric. Who should decide if the instrument is too loud? According to God's standard, if the instrument is playing at all while the voices of the saints are praising Him, it's too loud.

Would you say that one can worship acceptably without the instrument?

In Christ,

bmerr

Charles Meadows

05-24-2005, 06:47 PM

Bmerr,

Would you say that one can worship acceptably without the instrument?

Of course one could. I posted several challenges to Frank regarding this issue.

How can the COC justify the importance they attach to non-instrumental music?

The Bible is silent on this one. Thus you cannot definitely rule on this one. As such it should NOT be the subject of intense debate.

In this sense the COC, in my opinion, is far too legalistic - which is not characteritic of a NT church.

Frank

05-24-2005, 10:38 PM

Charles:

The words of the text of the passages define themselves by the context. The context of a word is always the most realiable way to interpret it's meaning.I have no opinion about instruments. I just want the truth of the new testament. If it is more than the new testament, it is too much. If it is less, it is not enough.

Instuments are not a part of the new testament worship. The eight scriptures that address the issue so state. I posted five points that make it clear. Which one is incorrect and why? I have asked for one verse that authorizes the use of them in the new testament and it has been silent as an oyster.

I will not speak for the church. I am speaking about the new testament. Your assertion about the church and works is a broad brush that has little substance. I have never taught that someone must do so many good works to earn heaven. This is not a biblical. Therefore, I do not teach it. However, for those who do not believe they are essential I would ask, which command can you ignore and please God?

Frank

05-24-2005, 10:48 PM

Eric:
Pianos, organs do not speak with words. They are not personal pronouns. They do not teach one another. They have no mind. You do not have to buy the argument. However, I would suggest you buy a dictionary. You could use some help.

DHK

05-24-2005, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by Frank:
Eric:
Pianos, organs do not speak with words. They are not personal pronouns. They do not teach one another. They have no mind. You do not have to buy the argument. However, I would suggest you buy a dictionary. You could use some help. Aaah but Frank,
You just bought into McGarvey, didn't you?
That a vast amount of evil has been occasioned by the introduction of instrumental music into Christian worship is undeniable.

Beginning with the first instance of it among us which I can remember that which caused a schism in the church in St. Louis in the year 1869 (Our Note:1851 Midway KY by a liberal over the physical objections of the elder),

its progress has been attended by strife, alienation, and division,
with all their attendant evils, in hundreds of congregations.

Before this it had bred similar evils among Methodist societies and Baptist and Presbyterian churches; for all these bodies in their early days knowing that the practice originated in the Roman Catholic Church, regarded it as a Romish corruption and refused to tolerate it until it was forced upon them by the spirit of innovation which characterized the present century.

Now it is obvious that these evils, the baleful effects of which will never be fully revealed until the day of judgment,
McGarvey
http://www.piney.com/HsMcGarvey.html

He doesn't give much Scripture, only condemnation against those who use instruments, specifically the organ.
I would rather stand by the Bible than the founders of the Restoration Movement and consequently the denomination called the COC.

Eric B

05-25-2005, 12:20 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sing" is not exclusive of "play instruments". It is just not the same thing!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, it is the same thing. For all the types and styles of music, there are only two "kinds". They are vocal, and instrumental. God has specified what "kind" of music He wants in our worship. "Two kinds"? Where did you get this categorization from? Where in the Bible is there any such separation between "instrumental" and "vocal", with only one "authorized" for the NT? I'm sorry; but you are reading your doctrine in there so much, you are seeing things that are not there!
I personally know people who can sing, but can't play an instrument. I also know people who can play an instrument, but don't sing. "Playing" and "singing" are two different verbs, two separate actions.

I can sing with my hands in my pockets, but I can't play my instrument with them there.

I can play my instrument with duct tape covering my mouth, but I can't sing that way.

They ARE different, and to be commanded to do one, and insist on also doing the other is doing more than what has been commanded.

How is it you can see the difference with tribes and wood, but not with singing and playing?
Because does not CONTRADICT the other in one case, where it does in another. There is nothing wrong with "doing more than the command if it doesn't contradict it. This is sort of like taking the command to tithe, and saying giving "more" ADDS to the command; and CHANGES it, and is thus forbidden. Using the Naphthalites or oak wood eliminates what God commanded. An instrument does not.
First, regarding the song book. A song book merely contains the words to the songs we sing, in a similar manner as the Bible contains the inspired words of God. The book itself does nothing. The words on the pages of the book do nothing, and no one not looking would even know they were there unless they heard someone else reading or singing the words in them.

A song book is not an action. Have you ever told someone about a worship service where you sang and songbooked? What would you think if the song leader for your congregation ever said, "Turn to hymn number 327, we will be sing and song book verses 1, 2, and 4"? You'd think he was crazy!

Secondly, regarding microphones. Honestly, Eric, you're really stretching on this one. To say that a mic through a PA system somehow voids the act of singing, is like saying the Bible is not God's word, since it was produced by a printing press.

A mic and a printing press merely transmit the spoken word. Eric:
Pianos, organs do not speak with words. They are not personal pronouns. They do not teach one another. They have no mind. Remember, all of that is not MY reasoning! It is where YOUR reasoning would go to, if you would honestly look at it and be consistent. So yes, it is your arguments that really stretch things!
Another point I meant to add (was in a rush before), was that the purpose of instruments is to support the melody of the song. As the anti-contemporary CCM critics point out; the melody IS the "text" of the music (which is why they believe the rhythm or harmony shouldn't overshadow it, like it can in rock. But that's a whole other debate). So no, the instruments don't utter words; but the sounds DO represent the words, and it also helps the singers follow the melody/rhythm, and notes. Thus, it is just as "expedient" as a songbook or amplification.
Since you want to argue over "verbs"/"actions", and only with playing are you "doing" something else; with books, you are also READING! Once again; that is "adding to"/"changing" the command! (Can be distracting, too).
The subjectiveness of your argument is showing, Eric. Who should decide if the instrument is too loud? According to God's standard, if the instrument is playing at all while the voices of the saints are praising Him, it's too loud. Since the importance is the words, it would hbe too loud if it drowned out the words. You cannot even show God's standard ruling out instruments, so who is being "subjective"? You just conjure it up by fiat.

Eric B

05-25-2005, 12:21 AM

You do not have to buy the argument. However, I would suggest you buy a dictionary. You could use some help. You could use some help with the Bible, because you can't stop reading your own arguments into it. Perfect example, next.
Instuments are not a part of the new testament worship. The eight scriptures that address the issue so state. So now, they "state". At first, you admit that it is silent, but then silence is supposed to be prohibitive. From this, we get a definite statement, after all! Amazing!
I posted five points that make it clear. Which one is incorrect and why? I have asked for one verse that authorizes the use of them in the new testament and it has been silent as an oyster.
Now, it's about "silence" again! This argument shifts back and forth. Do you really "just want the truth of the new testament"; or are you just looking for some reason to one-up everyone else?
I have never taught that someone must do so many good works to earn heaven. This is not a biblical. Therefore, I do not teach it. However, for those who do not believe they are essential I would ask, which command can you ignore and please God? This is being discussed in the Baptism thread. You say you do not teach this, but then question "which command can you ignore and still please God?" The obvious answer is none. So the point is; who can be saved? (We agree, "none", but since we all still do anyway, any salvation is based on God's grace, not our works). This does not even get into the issue where one must be baptized, and into the Church of Christ, in order to be saved!

Frank

05-25-2005, 02:50 PM

Eric:

The new testament is specific as to the act of singing. A specified act eliminates a general act. The five points make it clear that singing is specified. Therefore, it eliminates any general act. It is called implication or necessary inference, which is one of the three ways language works. For example, I ask my daughter to go to the store and buy skim milk and whole wheat bread. She would not buy white bread or whole milk. Why? The specific words of the instruction prohibit the purchase of the second items.
Your claim of inconsistent argumentation on my part is unsubstantiated. Once again, it is a misunderstanding about the way language works.

Have you found the new testament scripture that specifies playing? Let me help you with the answer to the question. It is found in Book 000, Chapter 000, Verse 000.

Frank

05-25-2005, 03:00 PM

DHK:
I have not read much about J.W. McGarvey. I have read one of his books about the geography of the land of the middle east in particular Jerusalem.
I have no clue as to which argument you are mentioning.

Frank

05-25-2005, 03:10 PM

Eric:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have never taught that someone must do so many good works to earn heaven. This is not a biblical. Therefore, I do not teach it. However, for those who do not believe they are essential I would ask, which command can you ignore and please God?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was directed to Charles. He made a statement about the church to which I responded.

Quote
This is being discussed in the Baptism thread. You say you do not teach this, but then question "which command can you ignore and still please God?" The obvious answer is none. So the point is; who can be saved? (We agree, "none", but since we all still do anyway, any salvation is based on God's grace, not our works). This does not even get into the issue where one must be baptized, and into the Church of Christ, in order to be saved!

Eric,
Jesus said he would judge every man according as his works shall be. Rev. 22:14-17. Paul affirms he will render to every man according to his deeds. Romans 2:9-11. Jesus rewards who faithfully work in his name. Rev. 14:13.

There is a difference between faithfulness and flawlessness. Zacharias and Elizabeth were blameless walking in ALL of the commandments of the Lord. Luke 1. They were faithful, not flawless. No one is espousing earning salvation. Biblical faith requires obedient active service to the commandments. Rev. 2:10; 22:14.

DHK

05-25-2005, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Frank:
DHK:
I have not read much about J.W. McGarvey. I have read one of his books about the geography of the land of the middle east in particular Jerusalem.
I have no clue as to which argument you are mentioning. My mistake Frank. I believe it was mman that was referring to McGarvey, and posted from him quite a bit. So I looked up who he was. He was a man that had a large influence in the beginning of the COC movement. He is best known for his commentary on Acts. He also has some strong sermons against the use of instruments in the church. It is quite possible that the COC acquired their beliefs concerning musical instruments from this man's teaching in the mid-1800's. That is why I posted that portion of his sermon and the link to it. Hope that sheds some light on the subject.
DHK

Eric B

05-26-2005, 09:49 AM

The new testament is specific as to the act of singing. A specified act eliminates a general act. The five points make it clear that singing is specified. Therefore, it eliminates any general act. It is called implication or necessary inference, which is one of the three ways language works. For example, I ask my daughter to go to the store and buy skim milk and whole wheat bread. She would not buy white bread or whole milk. Why? The specific words of the instruction prohibit the purchase of the second items.
Your claim of inconsistent argumentation on my part is unsubstantiated. Once again, it is a misunderstanding about the way language works.

Have you found the new testament scripture that specifies playing? Let me help you with the answer to the question. It is found in Book 000, Chapter 000, Verse 000. All you've done is substitute another physical example like the ones I just answered regarding tribes of Israel or types of wood. So now it's "types" of milk and bread. She could either get one kind instead of the other, or she could get both kinds of each. The one case; you are not getting what you asked for at all. The other case, you do get what you wanted, but if she has no reason to get the other types, it would be a waste. But once again, these are physical things. Singing and playing are not the same. So it doesn't have to be "specified", as if it were EITHER/OR, and they couldn't exist in the same space-time together. (Plus, if she was given liberty to get her own milk and bread, then it would not violate the order at all). Once again, your analogies just don't match up!
Eric,
Jesus said he would judge every man according as his works shall be. Rev. 22:14-17. Paul affirms he will render to every man according to his deeds. Romans 2:9-11. Jesus rewards who faithfully work in his name. Rev. 14:13.
People without Christ are judged according to their works. People with Christ are saved by grace through faith alone, and rewarded (or rewards "burned up") according to their works. This is what people pushing "works" have universally missed.
There is a difference between faithfulness and flawlessness. Zacharias and Elizabeth were blameless walking in ALL of the commandments of the Lord. Luke 1. They were faithful, not flawless. No one is espousing earning salvation. Biblical faith requires obedient active service to the commandments. Rev. 2:10; 22:14. And being not "flawless" must mean that they were missing in some of the commandments. Any label of "Faithful" must have been "counted to them" because of their "faith" (Gal.3:6--note; v.5, "hearing of faith"; not "works of faith"!). That's all we are arguing. Else, then, there has to be a "cutoff" point; a number of works where if you fall below that, you are not "faithful", or your service not "active" as you call it. It is either all or nothing with God, and "faithfulness" can only be counted to us by faith, not by amounts of works. Just admit it begins with faith.

Frank

05-26-2005, 10:10 AM

DHK:
No problem. I have not read McGarvey's commentary. However, the beliefs about instrumental music are based on the clear teaching of the new testament.
The scriptures make it clear by specificity that verbal communication is the accepted practice in worship to God. I have posted all the evidence from the scriptures about this subject. I have made five points that demonstrate that acapella singing is and was the accepted practice. I realize many so not like it. Conversely, many use mechanical instruments just because they like them, not for biblical reasons.

I am not bashing any one particular group for their use of them. However, it is a historical truth they were not used in new testament worship for over five hundred years. It is also obvious they were not used because of the lack of biblical support from the new testament.

The Catholics began the practice of instrumentation against the will of many of their followers. In fact, the rebellion against the practice was so vehement the practice ceased for approximately 50 years. The time frame would be 600- 700 A.D.

I enjoy mechanical instruments. I just do not like them in worship to God. Mat. 26:30, Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16, I Cor. 14:15, Romans 15:9, Acts 16:25,26, Hebrews 2:12.

Frank

05-26-2005, 10:35 AM

Eric:
Quote/
All you've done is substitute another physical example like the ones I just answered regarding tribes of Israel or types of wood. So now it's "types" of milk and bread. She could either get one kind instead of the other, or she could get both kinds of each. The one case; you are not getting what you asked for at all. The other case, you do get what you wanted, but if she has no reason to get the other types, it would be a waste. But once again, these are physical things. Singing and playing are not the same. So it doesn't have to be "specified", as if it were EITHER/OR, and they couldn't exist in the same space-time together. (Plus, if she was given liberty to get her own milk and bread, then it would not violate the order at all). Once again, your analogies just don't match up!

The eight scriptures that address this issue specify the act. Just becasue you do not like it does not make it untrue. By the way, have you found the verse that SPECIFIES PLAYING? I suppose no is the answer to this question. I already now why. You cannot answer because your argument is a ZERO.
By the way, the five points I made from the text make it clear they do not and cannot exist together. Which new testament scripture specifies these simultaneous acts? Which scripture provides an example of these simultaneous acts? Which new testament scripture implies these simultaneous acts? The answer is NONE.
Quote/
People without Christ are judged according to their works. People with Christ are saved by grace through faith alone, and rewarded (or rewards "burned up") according to their works. This is what people pushing "works" have universally missed.

This statement is not only unsubstantiated by scripture it is wrong. God is not repecter of persons. Romans 1, 2, II Cor. 5:10, Mat. 25:19-46. All men according, to the text, will be judged by their works. According to Rev. 14:13, our works do follow us.

Quote/
And being not "flawless" must mean that they were missing in some of the commandments. Any label of "Faithful" must have been "counted to them" because of their "faith" (Gal.3:6--note; v.5, "hearing of faith"; not "works of faith"!). That's all we are arguing. Else, then, there has to be a "cutoff" point; a number of works where if you fall below that, you are not "faithful", or your service not "active" as you call it. It is either all or nothing with God, and "faithfulness" can only be counted to us by faith, not by amounts of works. Just admit it begins with faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text uses the action verb WALK and also the word ALL. They text teaches they were not missing any commandment. It must mean what it says, not what you want it to say. Biblical faith is always active. cf. James 2:17. You have constructed a false dichotomy. Faith and works go together. cf. 12:42-44. They are inclusive of one another, not exclusive.

Eric B

05-26-2005, 11:27 AM

The eight scriptures that address this issue specify the act. Just becasue you do not like it does not make it untrue. By the way, have you found the verse that SPECIFIES PLAYING? I suppose no is the answer to this question. I already now why. You cannot answer because your argument is a ZERO.
By the way, the five points I made from the text make it clear they do not and cannot exist together. Which new testament scripture specifies these simultaneous acts? Which scripture provides an example of these simultaneous acts? Which new testament scripture implies these simultaneous acts? The answer is NONE. So they MAKE IT CLEAR, now? How is that? You are putting all this burden on us to show where something is "specified"; but it for your statements to be true, the burden is on you to show where it is "forbidden". Remember, you are the one coming and reading a "statement" (let alone, a "clear" one, at that!) from pure silence! If you could show that it says "sing ONLY", or make the melody "in your hearts ONLY", then you would have a point. So your "specification" is just as ZERO 0:0 as mine! That means this is a ridiculous argument over nothing. Who started it? That's who the burden is on!
This statement is not only unsubstantiated by scripture it is wrong. God is not repecter of persons. Romans 1, 2, II Cor. 5:10, Mat. 25:19-46. All men according, to the text, will be judged by their works. According to Rev. 14:13, our works do follow us.
And that's exactly what I said. "WE must all appear before the Judgment seat of Christ". This is not the Great White Throne. There is no damnation to Hell, or "salvation" from it here. Just receipt or loss of rewards for our works (service, obedience/disobedience, etc). Matt.25 is addressing those (unbelievers) who receive or reject the apostles and their message of Christ: note v. 40 and 45. No Christian is saved or lost based on not giving to the poor enough (unbelievers have been having a field day using this passage to prove there are non-Christians who will "get to Heaven" before Christians because they are "more giving"!). Rom 1 is addressing unbelievers, of course, and ch.2 is clearly addressing (in the first verse) those who judge, over "the LAw" yet "doest the same things" (see also v.20-23). These are unbeliving Jews (v.17)amidst the Christians.

This right here highlights the problem of your system. There is no distinction between believer and unbeliever! (for you to lump all of man in those passages, and not separate who is being described). Why have this "Christ's true Church" then, and call ourselves Christians? All are in the same boat before God; so just everyone/anyone do good works, and you will be saved!
So you are just picking verses without even seeing what they are really talking about. That's how issues like this always come about.
The text uses the action verb WALK and also the word ALL. They text teaches they were not missing any commandment. It must mean what it says, not what you want it to say. Biblical faith is always active. cf. James 2:17. You have constructed a false dichotomy. Faith and works go together. cf. 12:42-44. They are inclusive of one another, not exclusive. So they DID keep ALL of the commandments, then? But you said they were "not flawless"! So then, what was their "flaw"? A "flaw" would be SIN, and sin is trangression of the Law! The dichotomy is there! All have sinned (Rom.3:23), and continue to have sin (1 John 1:8). You cannot have it both ways.

Frank

05-26-2005, 01:12 PM

Eric:
Faithfulness does not mean sinless perfection. All men sin. Romans 3:23. However, all men do not practice sin. I John 1:7. There is a difference.

What part of sing do you not understand. It is the single act described as using words reciprocated by people. The burden of proof is for you to find one scripture that supports the use of instrumental music by singular or simultaneous act. This is your position, not mine. How can you hold a position and not provide evidence? Amazing! I provided eight for my position.

All men will be judged by the same STANDARD. In John 12:48, JESUS said, He that rejecteth me and receiveth not my words hath one that judgeth him, the word that I have spoken the same shall judge him in the last day. Mat. 25 addresses the principle of faithful service. Faithful service is required by all who would be saved.cf. Mat. 7:21-24. Romans 1 and 2 place all men under condemnation whose sins are not forgiven.

ALL men are amenable to the laws of Christ. I Cor. 9:27. Just because one is not a citizen of our country does not give them the right to break our laws without consequence. The same could be said for those who are not citizens of the kingdom of his dear Son. I Pet. 2:9, Col. 1:12,13.

Eric B

05-27-2005, 11:00 AM

Faithful service is what is rendered by those who believe. Those in Christ are not under the Law, so you cannot place them in the same constant danger of damnation as the unbelievers. This is God's "standard"! People who persistently "practice sin" ("walk in the darkness", etc) are questioned by most of us, also. But that does not give you the license to make one single work the determination of salvation, as that is what this discussion is really about. If you want to be that meticulous, then once again, ABSOLUTE PERFECTION is God's standard, and no "flaws" would be tolerated, and no one could be saved. If someone is not baptized, then the question is "why". Perhaps the church doesn't baptize until they go through the classes, and become a member. You say you would baptize on the spot (And I don't see how that is always possible!), but most other churches (incl. CofC, as the others here have not said they baptize on the spot) do not. Perhaps a person accepted Christ and couldn't find a Church to "join" right away (My case. It took me 10 years to find a church I trusted enough to be baptized into. And people will not always be convinced thet the CofC is the "true Chruch", and some of your particular doctines like this instruments issue. Salvation is in Christ, not in some questionable sect among hundreds of others all claiming to be the true church!) So do we deny them salvation? wouldn't this be at most a case of one of those "flaws" of the Christian otherwise "practicing faithful service"? You would apparently say no. But those scriptures you are citing do not support this.

You have not even dealt with the point that "sing" and "play" are not physical SUBSTANCEs like wood, a tribe of Israel, meat or milk that can only occupy one place at one time. You just repeat your assertion, and proof-text references (that do not SAY anything near what you claim they are saying), and call that "evidence". Once again; YOU're the one coming with some argument from silence, not us, so YOU need the evidence; and I mean a clear prohibition; not your own speculation on what a particular act includes or excludes. We did not argue anything about instruments until certain groups like yours came around. (and the Reformers and others from centuries ago are not our standard either. We follow them on some issues, but they too are to be subject to scripture, and do not have the authority to read their own prohibitions into it).
I can say that the references to "harps" in Revelation are evidences, but you'll just dismiss that as "allegorical" or "that's in Heaven, not now", but (contrary to piney's and others' teachings) the fact that it is used in such a positive light (even if it was allegorical) shows God does not "forbid" it. We never see idolatry, adultery or blasphemy used as symbols of good things! I don't think I've ever seen any of you respond to the point others have made, that the word used in Eph. means something to the effect of pluck an instrument. Even if you can explain that away; it is still an evidence.

Frank

05-27-2005, 02:38 PM

Eric:

Your argument about instruments is dealt with by the meaning of the words in the context of the eight scriptures that deal with this isssue. You have not provided ONE VERSE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR ARGUMENT. ZERO! Your argument holds no water. There is no biblical evidence for your position, and for over five hundred years there is no historical evidence for the practice. DEAL WITH THIS! Prove your own position. I Thes. 5:21.

You will not becausse you cannot. I do not represent a group coming around. However, the new testament is clear as the word clear could ever be clear. You just do not like it. If I had to try to prove your position with no evidence from scripture I would not like it. Your positon is impossible to prove. Faith comes from the word of God, not the absence of it. Romans 10:17.
Quote/
Faithful service is what is rendered by those who believe. Those in Christ are not under the Law, so you cannot place them in the same constant danger of damnation as the unbelievers.
This statement is false. The bible says in I Cor. 9;21, *To them that are without law, as without law, (being NOT WITHOUT LAW TO GOD, but UNDER THE LAW TO CHRIST,) that I might gain them that are without law.! (caps, EMP.mine)
Quote/
But that does not give you the license to make one single work the determination of salvation, as that is what this discussion is really about

Jesus said, in Revelation 22:12 *And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his WORK shall be. Jesus disagrees with your statement.
Jesus said, in Rev. 22:14 *Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Question: Which commandment can you not keep and enter heaven? How do you know?

Quote/
If you want to be that meticulous, then once again, ABSOLUTE PERFECTION is God's standard, and no "flaws" would be tolerated, and no one could be saved. If someone is not baptized, then the question is "why". Perhaps the church doesn't baptize until they go through the classes, and become a member. You say you would baptize on the spot (And I don't see how that is always possible!), but most other churches (incl. CofC, as the others here have not said they baptize on the spot) do not.

God requires faithfulness, not perfection. SEE HEBREWS 11. Read the whole chapter.

The Bible teaches in Acts 8 and 16 men are baptized straightway. It is possible and should be done this way as per the new testament.
Quote/
And people will not always be convinced thet the CofC is the "true Chruch", and some of your particular doctines like this instruments issue. Salvation is in Christ, not in some questionable sect among hundreds of others all claiming to be the true church!) So do we deny them salvation? wouldn't this be at most a case of one of those "flaws" of the Christian otherwise "practicing faithful service"? You would apparently say no. But those scriptures you are citing do not support this.

All men will not be saved. Mat. 25. All men will not be a part of the blood bought body of Christ. Acts 20: 27,28. Some will fall away. I Tim. 4:1-5: II Tim. 4:1-4, I Tim. 1:16-18. I have denied salvation to no one!! Knowing the terror of the Lord I persuade men to be saved. Some will; Some will not. Mat. 7:13,14. Jesus teaches the few will be saved , not the many.

dean198

05-27-2005, 02:55 PM

I can say that the references to "harps" in Revelation are evidences, but you'll just dismiss that as "allegorical" or "that's in Heaven, not now", but (contrary to piney's and others' teachings) the fact that it is used in such a positive light (even if it was allegorical) shows God does not "forbid" it. This is the arguement of the Eastern Orthodox proponents, who base their use of incense upon the example of the Book of Revelation. This book is prophetic imagery, not liturgy! Come on people!

Dean

Frank

05-27-2005, 06:08 PM

Dean:
I am familaiar with Revelation 14:2. Let's examine what it says. The bible says in Revelation 14:2 *And I heard a voice from heaven, as the VOICE of many WATERS, and as the VOICE of a great THUNDER: and I heard the VOICE OF HARPERS harping with their harps:
Dean, if it is literal. and it is not, note the following:

1. The voice thunders, waters, harps. I do not know of any voice that does these things. Do you?

2. If literal harps are in view, why were they not used in the new testament worship?

3. If literal harps, why were they not authorized in the eight passages that teach us to sing? Did God forget to tell us?

4. How does a literal harp speak to others with words that teach a spiritual meaning.

5. When did a harp become a personal pronoun? Speaking to YOURSELVES, and YOU?

I will say your statement about them (harps) being in heaven and not used on earth is correct. You are very perceptive about the context.
I look forward to your response.
Frank

av1611jim

05-28-2005, 03:52 AM

"I heard the voice of harpers, harping WITH their harps."

Hmmm. Singing AND playing at the same time? How 'bout that? graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/laugh.gif

You CoC fellers really slay me. Speak where the Bible speaks and silent where the Bible's silent, (except when we don't like it).

graemlins/applause.gif graemlins/applause.gif graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/laugh.gif

In HIS service;
Jim

Bro. James

05-28-2005, 06:37 AM

Make a joyful noise unto the Lord--with whatever He has blessed you. Lots of noise and lots of applause can be heard--who is getting the glory?

The Lord knows them that are His.

Now let us discuss: the "efficacy"of Baptism.

Sorry--the question on the floor is: Why have denominations?

"The powers that be" have decreed: one must be Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or "other". NRP (no religious preference) is in there somewhere too. That includes everybody--except one: THE BRIDE OF CHRIST.

"Denominations" is rendered to a basic fact: WHO started it? Jesus? or a man/woman?

If you survive that paradigm, you are not in a denomination.

Summary: One either belongs to the Assembly which Jesus is building or one does not. There is no middleground.

Selah,

Bro. James

Eric B

05-28-2005, 11:29 AM

Your argument about instruments is dealt with by the meaning of the words in the context of the eight scriptures that deal with this isssue. You have not provided ONE VERSE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR ARGUMENT. ZERO! Your argument holds no water. There is no biblical evidence for your position, and for over five hundred years there is no historical evidence for the practice. DEAL WITH THIS! Prove your own position. I Thes. 5:21.

You will not becausse you cannot. I do not represent a group coming around. However, the new testament is clear as the word clear could ever be clear. You just do not like it. If I had to try to prove your position with no evidence from scripture I would not like it. Your positon is impossible to prove. Faith comes from the word of God, not the absence of it. Romans 10:17.I just DON'T BELIEVE THIS STATEMENT! You're whole argument is summed up in the word "ABSENCE", and you continue to call it "clear" and then accuse us of making an ARGUMENT from "absence". It is YOUR argument that is impossible to prove from scripture (proving is it a carnal "division" (see Rom.16:17, 1 Cor.1:10-12, 3:3, 11:18, Gal.5:20, 1 John 2:19) and NOT "of faith"; but I can't say you do not like it. Our flesh loves this sort of one-upmanship, as the Gal.5 passage shows!) And you haven't proven it; just reiterated it with 8 "proof texts" that DO NOT SAY IT, (along with the shifting sand of the "testimony" of Church history, which the Church of Christ rejects as not NT Christianity, anyway) yet you insist it is "clear"! You "deal with THIS"!
Don't try to tell me what I like or don't like. either. I could care less about instruments in church. I really believe the Church should be a small fellowship, maybe without its own building (once again, that was never officially "authorized " in the NT either!), and there might not be instruments. The music has often become entertainment.
It's you who are trying to come and "corner" us like in a trial, as I told a couple of sabbathkeepers awhile ago. That's all these issues are about.
This statement is false. The bible says in I Cor. 9;21, To them that are without law, as without law, (being NOT WITHOUT LAW TO GOD, but UNDER THE LAW TO CHRIST,) that I might gain them that are without law.! (caps, EMP.mine)
Ripping a snippet of a passage, that doesn;lt say what you're saying. The "law of Christ" is not the old "law of sin and death", by which we depend on our own works, being desinted to fail.
Jesus said, in Revelation 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his WORK shall be. Jesus disagrees with your statement.
Jesus said, in Rev. 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Question: Which commandment can you not keep and enter heaven? How do you know? That's right; which one can we not keep? Which one do you not keep, just like the rest of us? Who then can be saved? Yet, you keep repeating:
God requires faithfulness, not perfection. SEE HEBREWS 11. Read the whole chapter.

The Bible teaches in Acts 8 and 16 men are baptized straightway. It is possible and should be done this way as per the new testament. So it's just that one work that saves, then we can slide a little, but still be considered "faithful". Once again, just like any nominal Catholic. But it's this whole idea of "which commandment can we not keep? None", that you substantiate this claim about baptism on. Yet, once you are past that, then "it's not perfection" anymore! YOu are just playing both sides of the fence when as it is convenient for you. Either we are "under tha Law" and thus cursed if we "continue not in EVERYTHING" (Gal.4:10--absolute perfection), or we have "faith" which is "counted to us for righteousness" or "faithfulness"(Rom.4:3,5), and THEN "worked out" (Phil.2:12), out of love (1 John 4:18, 5:2,3)
All men will not be saved. Mat. 25. All men will not be a part of the blood bought body of Christ. Acts 20: 27,28. Some will fall away. I Tim. 4:1-5: II Tim. 4:1-4, I Tim. 1:16-18. I have denied salvation to no one!! Knowing the terror of the Lord I persuade men to be saved. Some will; Some will not. Mat. 7:13,14. Jesus teaches the few will be saved , not the many. Who suggested all will be saved? We're talking about how one is saved.
This is the arguement of the Eastern Orthodox proponents, who base their use of incense upon the example of the Book of Revelation. This book is prophetic imagery, not liturgy! Come on people!
I am familaiar with Revelation 14:2. Let's examine what it says. The bible says in Revelation 14:2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the VOICE of many WATERS, and as the VOICE of a great THUNDER: and I heard the VOICE OF HARPERS harping with their harps:
Dean, if it is literal. and it is not, note the following:

1. The voice thunders, waters, harps. I do not know of any voice that does these things. Do you?

2. If literal harps are in view, why were they not used in the new testament worship?

3. If literal harps, why were they not authorized in the eight passages that teach us to sing? Did God forget to tell us?

4. How does a literal harp speak to others with words that teach a spiritual meaning.

5. When did a harp become a personal pronoun? Speaking to YOURSELVES, and YOU?

I will say your statement about them (harps) being in heaven and not used on earth is correct. You are very perceptive about the context.
You both have missed the point. We were talking about "EVIDENCE" that instruments were not "PROHIBITED". The fact that theyu could even be used in such a positive light shows that that is not so. Incense was specifically associated with SACRIFICE rituals (Rev. CLEARLY tells us, that the "incense" now IS our prayers (5:8). No such association is ever made with instruments.

Frank

05-29-2005, 08:33 PM

Jim:
The verse uses the harp as a metaphor. Please note the use of the word as and the coordinating conjunction and. Imagine an english speaking person not understanding the word use for his natve tongue. LOL!

By the way, when you get to heaven, you will not find a harp or any instrument as heaven is a spiritual place where spirt beings reside. Phil. 3:20,21, I Cor. 15:50.The former things will have passed away. II Pet. 3:9,10.

The harp in heaven is the voice of those singing the new song of Moses and the Lamb. It is a metaphor for our spiritual praise to God. It has nothing to do with a literal harp.

Frank

05-29-2005, 08:42 PM

Eric:
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17. Please post one scripture that teaches us to sing-play in worship as per the new testament. Is that to much ot ask from someone who argues for them.

Frank

05-29-2005, 10:02 PM

Eric:

It will be the contention of this article that both the Old and New Testament amply demonstrate that one is not allowed to engage in any religious practice for which there is not scriptural authority (either in a generic or specific format).
Old Testament Evidence
1. The difference between Cain and Abel, the sons of Adam, was the difference between respecting what Jehovah had authorized, and what he had not. Cain offered the produce of the field; Abel offered the firstlings of his flock (Gen. 4:3-4).
The latter act was “by faith” (Heb. 11:4) - which comes by hearing what the Lord has spoken (Rom. 10:17) - not what he has left unspoken! The former act was obviously of human inclination, and so Cain was rejected by the Creator. Not all “Cains” have passed from earth’s scenes!
2. Similarly, when Noah constructed the ark, he did so “by faith” (Heb. 11:7), which means the patriarch did “according to all that God commanded him” (Gen. 6:22), or, as the NIV renders the clause: “Noah did everything just as God commanded him.”
Though the question is frequently ridiculed these days - when authority is held in contempt - it is still appropriate to ask: Would Noah have been preserved if he had acted upon the presumption that “whatever is not forbidden is allowed,” and so had altered the divine pattern for the building of the ark?
3. Nadab and Abihu were sons of Aaron, the first Hebrew high priest. When they employed “strange fire,” i.e., fire not taken from the altar of sacrifice (cf. Lev. 16:12), they were destroyed by God. What was their crime? The inspired text states that they offered “that which [God] had not commanded them” (Lev. 10:1), or, to express it in another way: “[T]hey offered unauthorized fire before the Lord".
4. One of the sacred items of the tabernacle system was the ark of the covenant. The Mosaic law specified: “Jehovah set aside the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant” (Deut. 10:8). The Levites were thus authorized to carry the ark. There was no specific prohibition regarding the other tribes; the law was simply silent as to their privilege of transporting the holy vessel.
Was that silence prohibitive? Yes it was, for a parallel passage explicitly states: “None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites, for them Jehovah has chosen to carry the ark . . .” (1 Chron. 15:2). When the Levites were specifically authorized to bear the ark, in the absence of supplementary authority, that clearly implied that “none else” should function in that capacity. Silence excluded!
Furthermore, the Levites were to bear that ark by poles, which were passed through rings on the side of the golden box (Ex. 25:12-14). David, however, had borne the ark on a “new cart” (2 Sam. 6:3). Was such a sin, inasmuch as the law was silent respecting the matter of carts? Israel’s great king clarified this matter when he later confessed: “. . . we sought [God] not according to the ordinance” (1 Chron. 15:13), or, “in the prescribed way” (NIV).
One is not at liberty to go beyond what has been “prescribed” in a religious practice, any more than a pharmacist is allowed to add more to your medicine than what the physician prescribed!
5. The very first commandment of the Decalogue stated: “I am Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Ex. 20:2-3). Of course the nation of Israel egregiously violated that prohibition across the centuries.
There is an interesting commentary on this matter in the book of Jeremiah. God’s prophet was instructed to stand in the gate of the temple compound and urge the nation to: “Amend your ways” (Jer. 7:3). What was their transgression? Among other things:
“[T]hey have built the high places [centers of idol worship] of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded not, neither came it into my mind” (Jer. 7:31).
A comparison of this passage, with the original law forbidding idolatry, plainly shows that a practice which the Lord has not commanded is equivalent to an explicit prohibition. The Bible is its own best commentary!
New Testament Evidence
The New Testament record is equally lucid with reference to our obligation to acknowledge the principle of biblical silence.
1. In his first letter to the Christians at Corinth, Paul addresses the problem of attaching oneself to a church leader and forming a sect around that individual. The apostle condemns the practice by the use of some rhetorical questions: “Is Christ divided?”, etc. (1 Cor. 1:12-13).
Later, he apparently alludes to the issue again when he says:
“Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written . . .” (1 Cor. 4:6 - ASV).
The reference to “myself” and “Apollos” is “a veiled allusion to those who were actually responsible for the church factions, tactfully withholding their names . . .” (W. E. Vine, 1st Corinthians, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1951, p. 61). When one goes “beyond the things that are written,” he has entered the realm of silence. And the inspired apostle says that one must learn not to do that.
2. In Paul’s letter to the saints at Colossae, he condemned the practice of “will worship,” a disposition which is “after the precepts and doctrines of men” (Col. 2:22-23). W. E. Vine defines “will-worship” as “voluntarily adopted worship, whether unbidden or forbidden” (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Westwood, NJ: Fleming Revell Co., 1962, Vol. IV, p. 236).
We have no difficulty in understanding what it means to do that which is “forbidden.” But what does it mean to do that which is “unbidden” - if it is not doing that about which the Bible is silent?
Noted lexicographer J. H. Thayer described “will-worship” as “worship which one devises and prescribes for himself . . .” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958, p. 168).
Everett Harrison commented that “will-worship” is that which “is not prescribed by God but only by (the will of) man” (Colossians: Christ All-Sufficient, Chicago: Moody Press, 1971, p. 72).
Here is the issue: If one may, with divine approval, operate in the realm of silence, why can’t he “devise and prescribe for himself” whatever pleases him? And yet, it is this very thing that is censured.
3. In the opening chapter of Hebrews, the inspired author argued for the superiority of Jesus Christ over the angels. One of his points was this: One may not place angels in the same class as God’s Son. Why not? Because the Father never “at any time” said to an angelic being: “You are my Son” (1:5).
The principle is this: When God is silent about a matter, humanity has no right to be presumptive, and thus to speak (or to act) without his bidding.
4. One of the most powerful arguments setting forth the “silence” principle is found in Hebrews 7-8. In 8:4, it is affirmed that Jesus Christ, if on earth, could not function as a priest. And why was that the case? Because, as indicated in 7:14, the Lord Jesus was from the tribe of Judah (not Levi). Here is the crux of the matter. Concerning priests from the tribe of Judah, “Moses spake nothing,” or, to say the same thing in another way: He was silent about it!
Silence amounts to no authority, and is thus prohibitive. One scholar expresses it in this fashion:
“It was from the tribe of Judah that our great High Priest descended. The Mosaic legislation never authorized anyone from that tribe to be a priest” (William McDonald, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1971, p. 102).
Or note the comment of the renowned scholar John Owen, in his monumental seven-volume set of commentaries on the book of Hebrews:
“And this silence of Moses in this matter the apostle takes to be a sufficient argument to prove that the legal priesthood did not belong, nor could be transferred, unto the tribe of Judah”(An Exposition on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, Vol. V, p. 442).
Could a matter be clearer? This argument has never been answered by those who ridicule the “silence-is-prohibitive” concept.
5. An inspired apostle wrote:
“Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9).
There is an objective body of truth designated “the teaching of Christ.” To step beyond it - either into that which is specifically forbidden, or into the unauthorized realm of “silence” - is to transgress the will of God.
There has been considerable technical discussion over the grammar of this passage. Some have contended that the verse addresses only the nature of Jesus, but not peripheral matters of doctrine. The fact is, one of the most ludicrous positions that one can entertain is to allege that one must accept the New Testament teaching about Christ, but he may, with impunity, ignore the instruction that is from the Lord!
The “silence” principle is quite valid, and a repudiation of it leads to abject apostasy.
The Consequences of Rejecting the “Silence” Principle
We must at least give brief attention to the logical consequences that attach to rejecting the “silence” concept. Once one abandons this principle, “anything goes” becomes the name of the game. One of the leading digressive voices of today argued this very point:
“If it were the case that anything not expressly forbidden in the New Testament is permissible in the Christian religion, then we could not only use pianos to accompany our singing but beads to aid our prayers, crucifixes to focus our devotion, and hashish to enhance our sensitivity. We could also initiate an organizational network similar to that which has been protested so strongly in Catholicism or begin financing church projects with bingo games (where legal) on Tuesday evenings. Not one of these things is explicitly forbidden in the New Testament, and no one who denies the legitimacy of the authority principle as outlined above can consistently argue against any of them” (Rubel Shelly, Sing His Praise! A Case For A Capella Music as Worship Today, Nashville, 20th Century Christian, 1987, pp. 33-34).
A Recent Twist
We conclude this study by citing a recent “twist” to the “silence” controversy that, quite frankly, we have yet to decipher. In April of 1988, Alan E. Highers and Given O. Blakely (of the Independent Christian Church) debated the instrumental music issue in Neosho, Missouri. In that encounter, Blakely broke new ground in that he contended that “authority” is wholly irrelevant to the issue of worship. Our friend utterly rejects the “silence” principle. Amazingly, though, in the July, 1996 issue of Banner of Truth, the gentleman wrote these words:
“God’s silence is not a governing factor in matters pertaining to life and godliness. The whole idea of ‘silence,’ as those of the anti-instrumentalist position have used the term, requires the interpretation of fallible men. If God did not say it, then how can we be sure that men have said what He meant, but did not say? How dare mortal men to take upon themselves to thus unauthorizedly speak for God?".
If I understand the point being made, it is this: It is not legitimate to use the “silence” argument because God has been silent regarding the “silence” argument, and if God is silent with reference to the “silence” argument, then the “silence” argument is unauthorized, hence is improper as an argumentative device.
There are two things that may be said in response. First, as we have demonstrated already, God has not been silent regarding the “silence” principle.
Second, in view of Blakely’s reasoning - if God has not said it, it is unauthorized - why is it not the case that the employment of instrumental music in Christian worship is improper, inasmuch as the New Testament is silent concerning its use, and thus it is unauthorized?
Conclusion
There is but one hope of maintaining the purity of Christianity, as that system existed under the leadership of inspired apostles. We must plead that men remain within the guidelines of New Testament authority. That can be done only when the principle of the “silence” of the Scriptures is revered. Wayne Jackson, Christian Courier.Com

Eric B

05-31-2005, 10:25 AM

These are the same proof-texts "prohibitvists" always use, and most of them have already been answered on other threads already (and then, the discussion ends after that, with no further answers from your side)
1. The difference between Cain and Abel, the sons of Adam, was the difference between respecting what Jehovah had authorized, and what he had not. Cain offered the produce of the field; Abel offered the firstlings of his flock (Gen. 4:3-4).
The latter act was “by faith” (Heb. 11:4) - which comes by hearing what the Lord has spoken (Rom. 10:17) - not what he has left unspoken! The former act was obviously of human inclination, and so Cain was rejected by the Creator. Not all “Cains” have passed from earth’s scenes!
Yes, by FAITH; not by type of sacrifice! For plant sacrifices had their place in the OT system, too. Both brothers brought what they raised; else; then, it must have been a sin to be anything other than a farmer of sheep.
It seems the empasis on Abel bring the first of his flock is what the difference was. So it has nothing to do with "adding anything left unspoken". Amazing how we read things into these passages!
2. Similarly, when Noah constructed the ark, he did so “by faith” (Heb. 11:7), which means the patriarch did “according to all that God commanded him” (Gen. 6:22), or, as the NIV renders the clause: “Noah did everything just as God commanded him.”
Though the question is frequently ridiculed these days - when authority is held in contempt - it is still appropriate to ask: Would Noah have been preserved if he had acted upon the presumption that “whatever is not forbidden is allowed,” and so had altered the divine pattern for the building of the ark? We don't have much detail, other than the type of wood used (which noone is sure of), and to cover it with pitch. So if God gave him minute intructions, and left nothing "unspoken", then of course, Noah could not change it. But if God grants us today permission to add our own "expedients", then He could have with Noah as well. What you are still not getting is that your "we cannot add things left unspoken" directly contradicts you "expedients" logic! All of your "expedients" were left unspoken! They may be able to "help us carry out the command", but it is still "unspoken". Now make up your mind which standard we follow.
3. Nadab and Abihu were sons of Aaron, the first Hebrew high priest. When they employed “strange fire,” i.e., fire not taken from the altar of sacrifice (cf. Lev. 16:12), they were destroyed by God. What was their crime? The inspired text states that they offered “that which [God] had not commanded them” (Lev. 10:1), or, to express it in another way: “[T]hey offered unauthorized fire before the Lord". The so-called "strange fire" was connected with the incense, commanded in Exodus 30. God had commanded that the censer was to be filled with "sweet" incense (v.7), so any other type of incense would have been the "Strange incense" (v.9) that would have made up "strange fire". So there is your "explicit command" in that instance. (Once again, nothing "left unspoken").
4. One of the sacred items of the tabernacle system was the ark of the covenant. The Mosaic law specified: “Jehovah set aside the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant” (Deut. 10:8). The Levites were thus authorized to carry the ark. There was no specific prohibition regarding the other tribes; the law was simply silent as to their privilege of transporting the holy vessel.
Was that silence prohibitive? Yes it was, for a parallel passage explicitly states: “None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites, for them Jehovah has chosen to carry the ark . . .” (1 Chron. 15:2). When the Levites were specifically authorized to bear the ark, in the absence of supplementary authority, that clearly implied that “none else” should function in that capacity. Silence excluded!
Furthermore, the Levites were to bear that ark by poles, which were passed through rings on the side of the golden box (Ex. 25:12-14). David, however, had borne the ark on a “new cart” (2 Sam. 6:3). Was such a sin, inasmuch as the law was silent respecting the matter of carts? Israel’s great king clarified this matter when he later confessed: “. . . we sought [God] not according to the ordinance” (1 Chron. 15:13), or, “in the prescribed way” (NIV).
One is not at liberty to go beyond what has been “prescribed” in a religious practice, any more than a pharmacist is allowed to add more to your medicine than what the physician prescribed!
Once again; you are talking about a physical tribe, that excludes all others. Not something that can be done. To bring these analogies into music worship, it would be cloer to comparing "singing" with "talking" or "humming", or making some other "noise" with our vocal chords.
5. The very first commandment of the Decalogue stated: “I am Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Ex. 20:2-3). Of course the nation of Israel egregiously violated that prohibition across the centuries.
There is an interesting commentary on this matter in the book of Jeremiah. God’s prophet was instructed to stand in the gate of the temple compound and urge the nation to: “Amend your ways” (Jer. 7:3). What was their transgression? Among other things:
“[T]hey have built the high places [centers of idol worship] of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded not, neither came it into my mind” (Jer. 7:31).
A comparison of this passage, with the original law forbidding idolatry, plainly shows that a practice which the Lord has not commanded is equivalent to an explicit prohibition. The Bible is its own best commentary! You people are so slick! But this can be refuted, because if He did "command" it; it would contradict His first Commandment. Other gods are not wrong because they were BOTH "forbidden" AND "not commanded", as if they could possible have been both "forbidden" and "commanded" at the same time!
They were "not commanded" BECAUSE they were explicitly "forbidden"; because God was NOT "silent" on, it not because He was "silent" on it! Once again; your argument would rule out your so-called "expedients".
New Testament Evidence
The New Testament record is equally lucid with reference to our obligation to acknowledge the principle of biblical silence.
1. In his first letter to the Christians at Corinth, Paul addresses the problem of attaching oneself to a church leader and forming a sect around that individual. The apostle condemns the practice by the use of some rhetorical questions: “Is Christ divided?”, etc. (1 Cor. 1:12-13).
Later, he apparently alludes to the issue again when he says:
“Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written . . .” (1 Cor. 4:6 - ASV).
The reference to “myself” and “Apollos” is “a veiled allusion to those who were actually responsible for the church factions, tactfully withholding their names . . .” (W. E. Vine, 1st Corinthians, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1951, p. 61). When one goes “beyond the things that are written,” he has entered the realm of silence. And the inspired apostle says that one must learn not to do that. What was supposed to be "beyond the things that are written", there? Following Apollos or Paul instead of Christ? Once again, that would contradict following Christ. You follow one Master. Just like one tribe, one way to build one ark, and carry the other ark, and one way to carry our voices.
2. In Paul’s letter to the saints at Colossae, he condemned the practice of “will worship,” a disposition which is “after the precepts and doctrines of men” (Col. 2:22-23). W. E. Vine defines “will-worship” as “voluntarily adopted worship, whether unbidden or forbidden” (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Westwood, NJ: Fleming Revell Co., 1962, Vol. IV, p. 236).
We have no difficulty in understanding what it means to do that which is “forbidden.” But what does it mean to do that which is “unbidden” - if it is not doing that about which the Bible is silent?
Noted lexicographer J. H. Thayer described “will-worship” as “worship which one devises and prescribes for himself . . .” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958, p. 168).
Everett Harrison commented that “will-worship” is that which “is not prescribed by God but only by (the will of) man” (Colossians: Christ All-Sufficient, Chicago: Moody Press, 1971, p. 72).
Here is the issue: If one may, with divine approval, operate in the realm of silence, why can’t he “devise and prescribe for himself” whatever pleases him? And yet, it is this very thing that is censured. The definition of "will worship" I have seen is what the passage is describing--"works" of legalism and asceticism, which like "wisdom" give off a "show". (Why would anyone "show off" some practice just because it was "unwritten"?). If anything; this silly argument on instruments falls right into the category, in either definition! You are "showing off" your "plainness" of worship music, and there is nothing commanding that anywhere!
3. In the opening chapter of Hebrews, the inspired author argued for the superiority of Jesus Christ over the angels. One of his points was this: One may not place angels in the same class as God’s Son. Why not? Because the Father never “at any time” said to an angelic being: “You are my Son” (1:5).
The principle is this: When God is silent about a matter, humanity has no right to be presumptive, and thus to speak (or to act) without his bidding. That is not silence either! God has only ONE "only begotten "Son"; excluding all others. If people exalt angels as Son, they are clearly contradicting Christ's unique position; not simply adding something "unwritten".
4. One of the most powerful arguments setting forth the “silence” principle is found in Hebrews 7-8. In 8:4, it is affirmed that Jesus Christ, if on earth, could not function as a priest. And why was that the case? Because, as indicated in 7:14, the Lord Jesus was from the tribe of Judah (not Levi). Here is the crux of the matter. Concerning priests from the tribe of Judah, “Moses spake nothing,” or, to say the same thing in another way: He was silent about it!
Silence amounts to no authority, and is thus prohibitive. One scholar expresses it in this fashion:
“It was from the tribe of Judah that our great High Priest descended. The Mosaic legislation never authorized anyone from that tribe to be a priest” (William McDonald, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1971, p. 102).
Or note the comment of the renowned scholar John Owen, in his monumental seven-volume set of commentaries on the book of Hebrews:
“And this silence of Moses in this matter the apostle takes to be a sufficient argument to prove that the legal priesthood did not belong, nor could be transferred, unto the tribe of Judah”(An Exposition on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, Vol. V, p. 442).
Could a matter be clearer? This argument has never been answered by those who ridicule the “silence-is-prohibitive” concept.
Onc again, answered long ago. Naming one tribe excludes all others. If you are going to have one Messiah come out of one tribe, it can't be the others too. So they are excluded, not simply because they "weren't mentioned"; but because the ONE tribe had been specified.
5. An inspired apostle wrote:
“Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9).
There is an objective body of truth designated “the teaching of Christ.” To step beyond it - either into that which is specifically forbidden, or into the unauthorized realm of “silence” - is to transgress the will of God.
There has been considerable technical discussion over the grammar of this passage. Some have contended that the verse addresses only the nature of Jesus, but not peripheral matters of doctrine. The fact is, one of the most ludicrous positions that one can entertain is to allege that one must accept the New Testament teaching about Christ, but he may, with impunity, ignore the instruction that is from the Lord!
The “silence” principle is quite valid, and a repudiation of it leads to abject apostasy.
The Consequences of Rejecting the “Silence” Principle
We must at least give brief attention to the logical consequences that attach to rejecting the “silence” concept. Once one abandons this principle, “anything goes” becomes the name of the game. One of the leading digressive voices of today argued this very point:
“If it were the case that anything not expressly forbidden in the New Testament is permissible in the Christian religion, then we could not only use pianos to accompany our singing but beads to aid our prayers, crucifixes to focus our devotion, and hashish to enhance our sensitivity. We could also initiate an organizational network similar to that which has been protested so strongly in Catholicism or begin financing church projects with bingo games (where legal) on Tuesday evenings. Not one of these things is explicitly forbidden in the New Testament, and no one who denies the legitimacy of the authority principle as outlined above can consistently argue against any of them” (Rubel Shelly, Sing His Praise! A Case For A Capella Music as Worship Today, Nashville, 20th Century Christian, 1987, pp. 33-34). Those things mentioned ARE forbidden "in principle"! Hashish", for instance, is a mind altering drug. That is "pharmakia" or "sorery"! Many of the RCC practices are pagan, and therefore to be avoided. Gambling comes from covetousness. What does ANY of this have to do with instruments, that would also not exclude the rest of your "eedients such as song books and microphones? You and your authors are shure putting a lot of energy into non-sequitur arguments, themselves based on "silence"!
A Recent Twist
We conclude this study by citing a recent “twist” to the “silence” controversy that, quite frankly, we have yet to decipher. In April of 1988, Alan E. Highers and Given O. Blakely (of the Independent Christian Church) debated the instrumental music issue in Neosho, Missouri. In that encounter, Blakely broke new ground in that he contended that “authority” is wholly irrelevant to the issue of worship. Our friend utterly rejects the “silence” principle. Amazingly, though, in the July, 1996 issue of Banner of Truth, the gentleman wrote these words:
“God’s silence is not a governing factor in matters pertaining to life and godliness. The whole idea of ‘silence,’ as those of the anti-instrumentalist position have used the term, requires the interpretation of fallible men. If God did not say it, then how can we be sure that men have said what He meant, but did not say? How dare mortal men to take upon themselves to thus unauthorizedly speak for God?".
If I understand the point being made, it is this: It is not legitimate to use the “silence” argument because God has been silent regarding the “silence” argument, and if God is silent with reference to the “silence” argument, then the “silence” argument is unauthorized, hence is improper as an argumentative device.
There are two things that may be said in response. First, as we have demonstrated already, God has not been silent regarding the “silence” principle.
Second, in view of Blakely’s reasoning - if God has not said it, it is unauthorized - why is it not the case that the employment of instrumental music in Christian worship is improper, inasmuch as the New Testament is silent concerning its use, and thus it is unauthorized?
Conclusion
There is but one hope of maintaining the purity of Christianity, as that system existed under the leadership of inspired apostles. We must plead that men remain within the guidelines of New Testament authority. That can be done only when the principle of the “silence” of the Scriptures is revered. Wayne Jackson, Christian Courier.Com
--but only when YOU want it to be! (you all decide for us what is "expedient") THAT is Blakely's argument. It is not HE who believes that silence is prohibitive; he is only using it to show how your own argument cancels itself out! (and disproving the "proofs" of the principle above; it stands that God WAS silent on this "prohibitive" principle! You all consistently take these analogies that just DO NOT FIT! All of them! You all are so desperate at one-upping everybody. Note in your 1 Cor.1:12 example, he was even criticizing a faction claiming to follow "Christ"! We had this silly nonsense even back then! (Hey, perhaps that WAS a NT reference to the CofC! tongue.gif )
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17. Please post one scripture that teaches us to sing-play in worship as per the new testament. Is that to much ot ask from someone who argues for them. All your "prohibitive" logic has been debunked; so you are the one who must find a scripture that teaches that an instrument somehow cancels out "sing" (and in the NT only at that, when apparently it didn't in the OT! Did the laws of nature change?). Else; by FAITH in the Word; I am not required to follow this silly rule!

mman

06-01-2005, 02:20 PM

What type of music has God authorized for N.T. worship?

How do we know what God wants?

We must worship God in spirit and in truth. How do we worship in truth? What is truth?

Where does faith come from?

Can we have faith in what God has NOT said?

Man did not add instruments to their Christian worship until many centuries after the church was established.

Instrumental Music in New Testament Worship - Is it from man or from God?

The only reason this has ever been an issue is because man wants them, plain and simple.

When we worship, is it to please man or God?

Why do we give of our means? God said so.
Why do we partake of the Lord's supper? God said so.
Why do we pray? God said so.
Why do we preach/teach? God said so.
Why do we sing? God said so.
Why do you use instruments? Man likes it.

Sonjeo

06-01-2005, 03:18 PM

In the old testament God's people were to make a joyful noise to the Lord with stringed instruments. Now, look at the overall picture. God's chosen people were a nation with it's ensuing protections. Jesus's disciples and christians in the Roman Empire had to maintain a low profile even to the extent of hiding in the catacombs. For many years there was not a practical environment for playing music to the Lord. The reason there is silence is because of the predicament Christians found themselves in and God understood this. Abortion is arguably found in the old testament but because the N.T. is silent on it, of course, does not mean we ignore it. The N.T. does not necessarily cover every nook and cranny of what God wanted us to be concerned about in the old testament but we understand that many of those things still please God. I find no substantial evidence to conclude that music should not give praise to God as it did in the old testament. A lot of this quiet and low-keyed silent character of the church is a result of the offensive-yet- defensive low-keyed nature of the church in those early centuries. Today, in our wonderfully blessed environment, at least where freedoms are concerned, we should fully praise God according to all scripture.

Eric B

06-01-2005, 08:35 PM

Good points.
And the reason why this has become an issue is because man's pride wants to put down others, pure and simple.

Why do we give of our means? God said so.
Why do we partake of the Lord's supper? God said so.
Why do we pray? God said so.
Why do we preach/teach? God said so.
Why do we sing? God said so.
Why do we use song books? Because it's "expedient"?
Why do we shun instruments? To prove we are somehow better than others.

Charles Meadows

06-01-2005, 10:14 PM

If one doesn't like instrumental music then fine - don't use it. But there is not prohibition on it. Evidently this was not a big enough issue for Paul to have emphasized it for the churches.

The heart of the matter is this. Jesus was no legalist. To say that somehow the use of an instrument makes worship unacceptable is completely foreign to the description of worship that God wants, pure hearted worship, not worship according to laws.

Thus making a big deal out of instrumental music reflects a deeper problem, namely a fundamental misunderstanding of Christ's message. In this way, unfortunately the CoC is very much an Old Testament church.

dean198

06-01-2005, 10:25 PM

Why do we give of our means? God said so.
Why do we partake of the Lord's supper? God said so.
Why do we pray? God said so.
Why do we preach/teach? God said so.
Why do we sing? God said so.
ughh. What a reductionist view of the sacraments you have. This is what happens when Enlightenment era church leaders become the standard for what is and isn't 'New Testament Christianity'.

Dean

mman

06-02-2005, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by Eric B:
Good points.
And the reason why this has become an issue is because man's pride wants to put down others, pure and simple.

Why do we give of our means? God said so.
Why do we partake of the Lord's supper? God said so.
Why do we pray? God said so.
Why do we preach/teach? God said so.
Why do we sing? God said so.
Why do we use song books? Because it's "expedient"?
Why do we shun instruments? To prove we are somehow better than others. That is not very logical. Why do you shun killing animals in worship? Because pride wants to put down others and to prove you are somehow better than others who may practice this.

Why do you shun dancing to the Lord in your worship the way David did? It doesn't say not to, but you just want to prove you are better than everyone else who may practice this.

Why don't you serve roast lamb with the Lord's supper? That was part of the passover meal. You just want to show you are better than everyone else.

I want to worship the way they did in the first century according to God's instuctions.

Since God's ways are not our ways and his thoughts our thoughts, how do we know what God wants in our N.T. worship?

Ridicule it all you want, but the simple matter is that it would never have been an issue if man had left his "wants" and "likes" out of the equation.

Surely you understand the difference in carrying out a command and adding to a command. I can sing with a song book or without a song book, but when I am finished, I still have only the authorized music, singing. I can sing from a padded pew or outside under a tree, but when I am finished, I still have only the authorized music, singing.

The authorized music in worship is singing. There is no doubt that singing is acceptable.

mman

06-02-2005, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by dean198:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Why do we give of our means? God said so.
Why do we partake of the Lord's supper? God said so.
Why do we pray? God said so.
Why do we preach/teach? God said so.
Why do we sing? God said so.
ughh. What a reductionist view of the sacraments you have. This is what happens when Enlightenment era church leaders become the standard for what is and isn't 'New Testament Christianity'.

Dean [/QUOTE]How do you know what God wants? Is it based on your likes and what pleases you?

Is there a standard?

mman

06-02-2005, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
If one doesn't like instrumental music then fine - don't use it. But there is not prohibition on it. Evidently this was not a big enough issue for Paul to have emphasized it for the churches.

The heart of the matter is this. Jesus was no legalist. To say that somehow the use of an instrument makes worship unacceptable is completely foreign to the description of worship that God wants, pure hearted worship, not worship according to laws.

Thus making a big deal out of instrumental music reflects a deeper problem, namely a fundamental misunderstanding of Christ's message. In this way, unfortunately the CoC is very much an Old Testament church. There is not a prohibition on killing goats either, but I don't think either of us would think that is acceptable, just because someone might like to do that and it would help them worship.

Paul didn't place emphasis on it. That's right. It was not a problem. It was not added by man for nearly 7 centuries following and then for only a few. It did not become widespread until several centuries after that.

Acts 20:20,27 - Paul preached the whole counsel of God, keeping back nothing that was profitable. Nowhere in there was anything about instrumental music, therefore, it was not part of the counsel of God and it was not profitable.

When Jesus said (John 4:23-24) that the true worshipers MUST worship in spirit and in truth, where does the truth part come in? What is truth? How do you determine truth? Isn't God's word truth (John 17:17)?

Funny you should mention the CofC as an old testament church. The old testament used instrumental music. If your group uses instrumental music, you are more of an old testament "church". Instruments of music are outward, physical and borrowed from the Old Testament. New Testament worship is inward and from the heart.

Charles Meadows

06-02-2005, 08:59 AM

New Testament worship is inward and from the heart.

You hit the nail on the head here.

The CoC is probably right that NT services didn't use instruments. Today instruments are commonplace, available, and not associated with pagan rituals.

You can have instrument-less services - that's fine.

My concern with CoC doctrine is that they are so hung up on points like instrumental music, "denominations", and baptism in Jesus' name - that they miss Jesus' message.

If one believes that the presence of instruments in worship makes it unacceptable to God then his concept of worship is NOT an "inward, from the heart" one - rather it is an OT legalistic one, suggesting that whether or not an instrument is involved is more important than what is in the heart.

mman

06-02-2005, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
New Testament worship is inward and from the heart.

You hit the nail on the head here.

The CoC is probably right that NT services didn't use instruments. Today instruments are commonplace, available, and not associated with pagan rituals.

You can have instrument-less services - that's fine.

My concern with CoC doctrine is that they are so hung up on points like instrumental music, "denominations", and baptism in Jesus' name - that they miss Jesus' message.

If one believes that the presence of instruments in worship makes it unacceptable to God then his concept of worship is NOT an "inward, from the heart" one - rather it is an OT legalistic one, suggesting that whether or not an instrument is involved is more important than what is in the heart. When Jesus said (John 4:23-24) that the true worshipers MUST worship in spirit and in truth, where does the truth part come in? What is truth? How do you determine truth? Isn't God's word truth (John 17:17)?

Charles Meadows

06-02-2005, 09:22 AM

Understanding the message of Jesus requires a digestion of the entire NT. Jesus was not a legalist. There's just no other way to say it.

If you really believe that God rejects worship if it involves instruments or if it comes out of a building that has the word "baptist" on it then you see Jesus as a legalist and as such have a fundamental misunderstanding of the gospel.

Eric B

06-02-2005, 10:11 AM

That is not very logical. Why do you shun killing animals in worship? Because pride wants to put down others and to prove you are somehow better than others who may practice this.

Why don't you serve roast lamb with the Lord's supper? That was part of the passover meal. You just want to show you are better than everyone else.

I want to worship the way they did in the first century according to God's instuctions.

Since God's ways are not our ways and his thoughts our thoughts, how do we know what God wants in our N.T. worship?
Funny you should mention the CofC as an old testament church. The old testament used instrumental music. If your group uses instrumental music, you are more of an old testament "church". Instruments of music are outward, physical and borrowed from the Old Testament. New Testament worship is inward and from the heart. The New Testament clearly shows and tells us that animal sarifieces passed with the sacrifice of Christ. They were directly shadows of that. It never instructs us any such thing regarding instruments, yet you come and add this "instruction" out of nowhere but your own premises. Obviously your thoughts are not our thoughts, but then neither are your thoughts God's thoughts either.
Ridicule it all you want, but the simple matter is that it would never have been an issue if man had left his "wants" and "likes" out of the equation. It never would have become an issue if man had left his "wants" for one-upmanship out of the equation. But it was inevitable (1 John 2:19).
Surely you understand the difference in carrying out a command and adding to a command. I can sing with a song book or without a song book, but when I am finished, I still have only the authorized music, singing. I can sing from a padded pew or outside under a tree, but when I am finished, I still have only the authorized music, singing. You can sing with instruments, and at the end, you no less have the singing, anymore than you do, if you are singing and reading, or you have the vocal music, and printed sheet music befre you. The issues are exactly the same!
Paul didn't place emphasis on it. That's right. It was not a problem. It was not added by man for nearly 7 centuries following and then for only a few. It did not become widespread until several centuries after that. It was explained why it probably wan't mentioned. Now, for the church afterward, which became a big institution that no longer had to worship in hiding, to make a doctrine out of a-capella, shows that this doctrine was what was "added by man", and when you look at their reasoning, it was gnostic influence. They wanted a somber worship, because they though something more lively was bad. But I thought the CofC was aiming for the 1st century. In those centuries after that, when this doctrine developed, they had already begun adding the Catholic doctrines on Communion, Mary and Church leadership. Now you don't follow them on those, do you?

av1611jim

06-02-2005, 10:40 AM

So, how does a mute person worship God with music?

This focus on the externals of "singing" vs "instrumental w/singing" neglects the fact that one's view of this issue MUST include any and all persons. So how do the deaf "acceptably" worship God in song? Or the mute (as I already mentioned)? Or the blind since they can't "see" the words and notes in your song books?

Evidently, worship is a personal matter between one person and God. This is ultimately the crux of the matter. What is "acceptable" for one MUST be "acceptable" for all, according to the CoC. Therefore, explain this paradox you have constructed with your "accapella only" position.

How do the deaf, blind, mute "acceptably" worship God in song? Especially focus on the mute, please.

In HIS service;
Jim

mman

06-02-2005, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by av1611jim:
So, how does a mute person worship God with music?

This focus on the externals of "singing" vs "instrumental w/singing" neglects the fact that one's view of this issue MUST include any and all persons. So how do the deaf "acceptably" worship God in song? Or the mute (as I already mentioned)? Or the blind since they can't "see" the words and notes in your song books?

Evidently, worship is a personal matter between one person and God. This is ultimately the crux of the matter. What is "acceptable" for one MUST be "acceptable" for all, according to the CoC. Therefore, explain this paradox you have constructed with your "accapella only" position.

How do the deaf, blind, mute "acceptably" worship God in song? Especially focus on the mute, please.

In HIS service;
Jim Blind people can sing with their voice, no problems there.

But to focus on the mute, as you said.

Eph 5:19 - speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord,

The mute speak with their hands, the sing with their hands. There is a deaf man where I worship. He sings from the heart.

Romans 10:10 says, "For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

Since he can't use his mouth to make a confession, he uses his hands. He doesn't use a piano or trumpet to make his confession.

Since he uses his hands to "speak", he also uses his hands to speak to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in his heart to the Lord.

DHK

06-02-2005, 12:37 PM

Revelation 5:8-9 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Matthew 6:9-10 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

What is God's will concerning music? Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. He uses instruments in heaven, therefore...
DHK

av1611jim

06-02-2005, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by mman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by av1611jim:
So, how does a mute person worship God with music?

This focus on the externals of "singing" vs "instrumental w/singing" neglects the fact that one's view of this issue MUST include any and all persons. So how do the deaf "acceptably" worship God in song? Or the mute (as I already mentioned)? Or the blind since they can't "see" the words and notes in your song books?

Evidently, worship is a personal matter between one person and God. This is ultimately the crux of the matter. What is "acceptable" for one MUST be "acceptable" for all, according to the CoC. Therefore, explain this paradox you have constructed with your "accapella only" position.

How do the deaf, blind, mute "acceptably" worship God in song? Especially focus on the mute, please.

In HIS service;
Jim Blind people can sing with their voice, no problems there.

But to focus on the mute, as you said.

Eph 5:19 - speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord,

The mute speak with their hands, the sing with their hands. There is a deaf man where I worship. He sings from the heart.

Romans 10:10 says, "For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

Since he can't use his mouth to make a confession, he uses his hands. He doesn't use a piano or trumpet to make his confession.

Since he uses his hands to "speak", he also uses his hands to speak to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in his heart to the Lord. [/QUOTE]Then there is nothing wrong with him "using his hands" to play the piano to convey the "melody" in his heart!

:D graemlins/thumbs.gif graemlins/wavey.gif

In HIS service;
Jim

bmerr

06-02-2005, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by DHK:
Revelation 5:8-9 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Matthew 6:9-10 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

What is God's will concerning music? Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. He uses instruments in heaven, therefore...
DHK DHK,

bmerr here. If you were to follow this logic out, you would also need to start burning incense in your worship as well, wouldn't you?

Also, we would be wise to understand that the book of Revelation is written in signs (Rev 1:1 "signifying").

DHK

06-02-2005, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by bmerr:
DHK,

bmerr here. If you were to follow this logic out, you would also need to start burning incense in your worship as well, wouldn't you?

Also, we would be wise to understand that the book of Revelation is written in signs (Rev 1:1 "signifying"). Are there no harps in heaven? What are harps symbolic of?
Is there no singing in heaven? What is singing symbolic of?
Is there no worship in heaven? What is worship symbolic of?
Is there no God in heaven? What is God symbolic of?

Really? Is everything to be taken symbolically just because it is in the Book of Revelation? Do you seriously believe this? Are you an atheist? Is there a God in heaven (in the Book of Revelation)?
What about Jesus Christ? Shall we deny his existence too, just because we ought to take the book symbolically?
DHK

Frank

06-02-2005, 07:35 PM

It is obvious from the context and the use of the word as and the coordinating conjunction and that the use of the word harps is a metaphor.
How does one know when the use of a term is symbolic or metaphorical? Who believes the chain, dragon, key and pit are literal in Rev.20.
Is there a literal water of life clear as crystal flowing out of the throne of God? Rev. 22. 1. Are the frogs coming out of the mouth of the dragon literal? Rev. 16: 13. In order for one to properly interpret the book of Revelation he must understand the usage of the many symbols that are used and found to a large extent in and from the Old Testament.

DHK

06-02-2005, 07:43 PM

Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

Revelation 14:2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:

Revelation 15:2 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.

You're still sure about this Frank?? I can't believe that you guys would allegorize the Book of Revelation away like this? Is there still a Heaven?
DHK

Eric B

06-02-2005, 10:10 PM

Thebook tells us that incense is s symbol of the prayers of the saints. The other symbols you can find if you look really hard in the OT. But we do not see this with the instruments. It was later Church leaders who first came up with these "allegorical" interpretations of them.

Frank

06-03-2005, 04:09 PM

DHk:
Absolutely, the VOICE of harpers harping with their harps. Metaphorical consistent with the other metaphors in the same verse. Harps represents the praise to God, not literal playing of one. There is no evidence there is or was any playing of the harps. if not why not, and how do you know?
Why do you believe harps is literal and the rest of the pasages are metaphorical or figurative? Or, do you believe this to be so?

Frank

06-03-2005, 04:17 PM

Eric:
Christians throughout the ages have recognized the book of Revelation to contain figurative language. The book was writtne using many symbols to encourage God's peole during a time of death and persecution. Rev. 2:10. Therefore, not to add bonds to the afflictions of his people, Jesus used language that would be hidden from the heathen gentile. (Rome). Jesus used many figurative and metaphorical terms during his ministry. Jesus said, except a corn of wheat fall to the groudn and die it abideth alone, but if it die it bringeth forth much fruit. I believe people understood he was referring to himself and not the literal corn of wheat.

DHK

06-03-2005, 04:41 PM

Frank,
How can "harping with harps" be figurative? Please explain your figurative allegorical meaning.

Eric B

06-03-2005, 05:48 PM

Still, every single word is not figurative. And I showed a long time ago, that "voice" is simply "sound". Funny, you take that word (in modern English) literal!

Claudia_T

06-03-2005, 06:33 PM

Just glancing over some of the posts on here it seems to me that someone need to go read this article about sacrificing animals, keeping old testament feast days, etc:

http://www.remnantofgod.org/Yah-feast.htm

To continue on doing that is an insult to Jesus.

(Teaching that you're not supposed to use musical instruments in worship is absurd also because God's people are recorded as having used instruments).

It always amazes me how some will ignore the things God TELLS them to do and then they start to put restrictions on things He NEVER told them to do. It reminds me of how the religious leaders in Christ's day would do everything possible to avoid actually keeping God's Law, but then they would tack on all sorts of overly strict rules that they themselves created in effort to someone try to appear holy in the eyes of the people.

I find it absolutely disgusting that anyone would actually advocate sacrificing animals. It was done in Old Testament times to point to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and doing so was supposed to impress upon the mind of the one who did it... the terrible enormity of sin and how One would come to take upon Himself our sins.

And to think that some claim they somehow need to sacrifice animals TODAY "to help them in their worship" is truly an insult to Jesus and the sacrifice that He made for us.

Jesus is quite enough to ponder upon as the true sacrifice for our sins... and to sacrifice an animal today amounts to nothing more than pure ignorance and absolute cruelty to animals.

sorry but Im having a hard time concealing my disgust.

..did I really read someone advocating this on this message board? maybe it was just my imagination.

--------

Claudia Thompson

http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org
http://www.countrymanordesigns.com
http://www.christiangraphics.org

Claudia_T

06-03-2005, 06:39 PM

Just as a side note, what I mean about Christians ignoring what God DOES tell them to do and then adding on all sorts of their own man-made rules... Look at how many times the New Testament says to keep the commandments... yet so many Christians today ignore that and then come up with all sorts of weird and absurd things in their place:

Mt:5:19: Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Mt:15:9: But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mt:19:17: And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Mt:22:40: On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Mk:7:7: Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mk:10:19: Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

Mk:12:29: And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

Lk:1:6: And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Lk:18:20: Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

Jn:14:15: If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Jn:14:21: He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Jn:15:10: If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Acts:1:2: Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

1Cor:7:19: Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Ti:1:14: Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

1Jn:2:3: And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

1Jn:2:4: He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

1Jn:3:22: And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

1Jn:3:24: And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

1Jn:5:2: By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

1Jn:5:3: For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

2Jn:1:6: And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

Rv:12:17: And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rv:14:12: Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Rv:22:14: Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Why dont you worry about doing what God plainly tells you to do and stop trying to prove your "holiness" by forbidding what He never forbade us to do?

Frank

06-05-2005, 10:46 PM

Dhk:

The verse employs figurative language. Please note the use of as and the conjunction and in the verse. I heard the voice of harpers harping on their harps. How do harpers use their voices to harp on their harps? Voices use words not sound. This is likely a reference to the praise in heaven.

Furthermore, spiritual beings have no use for the physical, and heaven is a spiritual place. The former things are passed away. II Pet. 3:9,10.

Frank

06-05-2005, 10:56 PM

Claudia:
Quote/
(Teaching that you're not supposed to use musical instruments in worship is absurd also because God's people are recorded as having used instruments).

Please provide one verse in the new testament of Christ that authorizes the use of mechanical instruments. The bible says that faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God, NOT THE LACK OF THE WORD. Romans 10:17. You will not find one verse to support the use of instruments in worship to God by the authority of Christ.
The practice was absent in the church for over 500 years. The Catholics began the practice in 600's A.D.
Please explain why the church did not use them for five hundred years?

Frank

06-05-2005, 11:08 PM

Eric:
You have proved nothing from the passage that sustains your argument. The verse employs symbols that are figurative. The voice of harpers harping on their harps is not sound. Voices use words. Harps are plucked.
However, if one takes the totality of the evidence, he finds that the heart strings can be plucked ( like as a harp) with the result being voices( voices of harpers harping on their harps words used to communicate) using words to communciate a spiritual message. Col. 3:16, Eph. 5:19.
By the way, spiritual beings will have no use for the physical in heaven. The former things are passed away, II Pet. 3:8,10. However, that is your problem.

Ed Edwards

06-06-2005, 07:58 AM

Frank: "Please explain why the church did not use them for five hundred years?"

For the same reason that most local churches
did not pave their parking lots until
about 50 years ago. BTW, paved parking lots
help prevent folks working on The Lord's Day -
all those vehicles getting stuck when it
rains.

Meanwhile, it has been over half the topic since
anybody even mentioned an argument (point)
pro- or con- about denominationalism -- you
know, the SUBJECT of this topic. :(

Again, i claim that 27% of the denominations were
begun by folks trying to end denominationalism.
I think God uses denominationalism to reach
a maximum number of people.

mman

06-06-2005, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Frank: "Please explain why the church did not use them for five hundred years?"

For the same reason that most local churches
did not pave their parking lots until
about 50 years ago. BTW, paved parking lots
help prevent folks working on The Lord's Day -
all those vehicles getting stuck when it
rains.

Meanwhile, it has been over half the topic since
anybody even mentioned an argument (point)
pro- or con- about denominationalism -- you
know, the SUBJECT of this topic. :(

Again, i claim that 27% of the denominations were
begun by folks trying to end denominationalism.
I think God uses denominationalism to reach
a maximum number of people. Your arguement is that did use them because they didn't have them? They had them. They were present. God did not command them.

This is the heart of why we have denominations. Men doing what pleases them, rather than based on what God said.

If man used God's word as the authority, and left out his own wants and desires, there would be no instrumental music in any worship service today.

If man used God's word as the authority for worship, there would be no denominations or divisions, we would all be of the same mind and same judgment and there would be no divisons among us.

Charles Meadows

06-06-2005, 03:10 PM

If man used God's word as the authority, and left out his own wants and desires, there would be no instrumental music in any worship service today.

That is certainly not true. There is no prohibition of instruments. And the wording of the NT passages can actually be seen as supporting instruments.

Bottom line here: This is not enough of a big deal to argue over.

If man used God's word as the authority for worship, there would be no denominations or divisions, we would all be of the same mind and same judgment and there would be no divisons among us.

That much is true. But that undivided body would not at all resemble the modern CoC, with its old testament legalistic hangups on issues as unimportant as the use of instruments in worship. The CoC, as I have said before, attempts to make Jesus a legalist on the order of the Pharisees. This is serious error.

DHK

06-06-2005, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Frank:
Dhk:

The verse employs figurative language. Please note the use of as and the conjunction and in the verse. I heard the voice of harpers harping on their harps. How do harpers use their voices to harp on their harps? Voices use words not sound. This is likely a reference to the praise in heaven.

Furthermore, spiritual beings have no use for the physical, and heaven is a spiritual place. The former things are passed away. II Pet. 3:9,10. I believe your allegorization of this passage is ludicrous as it leads to the allegorization of the entire book, even to heaven itself.

There are other musical instruments mentioned in heaven as well, outside of the book of Revelation, which are spoken of in a much more literal sense:

1 Corinthians 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Revelation 8:2 And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets.
--What were the angels actually given? Their voices?? graemlins/laugh.gif

There are literal instruments in heaven: both trumpets and harps. The harps (not simply voices) were given to the angels. They were harping on their harps. A harp is a harp is a harp.
DHK

mman

06-06-2005, 04:31 PM

That is certainly not true. There is no prohibition of instruments. And the wording of the NT passages can actually be seen as supporting instruments.

Bottom line here: This is not enough of a big deal to argue over. [/QUOTE}

You say there is not prohibition. God did not prohibit many many things. We are not governed by what God did not say, but we are governed by what God did say.

Answer this one question. How do we know what God wants in our worship? By what he said or by what he didn't say?

What would be your advise to Nadab and Abihu? It doesn't matter where you get your fire. God didn't say not to get it from there.

What would be your advise to Noah? It doesn't matter what kind of wood you use as long as you use some gopherwood. God didn't say not to use some oak and oak is really pretty and it would add to the beauty of the ark.

If man used God's word as the authority for worship, there would be no denominations or divisions, we would all be of the same mind and same judgment and there would be no divisons among us.

[QUOTE]That much is true. But that undivided body would not at all resemble the modern CoC, with its old testament legalistic hangups on issues as unimportant as the use of instruments in worship. The CoC, as I have said before, attempts to make Jesus a legalist on the order of the Pharisees. This is serious error. The CofC is not the one trying to drag OT forms of worship into the New Testament.

When Jesus said the words that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day, was he being a legalist? What is your definition of a legalist? One who follows the instuctions given in the New Testament?

When Jesus said, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, was he kidding? If I accept this plain teaching, that a third grader can understand and would have to have help to misunderstand it, am I a legalist?

God's word is truth (John 17:17). True worshipers will worship according to truth (John 4:23-24). Therefore, to worship according to truth is to base our worship on what God said.

If one adds what he whats because it is not prohibited, that is not worshipping according to truth.

Charles Meadows

06-06-2005, 04:56 PM

Mman,

Answer this one question. How do we know what God wants in our worship? By what he said or by what he didn't say?

How do we know? By reading scripture. Not by reading one verse and trying to spin a whole doctrine off of it.

Jesus knew what was in the hearts of people. He said one day we will worship in spirit and in truth. Just look at what you're saying. Worship is acceptable only if it involves singing but not playing? It doesn't matter about the heart behind it? You have missed the whole point. What if we sing 20th century songs and not the ancient eastern songs sung by the church. God DIDN'T authorize the use of western scales in worship music. Does this mean our worship is not received? God didn't authorize the use of any electric apparatus either.

This is yet another example of how the CoC is denomination with severe misunderstandings of scripture. Sad.

:(

Eric B

06-06-2005, 10:30 PM

Come to think of it; all of what they sang were probably scriptures themselves. Since when did God authorize songs of human composition? And you can't even use that "expedient" line; because there were always plenty of psalms to sing! You have proved nothing from the passage that sustains your argument. The verse employs symbols that are figurative. The voice of harpers harping on their harps is not sound. Voices use words. Harps are plucked. It doesn't say "WORDS". You added that to the text based on your literal reading of "voice". (actually, a voice can hum or scat a melody without words at all!). "sound" is inclusive all all of it. The notes of instruments, human voices sining words or humming notes.
However, if one takes the totality of the evidence, he finds that the heart strings can be plucked ( like as a harp) with the result being voices( voices of harpers harping on their harps words used to communicate) using words to communciate a spiritual message. Col. 3:16, Eph. 5:19. You're the one who has not proven that this is the only "plucking" meant, and thus the only sound allowed.
By the way, spiritual beings will have no use for the physical in heaven. The former things are passed away, II Pet. 3:8,10. However, that is your problem. But we're not in Heaven yet, so the fact that it may not be a "physical" thing for them says nothing abouut us. But the fact that something in Heaven would even be represented by "instruments", would mean that they cannot possibly be as "prohibited" or abhorred as you make them out to be. Once again, we never see adultery or idolatry used in such a positive light as repesenting Heavenly things.

This is the heart of why we have denominations. Men doing what pleases them, rather than based on what God said.

If man used God's word as the authority, and left out his own wants and desires, there would be no instrumental music in any worship service today.
God did not SAY not to use them, so to say not to use them is for YOU to go NOT by what He SAID; not us! The reason we have denominations, is as I've always said; because of man's own want and desires to be better than others. So he comes up with ridiculous issues to separate and argue over.

mman

06-07-2005, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Mman,

Answer this one question. How do we know what God wants in our worship? By what he said or by what he didn't say?

How do we know? By reading scripture. Not by reading one verse and trying to spin a whole doctrine off of it.

Jesus knew what was in the hearts of people. He said one day we will worship in spirit and in truth. Just look at what you're saying. Worship is acceptable only if it involves singing but not playing? It doesn't matter about the heart behind it? You have missed the whole point. What if we sing 20th century songs and not the ancient eastern songs sung by the church. God DIDN'T authorize the use of western scales in worship music. Does this mean our worship is not received? God didn't authorize the use of any electric apparatus either.

This is yet another example of how the CoC is denomination with severe misunderstandings of scripture. Sad.

:( You have rightly spoken when you answered we know what God wants by reading scripture.

Now answer this question, Are instruments used to please man or God?

mman

06-07-2005, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Eric B:
Come to think of it; all of what they sang were probably scriptures themselves. Since when did God authorize songs of human composition? And you can't even use that "expedient" line; because there were always plenty of psalms to sing! What do the scriptures say? Eph 5:19, "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs."

Again this is stated in Col 3:16-17, "16Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. 17 Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father.

Verse 17 says whatever we do in word or deed is to be done in the name of Jesus, or by his authority. His instructions for the Church are given in the New Testament. That is why the word is to dwell in us richly.

The authorization is to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, not just psalms. This is where God authorize songs of human composition.

Now where did he authorize the use of mechanical instruments?

DHK

06-07-2005, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by mman:

When Jesus said, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, was he kidding? If I accept this plain teaching, that a third grader can understand and would have to have help to misunderstand it, am I a legalist?
I think you bear false witness. Do you accept the plain teaching that a third grader can understand? I doubt it. Let's put it to the test. I home-school my children, and have for some time. I (for your sake) just asked my youngest to quote to me the first verses that come to her mind that she has memorized. What were they?

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Nothing about baptism here. The verses she quoted teach that salvation is by faith in Christ--that whosover believes in Christ should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Even a third grader can understand that
DHK

mman

06-07-2005, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by DHK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mman:

When Jesus said, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, was he kidding? If I accept this plain teaching, that a third grader can understand and would have to have help to misunderstand it, am I a legalist?
I think you bear false witness. Do you accept the plain teaching that a third grader can understand? I doubt it. Let's put it to the test. I home-school my children, and have for some time. I (for your sake) just asked my youngest to quote to me the first verses that come to her mind that she has memorized. What were they?

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Nothing about baptism here. The verses she quoted teach that salvation is by faith in Christ--that whosover believes in Christ should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Even a third grader can understand that
DHK [/QUOTE]Ah, a concept I hope all would understand. The bible does not teach all there is to salvation in any one verse. There is nothing about repentance in those verses either. By your logic, repentance in non essential. What about confession. Those verses do not include confession. By your logic, that is non essential. Surely you don't think that repentance and confession are non essential.

Here is my point. Until we have all that God has said on any subject, we don't have the truth. I accept those verses you listed because I understand biblical faith.

It is my understanding that you cannot accept Mk 16:16 because you do not understand biblical faith. Mark 16:16 is in direct contradiction with what you believe so it must be explained away.

The verses your daughter quoted do not negate Mark 16:16 in any way, they compliment it.

John 3:16, what a wonderful verse. Only a few verses later, John 3:36, "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." (NAS) Does this negate John 3:16? Of course not, it compliments it. By reading both together we have a more complete understanding.

By the way, did your daughter understand Mark 16:16?

On a personal note, I commend you for home-schooling and teaching your children to memorize verses. I likewise home-school my children.

DHK

06-07-2005, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by mman:
]
Here is my point. Until we have all that God has said on any subject, we don't have the truth. I accept those verses you listed because I understand biblical faith.
By the standard that you have just set for yourself I doubt if you could ever be saved. Do you know ALL that God has said on soteriology--the subject of salvation. Have you memorized the Book of Romans--the greatest treatise on the them of salvation ever written. It clearly goes through all aspects of salvation. Are you sure you understand all there is about salvation there is to understand: all about the atonement, justification, propitiation, sanctification, adoption, new birth, regeneration, conversion, etc.
Are you claiming to have a full understanding of all these aspects of salvation before one can be saved? Are you then saved?
DHK

mman

06-07-2005, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by DHK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mman:
]
Here is my point. Until we have all that God has said on any subject, we don't have the truth. I accept those verses you listed because I understand biblical faith.
By the standard that you have just set for yourself I doubt if you could ever be saved. Do you know ALL that God has said on soteriology--the subject of salvation. Have you memorized the Book of Romans--the greatest treatise on the them of salvation ever written. It clearly goes through all aspects of salvation. Are you sure you understand all there is about salvation there is to understand: all about the atonement, justification, propitiation, sanctification, adoption, new birth, regeneration, conversion, etc.
Are you claiming to have a full understanding of all these aspects of salvation before one can be saved? Are you then saved?
DHK [/QUOTE]I am certain what it takes to become a christian. I am certain what it takes to have my sins washed away. I am certain what it takes to have the remission of my sins. It is impossible for God to lie and he has clearly revealed it.

I know every verse in the bible that tells us explicitly how we get INTO Christ. Why would someone ever think there is another way to get into Christ is beyond my understanding.

It's not hard. What has God said about salvation? It is not up to us to pick and choose which verses we want to follow.

There is a difference in what it takes to become a Christian and what it means to be a Christian.

What it takes to have remission of sins is easily seen in Acts 2. They heard one sermon and after they repented, the were baptized in order to obtain the remission of their sins.

Did I say one had to understand all truth before they could become a Christian? No.

I am fully convinced that one has to understand how to become a Christian before they can become a Christian. After becoming a Christian, they are babes in Christ that will grow and understand more as they study the word (I Pet 2:2).

I have faith. I believe with all my heart that Jesus is the Son of God, and He came to this earth and lived a sinless perfect life and was crucified, buried, and raised again before he returned to the Father. I believe that His blood was shed for many for the remission of sins. I have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine and had my sins washed away. Jesus, who cannot lie, said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned." I believe what he said so I obeyed. I accept him as my Lord and Savior. Since you have stated many times that you believe faith alone saves, then even you think I am saved, right?

For one to ignore what Jesus said in Mark 16:16 because they cannot make it agree with their other beliefs is incomprehensible to me.

All you are doing is throwing a lot of chaff to try and cloud the issue.

The simple fact is that Jesus said He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

Either this statement is true or false.

Jesus either put believe, baptized and saved in the correct order or he didn't.

The conclusion of this passage is inescapable.

When taken in conjunction with the other passages that deal with this subject, it is clearly corroborated. Serious mental gymnastics would be required to attempt to explain away this clear teaching.

Again, a third grader can understand Mark 16:16 when they read it on their own. They would need "help" to misunderstand it.

Eric B

06-07-2005, 09:33 PM

What do the scriptures say? Eph 5:19, "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs."

The authorization is to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, not just psalms. This is where God authorize songs of human composition.

Now where did he authorize the use of mechanical instruments? Who said "hymns and spiritual songs" were of human composition? They sang other scriptures which were not psalms as well. I used "psalms" as an example of an large supply of songs; not that it was the only type of song in the Bible.
So if one wanted to make an issue of this, they would have just as much to argue on as you on instruments. There were even points in Church history, IIRC, where songs of human composition were frowned upon in favor of scripture--some of the same that shunned instruments!

DHK

06-07-2005, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by mman:
I am certain what it takes to become a christian. I am certain what it takes to have my sins washed away. I am certain what it takes to have the remission of my sins. It is impossible for God to lie and he has clearly revealed it.

I know every verse in the bible that tells us explicitly how we get INTO Christ. Why would someone ever think there is another way to get into Christ is beyond my understanding.

It's not hard. What has God said about salvation? It is not up to us to pick and choose which verses we want to follow.Then why do you pick and choose the verses that suit your own theology--Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38. You are very select in your choosing.

There is a difference in what it takes to become a Christian and what it means to be a Christian.

What it takes to have remission of sins is easily seen in Acts 2. They heard one sermon and after they repented, the were baptized in order to obtain the remission of their sins.[/quote]You are picking and choosing the verses that you want to hilight. Of course, Acts 2:38 doesn't mean what you think it does. Salvation is by faith and faith alone, just as John 3:16 teaches--something a third grader can understand.

Did I say one had to understand all truth before they could become a Christian? No.Indeed you did.
Here is my point. Until we have all that God has said on any subject, we don't have the truth. I accept those verses you listed because I understand biblical faith. I am fully convinced that one has to understand how to become a Christian before they can become a Christian. After becoming a Christian, they are babes in Christ that will grow and understand more as they study the word (I Pet 2:2).

I have faith. I believe with all my heart that Jesus is the Son of God, and He came to this earth and lived a sinless perfect life and was crucified, buried, and raised again before he returned to the Father. I believe that His blood was shed for many for the remission of sins. I have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine and had my sins washed away. Jesus, who cannot lie, said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned." I believe what he said so I obeyed. I accept him as my Lord and Savior. Since you have stated many times that you believe faith alone saves, then even you think I am saved, right?I don't know. I can't say. If you say that baptism was necessary for your salvation, then no, I would not say that you were saved, for man is saved by faith alone, not by faith plus baptism.
"The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it."
"The Lord knows them that are his."

For one to ignore what Jesus said in Mark 16:16 because they cannot make it agree with their other beliefs is incomprehensible to me.

All you are doing is throwing a lot of chaff to try and cloud the issue.

The simple fact is that Jesus said He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

Either this statement is true or false.

Jesus either put believe, baptized and saved in the correct order or he didn't.

The conclusion of this passage is inescapable.

When taken in conjunction with the other passages that deal with this subject, it is clearly corroborated. Serious mental gymnastics would be required to attempt to explain away this clear teaching.

Again, a third grader can understand Mark 16:16 when they read it on their own. They would need "help" to misunderstand it.
It is inconceivable that one would spin an entire doctrine around one verse in the Bible because his mind fails to reconcile it with the rest of Scripture.
DHK

Frank

06-08-2005, 11:50 PM

Ed:
The new testament church simply did not use instruments. The practice was and is man made. The scriptures and history both attest to this truth. I do not know anything about paved parking lots and the first century church, but I do know they did not play instruments in worship.

Frank

06-09-2005, 12:13 AM

2DHK:
Quote/
Revelation 8:2 And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets.
--What were the angels actually given? Their voices??
First, let's not confuse Rev,. 14:2 with this passage. You seem to want to link the two. However, context indicates they are not be linked. Therefore, your question is not germain to this passage. This is a part of the vision John sees. The events in the chapter are signaled by a trumpets. There is no indcation of worship in view. This discussion is about Christians using instruments in worship to God, not the heralding of a major event.In this case, the events being heralded are Disasterous. What
do these pictures represent?

By the way, angels are divinely created beings, we are not.

What do angels hearalding Disasterous events have to do with Christians using instruments in worship? This passage is irrelevent to this issue.

The context seems to indicate these disasterous events were to take place during the time of the seven churches. How do you know the trumpets are literal?

[ June 09, 2005, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: Frank ]

DHK

06-09-2005, 02:37 AM

I wasn't referring to the trumpets because they were used in worship, but rather to get you to admit that there are "musical" instruments in heaven, that is, literal instruments. When it came to the trumpets you did not try to allegorize or spritualize them away like you did with the harps. There is a contradiction here. So literal trumpets can be used as long as they are used to signify a warning. But if the harp is used for the purpose of worship, it can't be literal, just because it is used for worship. I suppose if a harp were used for another purpose then you would consider it literal. Quite illogical don't you think?
DHK

mman

06-09-2005, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by DHK:
It is inconceivable that one would spin an entire doctrine around one verse in the Bible because his mind fails to reconcile it with the rest of Scripture.
DHK That is my point exactly!!!! That is exactly what you are doing.

You cannot reconcile Acts 2:38 and Eph 2:8-9. You will not change your view on Eph 2, therefore Acts 2:38 doesn't mean what it says.

You cannot reconcile Mark 16:16 with Eph 2. You have yet to address Mark 16:16 but it can't mean what it says.

You cannot reconcile Acts 22:16 with Eph 2. You have to twist it from it's logical conclusion.

You cannot reconcile Gal 3:26-27 with Eph 2, which clearly states we are childern by faith because we have been baptized.

You cannot reconcile I Pet 3:21 with Eph 2, cause it says baptism saves us and you frequently say we are saved by faith alone.

Speaking of faith alone, you and I both know that there is only one reference to faith only and that is in James 2:24.

You say faith alone saves, yet Simon in Acts 8 believed and was baptized, and just after that he is described as not having is heart right with God, he was in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity and he was going to perish. A believer going to persish?

I expressed my faith in Jesus, yet you said that was not enough to save me, if I was obedient to Jesus instructions? Yet, if I'm diobedient to Jesus instruction, and only believe, I am fine. Do you see how ridiculous that is.

Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". Mark 16:16

DHK said, "... then no, I would not say that you were saved, for man is saved by faith alone, not by faith plus baptism."

By your definition of faith, Noah would have drowned with the rest of the people and the walls of Jericho would still be standing.

Heb 11:7 By faith, Noah prepared an ark. Was any obedience required. If he did anything, any work, it was not by faith.

Heb 11:30 By faith, the walls of Jericho fell down... (Whose faith, the walls or the people's. Obviously, the people's faith)

Was obedience required? If they did any work, it was not by faith, according to your definitions.

Eph 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9not of works, lest anyone should boast."

Gal 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Col 2:12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Now if faith=belief only. These verses confict. (no ark and the walls still standing)

But if faith=belief plus obedience, they are in complete harmony. (ark prepared by faith, walls of Jericho fell by faith, and we are children of God by faith because we have been baptized).

Col 2:12 tells us how we were raised. Raised from what? The watery grave of baptism. How? Through FAITH. Who worked? God. What did he do? Washed away our sins (Acts 22:16, Acts 2:38). He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Mk 16:16. See how this all fits together.

mman

06-09-2005, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by Eric B:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> What do the scriptures say? Eph 5:19, "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs."

The authorization is to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, not just psalms. This is where God authorize songs of human composition.

Now where did he authorize the use of mechanical instruments? Who said "hymns and spiritual songs" were of human composition? They sang other scriptures which were not psalms as well. I used "psalms" as an example of an large supply of songs; not that it was the only type of song in the Bible.
So if one wanted to make an issue of this, they would have just as much to argue on as you on instruments. There were even points in Church history, IIRC, where songs of human composition were frowned upon in favor of scripture--some of the same that shunned instruments! [/QUOTE]Thank you for making my point for me. "Who said 'hymns and spiritual songs' were of human composition?".

Certainly not God. One of the things we are told to sing is "spiritual songs". Since that is not defined, it is left for man to discern.

Can we sing spiritual songs and worldy songs, because they are not prohibited? No. We are to sing spiritual songs. By your logic, any type of song is fine, because he didn't say not to sing wordly songs, so they are not prohibited.

Singing is the authorized music. We don't add to that. Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are the authorized types of songs. We don't add to that.

Good Point. Thanks.

Eric B

06-09-2005, 10:09 PM

You did not even address the point, but rather took it to be your own point. Who said hymns and spiritual songs were not referring to the text of scripture besides psalms, and not written later by Church members; that's what I meant.
And then, we have "that is not defined, it is left for man to discern". It seems only you determine what can be discerned by us if not defined. On one hand, you make an argument that whatever is not MENTIONED or COMMANDED is FORBIDDEN. But in issues of your choosing, if it is not mentioned or commanded, you can decide.

DHK

06-10-2005, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by mman:
That is my point exactly!!!! That is exactly what you are doing.

You cannot reconcile Acts 2:38 and Eph 2:8-9. You will not change your view on Eph 2, therefore Acts 2:38 doesn't mean what it says.

You cannot reconcile Mark 16:16 with Eph 2. You have yet to address Mark 16:16 but it can't mean what it says.

You cannot reconcile Acts 22:16 with Eph 2. You have to twist it from it's logical conclusion.
Actually I can. But you are building your doctrine around the 2 or 3 verses that you have mentioned against:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

John 11:25-26 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Acts 13:38-39 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Acts 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Acts 16:30-31 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Acts 17:11-12 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

Acts 20:20-21 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house, Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Romans 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Romans 3:21-22 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Romans 3:27-28 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Romans 4:4-5 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Romans 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Romans 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Romans 5:8-9 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Romans 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

I am sorry, I could only mannage the first five chapters of Romans after going through the Book of Acts. This post would be way too long if I continued to the end of the New Testament. I think the weight of evidence far outweighs anything that you can give.
Salvation is by faith--faith in the work of Christ.
DHK

Frank

06-10-2005, 03:39 PM

Dhk:
I said no such thing. I never said the trumpets were literal or figurative. The bible says they were used as a warning of an impending event. cf. Joshua 6. Why do you insist on taking the leap they are literal and to be used for worship? This is an irrational conclusion based on the totality of the evidence.
Angels are spirit beings and are not subject to the reward of eternal life. Why would they need a literal trumpet to sound? It makes little sense to me. However, if they use a literal one to warn, so be it. It has nothing to do with the souls of Christians who are subject to the reward of eternal life. It has absolutely nothing to do with instruments in worship. See context.
I am sure that there is NO EVIDENCE for the use of instruments of worship in heaven or earth. Again, this is, and was the issue being addressed. Col. 3:16, Eph. 5:19, I Cor. 14:15, Romans 15:9, Hebrews 2;12, Acts 16:25,26, Mat. 26:30.

DHK

06-10-2005, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Frank:
Dhk:
I said no such thing. I never said the trumpets were literal or figurative. The bible says they were used as a warning of an impending event. cf. Joshua 6. Why do you insist on taking the leap they are literal and to be used for worship? This is an irrational conclusion based on the totality of the evidence.No leap of faith required here Frank, only common sense. A figurative trumpet can't sound a warning sound. I have never heard anything so ridiculous. In order to make a sound the trumpet must be literal. That only makes sense, doesn't it?
Angels are spirit beings and are not subject to the reward of eternal life.Are you denying that they will live for the rest of eternity?
Why would they need a literal trumpet to sound? It makes little sense to me. However, if they use a literal one to warn, so be it. It has nothing to do with the souls of Christians who are subject to the reward of eternal life. It has absolutely nothing to do with instruments in worship. See context.It has much to do with it. If the trumpets are literal, then there is no reason not to believe that the harps being used in worship in heaven are literal. And that is where your bias comes in. Your preconceived ideas will not allow you to believe that there are harps used in toe worship of the King of Kings in heaven. So you allegorize these passages away, and yet you admit that the trumpets could be literal. Well if we take that approach to Scripture, we might as well allegorize the Resurrection like the J.W.'s do!
I am sure that there is NO EVIDENCE for the use of instruments of worship in heaven or earth. Again, this is, and was the issue being addressed. Col. 3:16, Eph. 5:19, I Cor. 14:15, Romans 15:9, Hebrews 2;12, Acts 16:25,26, Mat. 26:30. And with just as much authority I can say I am sure that there is EVIDENCE for the use of Instruments in heaven and in earth. In fact, I believe I have far more evidence than you do.
First of all did you consdier the Old Testament, when you said "on the earth?" Are you seriously going to take the position that there was no instruments used in worship in the Old Testament? I'll await your answer before answering that one.
Is there now worship with instruments on earth? Yes, of course there is.
Will there be instruments in Heaven? The Bible clearly says there will be. You will be denying the Bible if say there won't be.

Thus there were instruments in worship used in the Bible in the Old Testament, and there will be instruments used in Heaven in the future. We can see that from the Book of Revelation. We need only to look at Scripture which deals with the here and now, unless you actually dispute the past and future, which seems to be a very unreasonable position to take.
DHK

mman

06-11-2005, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by DHK:
Actually I can. But you are building your doctrine around the 2 or 3 verses that you have mentioned against:Against? Are you are admitting that Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, I Pet 3:21, Gal 3:27, Rom 6:3-4, Col 2:12 and other verses dealing with baptism are "AGAINST" what you believe? Scripture never contradicts itself or is ever "against" itself. I'll show you why none of these verses are "against" baptism.

You say you can reconcile these verses, but I've never read where you've attempted to do so. I think I know why, but I may be wrong?

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.I think you would agree that the key word is believeth (pisteuo). The Greek noun for believe is pistis; the corresponding verb is pisteuo.

This word does not merely mean mental assent. Jesus did not “trust” (pisteuo) himself to the Jews of Jerusalem (Jn. 2:24).

More on this with some of the following verses.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.Jesus also said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he believeth not shall be condemned".

Looking at these two verses, what does it take to NOT be condemned and what does it take to be condemned? Are these two verses in contradiction or in harmony? I say they are in harmony.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.“He who believes [pisteuo] on the Son has eternal life; but he who obeys not [apeitho] the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” Jn. 3:36 - ASV).

The King James translators did not favor us by rendering two different Greek terms by the same English word. An important distinction was obscured.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:What did God do for the believers who received him? He gave them power to become the sons of God. He didn't say they were the sons of God.

A very similar verse is in Gal 3:26-27, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.''

We are sons of God through faith because we have been baptized INTO Christ.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.Jesus is the way. Jesus said we will be judged by the words he spoke (John 12:48). Did Jesus mean some of the words, most of his words, or all of his word? Did Jesus say, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."? Will we be judged by those words?

John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.In Luke 6:46 "But why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do the things which I say? How could anyone be called a follower who willfully rejected what Jesus said? He said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." How could anyone willfully reject that and be called a follower?

John 11:25-26 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?Rom 6:3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,
6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.
7 For he who has died has been freed from sin.
8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,

How did we die with Christ? In baptism. When did the new life begin? When we were raised. Raised from what? The waters of Baptism.

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.Jesus is the "in any other", so salvation is in Christ. II Tim 2:10 also states that. How do we get INTO Christ? You can search your bible from cover to cover and you will only find that we are baptized INTO Christ. (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27)

Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.What happened just before verse 37?

Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?"

So belief was a requirement for baptism. Sounds just like what Jesus said in Mark 16:16, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. No wonder he went on his way rejoicing.

For someone to deny that preaching Jesus included water baptism would be an attempt deny the obvious.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

Just like on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Those believers were told to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for (eis) the remission of sins.

Acts 13:38-39 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.Following Peter’s sermon on Pentecost, certain devout Jews inquired: “What shall we do?” The apostle commanded them to repent of their sins and be baptized for the remission thereof (2:38). Those who “received his word were baptized” (v. 41).
Luke then says: “And all that believed were together” (v. 44). “Believed” sums up the obedience described previously.
How had those believers obtained the remission of sins? They were baptized for (eis) the remission of sins.
A careful study of the use of the verb Pisteuo in the book of Acts will reveal that in many instances “believing” is a summary term that embraces all of the conditions inherent in the divine plan of salvation, including the command to be immersed in water.
Acts 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.Yes, the Jews and Gentiles are saved in the same manner. As we just noted, both were baptized for the remission of sins.

Acts 16:30-31 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.Were they saved at this point? No, they had not heard the word of the Lord yet.

Now, notice verse 34, Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

Were they believers now? Yes. What happened between verses 31 and 34?

Acts 16:32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.

Again, speaking the word of the Lord, includes instructions for water baptism. They were baptized in the middle of the night. If for no other reason than that, I would think they thought baptism was important.

The word believed is a summary term that embraces all of the conditions inherent in the divine plan of salvation, including the command to be immersed in water.

To be continued:

mman

06-11-2005, 08:09 AM

Part 2.

Acts 17:11-12 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.In Act 2:44 those "who believed " where the same one who had repented and been baptized for the remission of their sins.
Acts 20:20-21 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house, Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.Belief and repentance. The believers in Acts 2 were told to repent and be baptized.

The very next chapter, in Acts 3:19, Peter said, " Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,"

Had Peter changed his message so quickly or was it the same message restated. Lets compare Acts 2:38 and Acts 3:19

Acts 2:38 = Acts 3:19
Repent = Repent
Be Baptized = Be Converted
For the remission of sins = That your sins may be blotted out

Notice Baptism and conversions are synonymous.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.The Gospel, the death burial and resurrection as summed up in I Cor 15. God will take vengeance on those who do not obey the Gospel (II Thess 1:8). How do we obey the death, burial and resurrection? Rom 6:3-4 says we do that in our baptism so we obey a form of that (Rom 6:17).

Romans 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.We do live by faith, no question. Faith comes from God's word (Rom 10:17). Without the type of faith found in Heb 11, we cannot be pleasing to God (Heb 11:6). By faith, Noah prepared an ark and by faith the wall of Jericho fell. Was obedience required? Yes, otherwise Noah would have drowned and the wall may still be standing. Noah did all that God commanded him (Gen 6:22) and the bible calls that faith (Heb 11:7).

Gal 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Romans 3:21-22 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: The righteousness of God which is by faith upon all that believe, is it for those who are in Christ or outside of Christ? Verse 34 says that redemption is in Christ. There is only one way to get into Christ and Paul deals with that in Chapter 6, we are baptized into Christ Jesus.

Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;Jesus' blood was shed for the remission of sins (Matt 26:28). How do we come in contact with that blood? Where was Jesus' blood shed? At his death. Rom 6:4 states that "we were buried with Him through baptism into death". That is where we contact the blood and have remission of sins. That is exactly what Peter said in Acts 2:38, that we are baptized for the remission of sins.

See how simple this is. It all fits together perfectly.

Romans 3:27-28 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.Of course keeping the old law could not provide justification. That is why it had to be removed. He is contrasting the old law to the new law. Yes, we are justified by the new law, not by keeping the old law.

Romans 4:4-5 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.I would hate to know that I had to earn any part of my salvation. Thank God that I don't!

Abraham's faith that is counted for righteousness, was it a living faith or a dead faith (belief only)?

Jas 2:17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble!
20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?
22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?
23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God.
24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Baptism is not a work, as many claim, but an act of faith. This is clearly seen in Col 2:12 "buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."

Baptism is through faith and the only one working is God. Gal 3:26-27 also clearly tie baptism to faith.
Romans 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Romans 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.Of course Rom 6 shows how we can be united with Christ in his death and resurrection, and that is in baptism.
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:Justification by faith. Nothing is made more plain than that. Again, we must have faith as shown in Heb 11 to be pleasing to God (Heb 11:6). If someone falsely says the faith here means belief only, James, as we have already shown, says that we are not justified by a dead faith (belief only as seen in James 2:24), but by a faith that is alive and active.

Romans 5:8-9 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.Justified by his blood. We have already seen how we come in contact with the blood that was shed at his death (Rom 6).

Romans 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.Through Jesus we have receive atonement. No doubt about that. Jesus even told us how, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved".

I am sorry, I could only mannage the first five chapters of Romans after going through the Book of Acts. This post would be way too long if I continued to the end of the New Testament. I think the weight of evidence far outweighs anything that you can give.
Salvation is by faith--faith in the work of Christ.
DHK All your "evidence" is in support of everything I believe. You cannot come up with any scripture that is going to be contrary to Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, the examples in Acts 8, Acts 22:16, Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:26-27, Col 2:12, I Pet 3:21 and others I have listed above.

Truth lies in parallel, never contradicting itself. None of the scriptures you have listed negate or supersede any of the passages dealing with baptism, they only give us further understanding. To understand the purpose of baptism, we need to look at the passages dealing directly with baptism, not with the passages that don't mention it. However, when we do look at those that don't mention it, they will never be in contradiction with those that do mention it.

Now, back to Mark 16:16, did Jesus really mean what he said that "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."?

DHK

06-11-2005, 01:48 PM

Like I said, You have spun a doctrine around two or three verses. You have just demonstrated that for all to see. You have inserted baptism where there is no mention of baptism. Yet you make baptism the foundation of your salvation when the Scripture clearly teaches that it is faith in the blood of Christ. But on a whim you habe thrown that doctrine right out of the window to allow for a damnable doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

Here is a good example:
DHK-- quote:Romans 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

mman--Through Jesus we have receive atonement. No doubt about that. Jesus even told us how, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved".

The verse says nothing about baptism. It speaks of the atonement. But you have forced baptism into the verse anyway to support your preconceived ideas. This is what you have done with every Scriputre I posted. Here is what Peter said about such:

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
DHK

mman

06-11-2005, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by DHK:
Like I said, You have spun a doctrine around two or three verses. You have just demonstrated that for all to see. You have inserted baptism where there is no mention of baptism. Yet you make baptism the foundation of your salvation when the Scripture clearly teaches that it is faith in the blood of Christ. But on a whim you habe thrown that doctrine right out of the window to allow for a damnable doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

Here is a good example:
DHK-- quote:Romans 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

mman--Through Jesus we have receive atonement. No doubt about that. Jesus even told us how, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved".

The verse says nothing about baptism. It speaks of the atonement. But you have forced baptism into the verse anyway to support your preconceived ideas. This is what you have done with every Scriputre I posted. Here is what Peter said about such:

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
DHK Rom 5:11 doesn't talk about faith, repentance, confession or baptism. Are you implying none of these are required for atonement? Surely not. If you try to include faith in our atonement, are you going to accuse yourself of twisting the scriptures. All I stated was how. This verse doesn't tell us how, now does it?

Ok, what is hard to understand about, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." -Gal 3:26-27.

I do not have to twist that. Anyone that doesn't believe this would be the one that have to twist it and try and explain it away.

The simple truth is that I don't have to twist the scripture.

Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, The examples in Acts 8, The whole story in Acts 16, Acts 22:16, Rom 6, Gal 3:26-27, Col 2:12, and I Pet 3:21 need no explaination. They mean what they say. Their meaning is obvious. All I desire is for people to read it for themselves and accept the obvious meaning of each scripture.

Again, you have yet to deal with any of the baptism scriptures. You say you can reconcile it with the verses you quoted, but you won't. I have time and time again.

I certainly agree that some twist what Paul wrote. So let's go to some simple plain teaching of our Lord.

Mark 16:16 - "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.". Was Jesus wrong? Is this too hard to understand?

You accuse me of twisting scripture, but they are so plain, I do not have to twist. They mean what they say. Any explaining by others is to try and explain away their meaning.

Again, scripture does not contradict itself. One scripture does not cancel another one out. Every scripture that I listed is in harmony with the ones you listed.

What do you mean by, "baptismal regeneration"? That means different things to different people. For some, the expression is merely a bit of inflammatory rhetoric designed to intimidate those who affirm that baptism is a part of the regeneration process.

If you are claiming that I am teaching there is power in the water to wash away my sins, then that is COMPLETELY false. I have never, nor will I ever say there is any power in the water. It can't wash away sins or cure leprosy, even though God has used it to do both.

Does baptism play a part of our salvation? Notice the order in every case.

Baptism - Salvation (Mk. 16:16)
Born of Water - Enter Kingdom (Jn. 3:5)
Baptism -Remission of Sins (Acts 2:38)
Baptism - Washing away sins (Acts 22:16)
Baptism - Death of Christ (Rom. 6:3)
Washed - Justified (1 Cor. 6:11)
Baptism - Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13)
Baptism - Clothed With Christ (Gal. 3:27)
Washing of Water - Cleansed (Eph. 5:26)
Baptism - Working of God (Col. 2:12)
Washing of Regeneration - Saved (Tit. 3:5)
Baptism - Saved (1 Pet. 3:21)