Musical Instruments in Christ's church [2]

It seems funny to me, that DOTF likes to use Greek to push his point but when I used it, now all the sudden, its not acuate for the New Testament. Sorry dude your losing ground with every post you make. I used the Strongs numbers and proved to you without a doubt but you refute that it means what it says however when you use Greek we are suppose to see that as Clearly proof. What gives?

 

The Bible states that our hearts are evil--"deceitful above all things and desperately wicked;" only God can know the heart. That is what God states about the heart. It is not supposition on your part or the COC. It is fact. God said it. It is truth. It has far more authoritative value than anything that the COC can come up with.

The Bible is my authority. I need not go any further than that. The COC is not my authority. They mislead people away from the truth. They are non-authoritative. I will take the Word of God over the COC every time.

And so it is. But the heart is not the source of the conviction. The Holy Spirit is. If the heart is left to itself it is the source of wickedness every time. No good thing will come out of the heart if left to itself. Jesus stated that plainly.
--There is none that doeth good; no, not one. (Paul stated it also).

Darby's translation (as well as Young's)
Matthew 22:37 And he said to him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy understanding.
--The general meaning of the verse (according to Barnes) is that you need to love the Lord your God with "all your faculties." There is no real differentiation.

Yes music is made with instruments. Check both Old and New Testaments (esp. Revelation). Music is made with instruments, absolutely.

Illogical reasoning. The verse doesn't say that. If the verse said "singing and making melody "in the church". Does that mean that the "church" is an instrument (church defined as building in my sentence). "In the heart" is simply a prepositional phrase and does not give any definition of being an instrument. That is nonsense. There is no instrument mentioned in the verse, except in the very definitions of the words themselves as JFB so adequately shows. But you pass him by saying his definitions don't apply to NT believers, even though he is commenting on a NT verse. Nah, he is just writing for the good of his health, ain't he?

Common understanding?? Hah!
"in the air;" in the heart, in the wind, in the store, in the church, in the mind, in the flesh, in the dining-hall, etc.
Just common understanding that you assert that all of the above "in the____" are instruments?" Can you come up with any better logic than that? Prepositional phrases don't define or automatically mean an instrument. That is common sense. However words like "melody," "psalms," do.

You are in a state of denial.
Psalms--which are generally accompanied by an instrument. It can't get any more specific than that. There is no exception for you to crawl out of. You are just trying to deny the very definition of the word that was given. That is just despicable that you refuse evidence.
"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

You are not quoting primary definitions.
Basic definition: a set piece of music, i.e. a sacred ode (accompanied with the voice, harp or other instrument (psalmos 5568)

Strong's: Probably strengthened from psao (to rub or touch the surface; compare 5597); to twitch or twang, i.e. to play on a stringed instrument (celebrate the divine worship with music and accompanying odes):--make melody, sing (psalms).
The obvious reference to NT instruments are not omitted. Why are you trying to mislead people into thinking that they are??

That is only your pre-conceived ideas; not found in the lexicons, or in the Bible. The definitions of both psalmos and of psallo both include instruments in both Thayer and Strong's. Buy you sit there and deny it.

That is a deceptive remark. Neither lexicon excludes any reference to musical instruments as I have already demonstrated to you, and as JFB has demonstrated to you. The problem is with you. It is a matter of unbelief.

The word for melody includes instruments as does psalms. "In the heart" indicates place, not instrument. It is foolishness to think that it refers to instrument; it does not.
Conybeare and Howson were simply making a contrast between the music of the beleiver to the music of the heathen. Both come from the heart. One from a saved spiritual heart and the other from an unsaved heart full of wickedness. They both involve instruments.

I infer from what you say that you would accept the "words" of Marilyn Manson's songs as long as the instruments are removed, and he sings from his heart.
Perhaps you praise the beautiful music of Marsha Stevens, a lesbian, who avidly promotes "Christian" homosexual music (CCM). If she sings without instruments then the words are all right as long as she sings from the heart, right? It doesn't matter if she is a lesbian or not?
The HEART is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it.

 

That is what I have noticed on the two threads dedicated to this.

S/he alleges -- despite absolutely no statement of Scripture -- that musical instruments are displeasing to God. S/he talks to us as if we are doing something wrong and that the burden of proof is on us to explain `Why we think we can get away with it.' Remember, there is not a single statement of Scripture that shows God has reversed His pleasure in musical instruments.

Show DefenderoftheFaith explicit Scriptures that show
1) God's approval of musical instruments, and
2) that New Testament-era Christians saw nothing at issue with musical instruments,
then s/he dismisses the Scripture passages as not applicable.

Then there is the meaning of the English word "sing." We all know that a "singer" is still "singing" even if s/he is playing a musical instrument. However, to DefenderoftheFaith, what an English word means in English is not applicable.

Show DefenderoftheFaith the meanings of relevant Greek words. S/he loses interest.

After it is evident that the Scriptures do not support the ban a portion of the Churches of Christ place on musical instruments, DefenderoftheFaith cites the opinions of mortals long after the New Testament era. Suddenly, now that it is evident that the Scriptures do not support this ban, s/he gives a lot of weight to the opinions of men.

One would think s/he would simply give up trying to convince us to implement a similar ban, and just continue to live under the ban among the group s/he is a part of. It is hard for me to fathom what makes DefenderoftheFaith continue to waste time on this.

 

Im sorry but I can't resist making this statement but here it goes

"Well isnt it clear to you"

LOL
IM sorry I couldnt help it.:godisgood:

 

Is it right for a church to have a school? I want to know how you come to your answer and from what source or lack of what source.

 

I have already made my cases from Scripture. Any reader can go back through the first thread and see that I have done so -- and you simply dismissed the passages as not applicable.

As far as debating you directly, there is no point in it. You have shown that yourself.

There is, however, some merit to confirming others' observations of your style. Others are noticing exactly what I have noticed.

 

The Bible says that the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.
Do you believe you have a wicked nature; a sinful nature? If you don't then I can only assume that you believe in the "goodness of man," an anti-Christian heresy, detrimental to the very preaching of the gospel.

It is primarily with. If the person doesn't "have" his instrument "with" him, how can he make music without the instrument being "with" him. The instrument lying on the ground without the human touch does not make music in itself.

The verse does not say that the heart is an instrument. That is your imagination that says that, and only your imagination.

It can when I define it that way. Look in a dictionary and you will find several definitions of the word "church." I made it abundantly clear that I was using the definition of church as in a building (even if it is not the Biblical one). The word is still used that way today. It is a common definition. If you can't accept an example without confrontation I feel sorry for you.

So you redefine what I have said, and miss my point altogether. Why not just rewrite my entire post. You won't believe what I say anyway.

Again, your imagination is speaking here. Why do you do that? Why not let the Word of God speak for itself. It never says that the heart is an instrument. That is something that your imagination is conjuring up that the Bible does not say. It could say: "make music in your house." But your house doesn't become the instrument. Your reasoning here is very illogical, and quite contrary to all principles of sound hermeneutics. I suggest you take the advice of the Apostle Paul and rightly divide the word of truth, instead of butchering it.

Spirituality is not the point here. It is the grammar of the sentence, and the meaning of the words. You can't take a simple prepositional phrase that defines place, and say that it means "instrument." That is foolishness. "In the store" means instrument as much as "in the heart" means instrument. IOW, it is foolish to say that either one means instrument. They don't.

Here is what was said:
"Psalms--which are generally accompanied by an instrument. It can't get any more specific than that. There is no exception for you to crawl out of. You are just trying to deny the very definition of the word that was given."
--So, just deny the definition. It is a commentary and definition of a word specifically commenting on the church in Ephesus, and you have the gall to say it doesn't apply to Christians! That is plain unbelief.

The primary definitions are not the ones that are lost; they are the ones that are used. Your statement about Strong and Thayer is wrong. You are making things up. If the primary definition includes instruments, how can it be otherwise? It is obscure definitions (like yours) that are lost.

I read Thayer's complete definition again. I found no such statement as you are making up. Time is not a factor here. The word includes instruments. The primary meaning has not changed; only your desire for its meaning to change is unchanged.

Both do come from the heart. If you deny that you deny the very words of Jesus. Do you deny Christ?

Mark 7:21-22 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:

--All manner of sinful music, songs, and the most wicked of sin comes out of the heart. How can you say otherwise in the light of Scripture?
Of course not.

If you do not believe that man has a depraved nature, then do you believe he is as snless as God is. What heresy is this?

 

HP: Agreed

HP: Here is where you go wrong. You are assuming without proof that a heart that is desperately wicked according to Scripture is synonymous with a tendency to sin, suggesting both are sin. Scripture also never once speaks of a sinful nature. Even in the passage you allude to says nothing about the heart being desperately wicked from birth as original sin indicates.

Whatever is natural is part of the sensibilities and is indeed a proclivity to sin but not sin itself. Read James. James tells us when sin is conceived and it is not from the beginning. Sin is the results of yielding the will to evil inclination or temptation, not the temptation or inclination itself. In a nut shell, you confuse the sensibilities with the will, an influence to sin with sin itself, a common but devastating notion in the true understanding of morality.

HP: Yet another completely false assumption, a paper duck of your own making and not in accordance to reality. Morality cannot be predicated of the will until the will makes a choice. Man is not innately good or evil, but created with a capacity of either. Certainly as a result of the fall man’s natural propensities via the sensibilities have been greatly affected and become strong forces inclining the will to selfishness, but again sin is NOT conceived, (and for that matter good could not be conceived,) until the will voluntarily without force or coercion makes a choice either for good or evil.

Sin is the voluntary and willful disobedience of a known commandment of God, not a mere inclination or proclivity to selfish choices. Men cannot be born sinful or holy, righteous or unrighteous. Evil or good in any moral sense are both the results of the choices of the will. Both sin and righteousness are the results of formed intents of the will subsequent to the age of moral accountability, not mere forces or proclivities upon the will that serve as inclinations to or as occasions to sin.

One destroys all just accountability for sin, and destroys the heinousness of sin when one makes sin the mere necessitated results of ones nature, and that contrary to Scripture. Again, Scripture never refers to the nature we are born with as a ‘sinful nature.’

 

If you truly believe this, then you believe that you are no different then Adam before the fall. The curse on Adam has had no effect on you. The curse on the earth has had no effect on you. You fall outside of the Adamic curse referred to in Genesis 3, though it is promised for all generations.
You are claiming, not only to be like Adam before the fall, but also to be like the Second Adam, the other person without any tainted sin nature. He was without any sin nature because He was born by a virgin to avoid inheriting the sin nature. But how did you manage it?
To be just like Adam before the fall; just like Christ without sin, is quite the claim!!

 

DOTF simply ignores the scripture and twist it to make it into something that its not. We have proven without a shadow of a doubt, over and over yet he still trying to twist the scripture into something thats clearly not there. Brother, I suggest that you clear your mind of the lies that you have been taught and read the scriptures in context. You will be suprised at what comes to light when you read the scriptures in context instead of one line here and one line there.:jesus:

 

HP: Simply and patently false. There is miles of difference between the way we are born and that and Adam, yet in SOME, or should I say one respect, we have the same powers as did he. Adam was born with perfect natural propensities. The sensibilities he was born with were not corrupted from the fall as the sensibilities we ae born with. Adam was born perfect in all his natural attributes. We are born physically depraved, some to the point of being totally incapable of moral agency, i.e. even born anencephaly. You, evidently to try an paint my ideas in the worst light possible, are guilty of completely misrepresenting my sentiments. You fight in debate as one that beateth in the wind when you assume those tactics DHK. Try to accurately and fairly depict the sentiments of the other for a change instead of creating paper ducks to shoot at that are of your own imagination.

HP: Again, a complete an false depiction of my sentiments. What’s new?

HP: Yet another completely false summary of anything that I have ever written on this board. In this world we will always have a nature, speaking of nature as a reference to the natural sensibilities, that is affected greatly by the fall. What we are able to do as a result of the new birth and the power granted to us as believers when we avail ourselves to the help of the Holy Spirit, is to act in agreement to the principles of Love and Christ, contrary to the passions and drive of the natural depraved sensibilities. We as believers can overcome the selfish influences that try to influence our formed intents by the power of the Holy Spirit in our lives, again when we avail our selves to His proffered help.

HP: I do not avoid being born with a nature or tendency to sin. Bear in mind that being born with a ‘nature’ to sin, ‘nature’ depicting warped natural sensibilities that serve as influences to selfishness, is not the same thing as the false doctrine of original sin implies we are born with. No man is born with original sin, for sin is the transgression of the law and sin is not imputed where there is no law. Man is born totally physically depraved with depraved sensibilities as a direct result of physical depravity brought on by the fall of man.

HP: Notice clearly the paper duck DHK creates to shoot at. I trust that the reasonable and careful reader can see the completely false manner in which he vaily attempts to paint my beliefs.

No, we are not ‘just like Adam” before the fall in spite of your false allegations. I have never insinuated or stated that we are.

 

The question was never original sin, but rather a sin nature, a depraved nature.
Now you admit that you have a depraved nature. You have contradicted your previous posts. I have not been speaking about original sin in my posts. I have been careful to avoid the use of the term. I consistently use the term "depravity," "depraved nature," "sin nature," etc. What you have denied, now you admit. That is a step in the right direction, or is it just an admission "HP was wrong."

Without admitting that everyone has a sin nature, you certainly inferred that you were just like Adam, without the effect of the law.

 

HP: You are beside yourself DHK. I have not contradicted myself nor changed my views for years concerning the nature we are born with. The problem lies within your own understanding, not with my views or that which I have written.

I have always and without exception, stated that we are born depraved. What I DO NOT believe is that depravity is moral in nature, nor is it sin until we yield our will in agreement to the selfishness it influences us to. One trip to a maternity ward will most likeky show the clear evidence of depravity.

Do you get that or not? I tire of your consistently misrepresenting of what I have written. I wish for just once you would try to get it straight.

You mix terms and use terms not found in Scripture. You speak of ‘a sinful nature.’ If that is not a clear reference to original sin, tell us once for all what it is? I can see a clear distinction between a ‘nature to sin’ and a ‘sinful nature.’ One is a proclivity to sin, and influence to sin while a ‘sinful nature’ as understood by most, induces thoughts of guilt due to Adam's sin. My views on this issue have been and remain unchanged. Show me one place, document one place, where I have contradicted myself on this issue. Show me one solitary place that I said that men are not born depraved. Again, the problem is that that depravity DOES NOT CONSIST IN MORAL DEPRAVITY NOR CAN IT, but rather it consists in physical depravity, depraved sensibilities to be exact.

You place the depravity we are born with in the realm of morals. I place the depravity we are born with in the realm of the sensibilities. You have us guilty for the sin of Adam. I say no man is guilty of any sin other than his own willful choices. You indicate that we cannot help but sin, that sin is the only possible outcome due to our likeness of Adam. I say no one has to sin, for sin can only exist where freedom to do something other than what one does exists. You indicate that we are born sinners. I say that no one is born a sinner in spite of any and all depravity they are born with. Man sins when he comes to the age of accountability and chooses selfishness as opposed to benevolence. You indicate that we are sinners because of what we are, or that we sin because we are born sinners. I say we are sinners because we sin, not because of the way we are born.

Do you start to get an honest picture of the real differences between us? If so, Christian charity demands that you start writing in accordance to the truth of that knowledge. Why not be fair and stop the clear misrepresentation of the others opinions? We have been writing long enough here to at least afford each other that common courtesy?

 

Your game is a game of semantics that it is difficult to hold you to any standard of truth.

Do you or do you not believe that man has a depraved nature?
If yes, then man is prone to sin because of his depraved nature. Yes, he is responsible for his sin as well, but he is prone to sin because of his depraved nature.
If no you are, by your own logic, claiming that you are no different than Adam was before the fall, and the curse has no effect on you. What is your choice?
Instead of playing games of semantics, just tell the truth simply and plainly.