Daniel Sommer: resisted the First Hostile Takeover

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

June 24th, 2013, 3:49 pm #1

Scripture notes that:

One of the reasons for not having instrumental music according to Daniel Sommer was that the words to the song were not understandable. I think another reason was that it violated the simplicity of the worship.

These were not the reasons that most people gave after that time--that it was wrong because there was no mention of it in the New Testament (that is from Acts 2 through Jude).

If Sommer were to enter this discussion, he might reason from understandability and simplicity. Any change that made the words less understandable would be objected by him. Any attempt to make changes that were complex would be a step toward vanity.


http://www.piney.com/RmSommersAdd.html

The "progressives" love to pour out hate on Daniel because he refused to let the NEW BRICK CHURCH be stolen.

He went even further: even if you could prove that instruments were commanded something would be wrong with your "proof" because everyone know and plans to sow massive discord and MAKE THE LAMBS DUMB BEFORE THE SLAUGHTER because it is impossible to understand the TEXT you claim as teaching authority. It was singing as an ACT OF LITURGY rather than singing to TEACH "that which is written for our learning" which is defined as heretical (sectarian).

The instrumentalists tried to confiscate the New Brick Building at Sand Creek but the Illinois Supreme Court said NO: you have go go and buy your OWN building. MOST modern Christians allow both their coat and cloak to be confiscated and move on.


Quote
Like
Share

Scripture
Scripture

July 29th, 2013, 2:07 am #2

Esau gave up his birthright because of immediate hunger and lack of faith. He was the first short-sighted hedonist.

Church growth is chosen by some as the Bowl of Lentils. While importing "successful" church growth "geniuses" "far beyond their years in vision", they are also importing Trojan horses into the belief system of the local church.

Along with growth schemes, come the doctrines of work-less grace, God-selection of the saved, devaluation of human life, relegation of the church to second-status while attention is given to some future-realized Kingdom of 1000 years, and a host of other hidden subversions.

And all at the same time, use of the "growth geniuses" bring little growth, because they don't interface well with the history of the Churches of Christ. But the false doctrines that come along, they might just stick. . . .
Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

July 29th, 2013, 2:18 am #3

The change agents are self neutered: by having no standards and a universalist view they hatch the next generation which takes them at their word: If it just doesn't make any difference then why get the marks defined by Paul to go, suffer and die.

But, you are correct, enough of the church is corrupted with little urge to "give to the lord" if their "lord" has an agenda to divert your sacrifice.

An elder rules by his teaching that which has been taught and the manner of his life people want to imitate. The class that "goes along to get along" is no worse than the ones who "resign to avoid conflict."

The changelings hate Sommer because he "sowed discord" by saying, NO, you will NOT steal the property. The "unity" urge always comes along with a "white paper" proving that the instrumentalists are correct and unity means you CONFORM or shut your mouth.


Last edited by Ken.Sublett on July 29th, 2013, 2:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Scripture
Scripture

September 8th, 2013, 12:41 am #4

Daniel Sommer met Isaac Errett at a train station, while each was going in a different direction to teach the Word. This was in the last half of the 19th century.

Sommer was aghast that Errett said that all we needed to teach was the weekly Lord's Supper and baptism. All other doctrines were not necessary.

Christians would be easy to make this way, but Sommer was concerned about total behavior in living the life of Christ. In this way, according to Sommer (by obeying the moral commands of Christ), they would be "filled with the Holy Spirit."

Errett heirs inherited a church that now bemoans the need for Biblical knowledge (Disciples of Christ). Its leaders now are depressed by the tendency of its members to think that a preacher that quotes scripture is a "Bible thumper," and they look down on such an approach.

Sommer's heirs on the other hand were more Bible-bound and fathered a knowledgeable church--but today that church is in crucial melt-down, pounded by "Jesus-Only" people on its left, and lethargy to some extent on its right. "Jesus-Only" brings to memory Errett's suggestion that we only need Jesus as a nominal belief, but even weekly Lord's Supper in under question in many places, and is baptism that is sometimes replaced by a "grace only" message.
Quote
Share