1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Churches of Christ...Continued

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by bmerr, Jul 5, 2006.

  1. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    And that's still a double standard, because if you were consistent, then a song book is "another type of music" as well, since the text is being read from and possibly not "made in the heart", and especially if it is really "not needed". Or on the other hand, instrumental accompaniment is not "another type of music, if it is the same melody/tune that is being sung, and is fitting for worship. Basically, you are the one who decides where we have "discretion", and define what "carries out the command", or "adds" to it, and then judge everyone else over your own criteria. That's why this is such a ridiculous issue, and from what some are saying many Cof C groups are abandoning it. It's like someone just sat down and thought "now in what other disputes can I create to claim everyone else is apostate, and only my group practices the truth?" (1 Tim.6:4, Phil.1:15, 16, Rom.1:29, 2 Cor.12:20)
     
    #81 Eric B, Jul 11, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 11, 2006
  2. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    1
    Mman,

    I recognize and appreciate the CoC stance of being "by the book". But I find many problems with how this is actually done.

    The "singing" thing is one example. Those of us who have studied classics in school remember that "psallo" originally meant to pluck a string. There is nothing in the Bible which can be interpreted as prohibiting musical instruments. But this to me seems be a symptm of a greater problem.

    The upshot of my discussions with Bmerr revolves around whether or not baptism actually saves.

    It seems to me that CoC biblical interpretation misses thr forest for the trees. You claim to be a "new testament church" - but yet you have a "rulebook" which rivals the OT law in its arbitrariness.

    My disagreement with Bmerr is that baptism is a work and is something which we are commanded to do - but the salvation we attain comes solely from faith - not from being dunked.

    The vast majority here believe in sola fide. That means that salvation comes only from faith. If salvation is by faith, as Paul clearly points, then works can have no part. The significance of good works is that they will follow true conversion. As I have said to Bmerr the CoC misses the forest form the trees. The new twist to Jesus' priesthood is that the old scheme of justification through works is gone. You cannot claim to be a new testament church if you insist that believers must do this, this, and that in order to be saved. As an example - the NT commands us to be baptized. But what if a person accepts Christ and dies before he can be baptized? Of course he is saved - it was his faith and hence willingness to submit to baptism which was saving - not the act of getting wet. To localize salvation in the ritual of baptism is to deny that Jesus' righteousness was enough to buy our freedom.
     
  3. bmerr

    bmerr New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eric,

    bmerr here. The idea of an expedient has to do with how a command is carried out. For example, in Matt 28:19, Jesus commanded us to "Go". Well, how shall we go? One may walk, run, ride a mule, drive, fly, etc, as long as he goes. Our method of going is an expedient to the command to go.

    The principle is that under the NT, one cannot look to the OT for authorization, for the OT is done away with. It is no longer an acceptable avenue of approach to God.

    Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are "sung". Instruments are "played". One may sing alto, tenor, or bass, but one cannot sing a piano.

    How is it that you understand the principle of "explicit command" with regard to incense and wood, but you cannot seem to make the connection with singing? God commanded us to sing, but many insist on adding to God's command by having someone play an instrument. The playing of instruments is not authorized.

    Can one sing with grace in their hearts to the Lord with anything other than their voice? That's "vocal music". It is the fruit of the lips (Heb 13:15). It is able to teach and adomonish. No mechanical instrument can fit the bill.

    God has always had the right to expect man's obedience. Right from the Garden, God has given man instruction, and man has had the choice to obey or disobey. God's commands have changed, according to the dispensation of grace, but His expectation of man's obedience remains.

    How can one make the claim of believing God, unless that one also obeys God's commands?

    Baptism is one of God's commands under the NT. You can obey it, or not.

    I looked at that thread. BD17 told me where to find it. Jesus was legally Joseph's seed, and thus tied to Coniah. He is sitting on David's throne now. He cannot sit on a throne in Jerusalem without violating God's word through Jeremiah. O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD.

    In Christ,

    bmerr



    So that means yes, the [Bible teaches] there will no more physical universe; only heaven and hell?[/quote]
     
  4. BD17

    BD17 New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    But he can because, as the posts I referred you to show, Christ was not physically from Jeconiah's line. If he were then you would be corrct in your statement, but he is not.
     
  5. BD17

    BD17 New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are reading that incorrectly Jer. says that none of his seed shall sit on the throne. Since Christ was not physically descended from Joseph he is not from Jeconiah's seed, thereore the curse does not apply to Christ. And God is not made a liar because of it.
     
  6. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    Once again, you are confusing exclusive language from non-exclusive. Incense and wood are physical items, and you either use one or the other. Singing and playing an instrument are actions, that can be done at the same time, one not contradicting the other.
    So while playing may not itself "carry out" singing, if it doesn't somehow cancel it out, there is no reason to declare it "forbidden", or demand that the NT has to specifically mention it tor it to be "authorized". If anything, that shows that it was not an issue, as it would be specifically mentioned as "banned" if it were so important as you and other groups make it out to be. On the other hand; a lot of the things you consider "expedient" can be questioned as hindering the commands, like having a building, and paid leadership everyone has to pay for, and therefore an incorporated organization; and other stuff like fancy clothes; with all this being money that could be going to the Gospel.

    But that's precisely what you do with all of those examples of God commanding "some work that doesn't make sense as an 'act of faith'", to prove that literal water baptism is in itself what saves. Sure, those are priciples, or examples of faith, but the dynamic has changed, (as for one thing, even then, those acts did not save spiritually, but it was the faith that was manifest in the acts, not comprised of them, that "was counted for righteousness".

    The thing you don't understand, is that expecting man's obedience is one thing; saving us based on it is quite another! No one is arguing that God does not and has not always expected obedience. But the OT shows that man could never meet God's requirement. This is why trying to turn "instructions" into what God's grace really is is impossible. The dispensation of grace is not simply a new set of instructions, that we can still die before being able to obey and end up lost on a pure technicality! That is not grace at all, and that's why your position is so off base.
     
  7. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    "To be silent where the Bible is silent, and to speak where the Bible is speak," can only be valid if you know and read the original languages. Every translation loses meaning in its translation. We can see that as we go in circles around certain verses such as Acts 2:38. You don't know the language. It loses some of its meaning in translation. It has idioms. What does "to go through the eye of an needle" mean? (keeping in mind that they didn't have the stainless steel needle that we are accustomed to).
    What does it mean "to gird up the loins of your mind?" These are Greek idioms. Unless you know the Greek the meaning is lost. How can you be silent where the Bible is silent, and speak where the Bible speaks if you don't know what the Bible says. You can only do that if you know what the Bible says. To be perfectly consistent in your statement you ought to be reading your Bible from the original languages. BTW, do you know that there is no such thing as a unicorn, though one is mentioned in the Old Testament?
    DHK
     
  8. bmerr

    bmerr New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eric,

    bmerr here. The point is that incense, gopher wood, and singing are all commanded by God. Adding to any of these is adding to God's commands. Singing and playing are two different actions.

    Something else many don't seem to realize, is that the command to sing is (from what I've been told, anyway) what's called a "reflexive reciprocal" command. In other words, I'm singing to you, you're singing to me, he's singing to her, she's singing to him, etc. It' s how we teach and admonish one another.

    If one insists on adding the playing of a musical instrument, then the whole congregation must also play an instrument. what a train wreck that would be!

    Playing does not "carry out" singing, thus it is not an expedient. In some cases, (depending on the skill of the pianist), it actually does cancel out the singing! :laugh: Regardless, a piano, or organ, etc, no matter how skillful the player may be, cannot teach or admonish. No instrument can. Nor can an instrument have grace in it's heart. Mechanical instruments simply do not meet the criteria for the music commanded in worship.

    Though neither one of us would claim men as an authority, if you are a Baptist, you may be surprised to learn that well respected Baptists, as well as men from other denominations, once held the same postition on the instrument as faithful churches of Christ do. If you like, I'll post some quotes from Charles Spugeon, Adam Clark, and a few others. The point would be to demonstrate that faithful churches of Christ are simply still holding to ground long since surrendered by most denominations.

    Seems to me that a building in which to assemble would be profitable, so that one could focus on the message, instead of how hot, cold, wet, windy, dark, etc it was outside.

    To my knowledge, elders are not paid. We do support a man who preaches and teaches us regularly, so that he is able to spend his time in study (from which we benefit), instead of working all the time, like the rest of us slobs.

    How one dresses for worship is an indication of his attitude toward worship and God. Appropriate (modest) clothing is not all that expensive.

    What good is a faith that is not manifested by appropriate actions? Faith apart from works is dead. So are works apart from faith. I don't understand how you are making the point, but not getting the point. Baptism apart from faith in Christ, repentance from sin, and confession of Christ as Lord is useless. I've never advocated salvation by "baptism alone".

    The writer of Hebrews must not have understood that, either, for heb 5:9 tells us that christ is become the author of eternal salvation unto all htem that obey him.

    Try to refrain from making the fantastic leap from required obedience to required sinless perfection. Nobody's advocating sinless perfection. But anyone can perfectly obey the gospel, which brings one "into Christ" where all spiritual blessings are (Eph 1:3), including resting in the righteousness and perfection of Christ.

    Hold on, there, cowboy! It's the Bible, not bmerr, and not mman, that describes the grace of God that bringeth salvation to all men as teaching us (Titus 2:11-12). We didn't write it, we're just reading it.

    To fail to obey the gospel is not to be "lost on a technicality". It is simply refusal to obey God's commands. If the gospel were presented properly, no one would want to "postpone their baptism 'till next week". they would understand it's importance, and thus, it's neccessity, and submit to it immediately, as we see again and again in the book of Acts.

    The problem is that the gospel is not presented properly in denominational assemblies.

    In Christ,

    bmerr
     
  9. bmerr

    bmerr New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    DHK,

    bmerr here. At some point, everyone must rely on the scholarship of others. Even the Greek scholar relies on those who taught him.

    Don't get me wrong: a knowledge of the original languages would certainly be profitable, and those who take the time to learn them do well. But is it possible to go to heaven without a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew? I sure hope so! It is at this point that I must rely on the scholarship of others to provide me with a reliable translation of the Scriptures.

    It is well known that a perfect word-for-word translation is rarely, if ever possible. But it is possible to translate a message from one language to another sufficiently to "get the point across" reliably. With regard to the Scriptures, the KJV, ASV (1901), and KNJV are widely held as being reliable (though perhaps not perfect) translations of the original tongues in which they were written.

    As far as idioms, would it be acceptable to rely on men who do read and understand Greek to explain what these various nuances mean?

    Look, learning is a process, correct? As I learn more about where and what the Bible speaks, and where it doesn't, I'll do my best to be faithful to it. You do your best to do the same. Fair enough?

    In Christ,

    bmerr
     
  10. J. Jump

    J. Jump New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    Messages:
    4,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is the a problem that I see with this statement. You are trying to compare two different sets of people, actually three really. You are trying to compare a "personal rights" oriented American with a group of people that grew up expecting a kingdom, expecting God to deliver on His promise, that was based on their obedience.

    These people grew up under and strict obedience type of lifestyle and they really already knew and understood what obedience meant.

    Here in America we are more worried about my rights than we are about obedience. "Christians" don't even obey the speed limits for crying out loud.

    Then you throw children into the mix, and they haven't even fully learned what it means to obey their parents yet, much less a God they can't see.

    Teaching/Discipleship is the key. Some people, who have grown up in Church and heard all the lingo it will probably click a lot faster than it will for someone that is saved off the street becuase of someone sharing their faith.

    Another reason baptism is not required for salvation, but had to do with obedience afterwards. When we are born again we are born as babies, not full-grown mature Christian disciples. Spiritual growth is a proces, and comes at an individual pace.
     
  11. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    They still are not mutually exlusive as those physical substances are. Even if you speak of "adding" and using both, to add another type of incense means less sweet incense, and to add another type of wood means less gopher wood. Playing an instrument does not of a necessity mean less singing.

    That would seem to be what that passage is saying. But if that's the case, then does your group do that? If a church objected to adding instruments on the grounds that they sing to each other, then I would not be able to argue as much on instruments. But if you all are just doing the same thing as the rest of us, and "everybody now take out the hymnals and turn to #whatever; OK, first verse...", and all sing "to God" or whatever, then this instruments issue is a ridiculous thing to dispute over.

    (While congeregational singing is one thing, still, singing to one anoher does seem highly odd, and unheard of. Basically, everyone would be doing a solo, and not all are good enough singers for that. Woudn't it be chaotic just from all these people singing different things at the same time even if there were no instruments? I don't think this is telling us how to run part of our "worship service", but rather a general attitude we are to have.)

    People have to beware of that, and not show off, as happens sometimes. But I was not trying to say it was expedient, but rather thay it did not necessarily cancel out singing, and thus not banned on any such assumption.

    I've heard those before, because over on the music forum, people trying to advocate traditional (plain) hymns only (with instruments or not) often use that, just as you do, to answer our point of David's dancing. They go even further and try to go back to the ECF's. But all of those people are men, and the Church had been influenced by platonic dualism, which assumed worship should be all somber and plain, and they projected this back to the NT, and then had to regard David as something God "allowed" under the "dispensation of the flesh" but was never really pleased with, as plain worship is now "the newness of the spirit". But none of that is taught in either testament, but is rather people reading the Bible through their own philosophy. And since Primitive Baptists hold the identical view as yours, it figures that this teaching existed in Baptist history. Still, that doesn;t mean it was right. One group, www.piney.com/MuPsalm150.html goes further, using the same line of reasoning and allegorization to show that singing altogether is figurative, and not to be literally done, but really only means "speaking to God in prayer and listening to Him through His Word". "Worship" means "prostrate"; which "eliminates the physical possibility to play music"!

    There was also the home, as it was originally (esp. after they were ejected from the synagogues). That is still more simple than having to maintain a bulding.

    Well, that's your church. Aren; some cofC's run more just like other Churches? Still, in the NT, the person who stayed and studied like that was a literal "elder" (older person, who was too old to work), not someone paid just to stay home and prepare sermons all week. (Or to visit the sick, ahd such, which was not relegated to just one person). And this was probably more along the lines of food and a place to stay, (as all the elderly were to be "honored", idelly by their children), rather than a "paycheck". Money (as well as food and shelter) were given to travelling ministers (such as the spostles themselves) not stationary young ministers who were able to work.

    I'm not talking modesty, but rather dressy, which is realy not necessary for worship.

    No, but you still make that the point or moment of actual salvation. That is not merely a "manifestation" of a faith that saves, but rather an act resulting in salvation, which makes salvation by a work.

    And it has been explained that "obey the Gospel" is to "believe" it, not to do specific works.
    And you're taking that passage and running wild with it, dogie! Whoah!:laugh:
    That does not say that the salvation is in following the instructions. For then, we would be right back to the dilemma of the Israelites under the Law of Moses. What grace is that, that they didn't have, then?
    The grace of God is forgiveness of sins through Christ, which had appeared, and once we are fogiven, then we are not to go back to the sins that warranted the forgiveness in the first place, as Paul teaches elsewhere. Also, since part of the grace was superseding the letter for the spirit, it is the spirit that convicts us to deny lusts, and those other things, while a person following the letter might miss that (as the legalists back then were). So still, the "teaching" itself is NOT the "grace", bt rather it comes from the grace, as something additional to the salvation, which is by grace.
    That's putting the delay on the person, but you still admitted that you might not baptize the person right away until you were sure that he understood the truth and was not phony and such. Even if you were going to take him to the nearest pool or whaterver right then, he could still die on the way, and you can't say he "refused to obey the command".
     
    #91 Eric B, Jul 12, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 12, 2006
  12. bmerr

    bmerr New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eric,

    bmerr here. Would you agree that it is at least possible to worship God acceptably without the instrument? If it is, then why insist on adding another command (play) and a form of music that cannot teach nor admonish? Surely the safer, Biblically sure ground is to simply sing as a congregation, is it not?

    As we sing as a congregation, we speak to each other, teaching and admonishing one another. The melody, or accompaniment, is made in the heart as the fruit of our lips is offered to God. The instrument that is to accopmany our singing is the attitude of our hearts as we worship.

    As with most groups, the one leading the singing instructs everyone to "open to hymn #...", so I guess we have that much in common.

    Right, congregational singing is what I was speaking of. If everyone were to sing a different song at the same time, very little teaching and admonishing could be done, to be sure.

    Some have used the excuse, "We don't sing well, and we need the help". I would ask, "You don't ding well enough for whom?" God is the audience. He made our voices, and He knows what we sound like. If the human ear is what we're trying to please, we have the wrong object of worship.

    Obviously, we should offer our best, but if my brother two rows back is tone deaf, (and he is), yet he sings with passion for the Lord, and with a right heart for worship, God is pleased, and that's what matters, not whether or not I enjoy his singing.

    I'll have to finish up later. Time for Wed. night service.

    In Christ,

    bmerr
     
  13. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    No one is adding another command to sing with instruments. It is a choice, an option; not a command. We sometimes sing without instruments as well (especially when the piano player doesn't show up :) )
    Thus it is acceptable to worship with or without music. It was in the Old Testament. There is no reason why it shouldn't be in the New. It is also found in Heaven. You are going to have a hard time implementing your beliefs in Heaven where there are instruments.
    Was it safer for Paul to walk from place to place as he did?
    For me it is safer (in this city) to drive. It is therefore unbiblical?
    Your argument is from silence. The New Testament is as silent on instruments as it is on using cars. If one is wrong so is the other. The piano (as we know it today) had not been invented (just as the car had not been invented. And yet the Bible says make a joyful noise unto the Lord. Our piano helps make "our noise" a bit more joyful--especially for people like me.
    DHK
     
  14. bmerr

    bmerr New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eric,

    bmerr here. Back to responding to yhour post.

    There is often a tendency to avoid one extreme by going to another. Some groups' worship tends toward emotionalism, but is lacking in the Bible. Others, to avoid this extreme, resort to the no smiling, no display of emotion, ritualism. John 4:24 requires spirit (attitude) as well as truth (God's word).

    In the NT, we have the apostolic admonition to "Let all things be done decently and in order" (1 Cor 14:40) in regard to the worship assembly.

    Well, what truth there is in Primitive Baptist circles, I can agree with. And you're right, just because one group or another teaches something doesn't make the doctrine right or wrong. Most any religion contains some truth. As I said earlier, most denominational bodies used to hold the same view of the instrument as faithful churches of Christ do today.

    Just as an example, here's a quote from Charles H. Spurgeon, from his book, "The Treasury of David", commenting on Ps 42:

    "David appears to have had a particularly 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 refined niceties of a choir, or the blowing of wind from inanimate bellows and pipes. We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it."

    Not that I am aware of. There are some congregations that do not have qualified men to serve as elders. I have heard of some cases where men are qualified, but do not desire the office. In cases where there are no elders, the men of the congregation do the best they can, I guess. So far, I've not been in a congregation without elders, so my knowledge of that situation is quite limited.

    The Bible says, "Even so, hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel (1 Cor 9:14). All of our elders are working men, (except Bro. Raymond, who is retired, but still works with his son), and our preacher is a young man (23), just out of the Memphis School of Preaching.

    The qualifications for elders are found in 1 Tim 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9. Though elders are usually older men, advanced age to the point of infirmity is not required. And you are correct, the work of visiting the sick, etc, is not relegated to one man. It is for all of us.

    You are absolutely right. It is certainly possible to overdress for worship. A tuxedo, or formal evening gown for example, would be overdressing. "Modest" just means "appropriate".

    No, I do not make baptism the point of salvation. The Bible does. Rom 6:17-18 tells us that the Romans were made free from sin when they obeyed form the heart that form of doctrine delivered unto them. The gospel had been delivered unto them, and they obeyed a form of it. The foundation of the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. What is a form of this that is commanded in the NT? Is it not baptism?

    In Christ,

    bmerr
     
  15. bmerr

    bmerr New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    DHK,

    bmerr here. Should it not also be a choice or option to enjoy peanut butter and jelly with the Lord's Supper then? It wouldn't replace the unleavened bread or fruit of the vine, we could just add it to the crackers.

    Of course, nobody would really suggest doing such, but the logic used to support the instrument is the same. The command is to "sing", and some choose to have one or more of their number "play". It is adding to the commands of God. It's transgressing, or going beyond what is written.

    What goes on in Heaven is not what we here on earth need to concern ourselves with. Rather, what has God commanded us to do in the church should be the question.

    Every reference to music associated with Jesus and His disciples, on earth, both before and after the Cross, specifies singing. Musical instruments were available, they just weren't used.

    An automobile is a method of going. A piano is not a method of singing. Again, let me make clear that it is not personal preference that decides the issue for me. I personally like instrumental music. I am a musician. But I also love God, and to love God is to keep His commandments. God has commanded singing for NT worship. I will sing.

    In Christ,

    bmerr
     
  16. Darron Steele

    Darron Steele New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, the Bible does not say that we cannot have a snack alongside enjoying the Lord's Supper. Perhaps a nice fellowship meal before the Lord's Supper. However, the Bible does say that only the bread and the grape drink are part of the Lord's Supper. While I would certainly not advocate this, Scripture does not condemn it -- and binding in this regard is going beyond what is written.

    They were just not mentioned. Psalm 150 is directed to "everything that hath breath" and it admonishes us to use musical instruments. Nowhere does the New Testament ever set aside this admonishment. Ephesians 5:19 tells us to use Psalms, and John 4:23 tells us that we are to worship with what is true, so Psalm 150 must still be true. I wish my Church of Christ congregation would not always use the piano, but I did not write the Bible.

    You are singing whether or not there are instruments being played, so the instrument is irrelevant. In contrast to you, I prefer a capella singing, but I have to leave that as a preference.
     
    #96 Darron Steele, Jul 12, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 12, 2006
  17. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Then the words of Christ, as He taught his disciples to pray in the Lord's Prayer: "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" are completely irrelevant to you?
    DHK
     
  18. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    1
    Bmerr,

    God has commanded singing for NT worship. I will sing.

    But there is no command not to play instruments. If one likes a capella music then good! But one cannot go so far as to say that instruments are wrong in worship - because the Bible just does not say that. This is just another example of how the CoC, perhaps trying to be faithful to NT tradition, once again shows a very old testament-like rigidity.


     
  19. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    And as the others have said, the congregation is still singing. (Instruments can be useful in keeping the tempo and melody, especially for those who are not good singers).

    So basically, it's the normal congregational singing. You made it sound like you were talking about independant one on one singing, or something like that. So you do engage in regular congregational singing. So then instruments playing the same melody is not going to create any such problem, and it is nothing to raise a dispute about.

    "degradation"? On what basis does he claim that? There may be an a-capella song that is nice and its sound would be changed by adding instruments; but we're talking about the idea of God banning instruments, not how 'nice" is sounds without them,
    They may not have been available to the Church, which was in constant persecution, and instruments may have costed money, and there may not have been many musicians around, and if there were, they may just not have had time to set up a musical performance. It seems to be out of necessity that they were left out (evidenced by them not being mentioned at all). There is no reason to think it was a "ban".

    And as I pointed out, that is speaking mostly of travelling ministers and apostles; those who "promulgate" (carry forth) the Gospel.


    That passage doesn;t even refer to baptism. I'm not sayign they weren't baptized, but you can't just plug that in everytime you encounter such a statement. For one thing, yet again, "obey the gospel" means to believe it, not any work that you may do in response to belief.
     
    #99 Eric B, Jul 13, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2006
  20. bmerr

    bmerr New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    Darron,

    bmerr here. In Heb 7:14, we read, "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood".

    Why could Jesus not be a priest under the Mosaic Law?

    Why is it that priests could only come from the tribe of Levi?

    Is this not an argument from silence? It is. God at no time ever prohibited priests from coming from the other tribes. He simply commanded that the priests come from the tribe of Levi. In doing so, He excluded all men from other tribes from serving as priests.

    Concerning the Lord's Supper, I was not suggesting a snack before, or after the Lord's supper, I suggested peanut butter and jelly as an additional part of the Lord's Supper, since they are not forbidden in the Scriptures. We'd still have the unleavened bread and fruit of the vine, we'd just put peanut butter and jelly on the unleavened bread, to make it taste better. Since it's not forbidden, it should be okay, right?

    This is the same reasoning used by the proponents of the instrument in worship.

    The OT is true. The OT also commands animal sacrifices. Shall we offer them as well? Again, in the NT, God has commanded us to sing. If one adds the playing of an instrument to singing, he has added to the commandments of the Lord. He has gone beyond what is written. Music in NT worship is to be the fruit of our lips (Heb 13:15), it is to teach and admonish (Col 3:16), it is to be "to yourselves" (Eph 5:19). The melody, or accompaniment is to be "in your hearts" (Eph 5:19). No mechanical instrument can meet these criteria.

    Whoever is playing the instrument while the others are singing is out of the doctrine of Christ. So also are those who approve of it, and those who join in with it. I urge you to repent and return to the pattern found in the NT. There is no authorization for the instrument.

    I did not say I preferred instrumental music. My point was that my preference does not matter. I like the instrument as an art and a science, but it has no place in the worship of the New Testament church.

    In Christ,

    bmerr
     
Loading...