Historically a cappella churches with instrumental services returned

Racnor
Racnor

December 22nd, 2011, 3:27 am #41

Earlier, Dave said:

"By the way, where does Christ or any of the authors list instrumental music as sinful?
Galatians 5
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Look hard, Donnie, but it aint there."


So Dave is telling us that because the list of certain sins in Galatians 5 fails to include IM, then IM is not sinful. Dave also mentioned cocaine. By Dave's reasoning, since Galatians 5 also fails to include snorting cocaine, then cocaine is not sinful, right?

Discerning readers will know that the New Testament does not list every conceivable sin by name. The New Testament expects us to take its general teachings and apply them to our lives and worship. Therefore, we know that illicit use of cocaine is sinful, because it harms the body. The New Testament tells us that our bodies are the temple of God; if we defile that temple by deliberately hariming our bodies, then we sin (1 Cor. 3 and 6).

So what about IM? Is it not sinful because it's not included in Galatian 5's list? The New Testament also tells us that we are not to go above what is written therein (1 Cor. 4:6), meaning that we may not add to or take from what God has already commanded in the New Testament (Rev. 22) as far as doctrinal matters are concerned. Since God addressed worship music in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16, it is a doctrinal matter. God told us to sing and make melody in our hearts. That is, God told us to incorporate vocal music into our worship. Now if we add another kind of music--that made with mechanical instruments instead of the human voice alone--then we sin. Must God tell us not to use IM when He has already told us to use vocal music? NO. His very directive to use vocal music precludes every other form of music. In addition to the drug that he prescribes for a patient, must a doctor also specify on the prescription all other drugs that the pharmacist may NOT dispense? That would be ludicrous. It's just as ludicrous for people to say that, with each command, God MUST include everything that is forbidden, and if He doesn't, we may supplement His commands as we wish, because God didn't say not to.

Remember that "God didn't say not to" is a figment of man's imagination; it cannot be found anywhere in the New Testament.
The phrase "God didn't say not to" was coined by a Doctor who used to be a regular poster here. I just can't remember his name. Oh well, "B", do you really think snorting cocaine in a good example of "God didn't say not to"? I hope we all know that abusing cocaine is wrong! Perhaps, prescription drug abuse would be a more challenging debate for some people in the Church. I think "B" was the one who deemed IM as sinful.
Quote
Share

Jimmy Joe
Jimmy Joe

December 22nd, 2011, 6:30 am #42

Earlier, Dave said:

"By the way, where does Christ or any of the authors list instrumental music as sinful?
Galatians 5
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Look hard, Donnie, but it aint there."


So Dave is telling us that because the list of certain sins in Galatians 5 fails to include IM, then IM is not sinful. Dave also mentioned cocaine. By Dave's reasoning, since Galatians 5 also fails to include snorting cocaine, then cocaine is not sinful, right?

Discerning readers will know that the New Testament does not list every conceivable sin by name. The New Testament expects us to take its general teachings and apply them to our lives and worship. Therefore, we know that illicit use of cocaine is sinful, because it harms the body. The New Testament tells us that our bodies are the temple of God; if we defile that temple by deliberately hariming our bodies, then we sin (1 Cor. 3 and 6).

So what about IM? Is it not sinful because it's not included in Galatian 5's list? The New Testament also tells us that we are not to go above what is written therein (1 Cor. 4:6), meaning that we may not add to or take from what God has already commanded in the New Testament (Rev. 22) as far as doctrinal matters are concerned. Since God addressed worship music in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16, it is a doctrinal matter. God told us to sing and make melody in our hearts. That is, God told us to incorporate vocal music into our worship. Now if we add another kind of music--that made with mechanical instruments instead of the human voice alone--then we sin. Must God tell us not to use IM when He has already told us to use vocal music? NO. His very directive to use vocal music precludes every other form of music. In addition to the drug that he prescribes for a patient, must a doctor also specify on the prescription all other drugs that the pharmacist may NOT dispense? That would be ludicrous. It's just as ludicrous for people to say that, with each command, God MUST include everything that is forbidden, and if He doesn't, we may supplement His commands as we wish, because God didn't say not to.

Remember that "God didn't say not to" is a figment of man's imagination; it cannot be found anywhere in the New Testament.
B. I believe you are mistaken in using Eph.5:19 and Col.3:16 to try to prove that vocal singing is the only authorized way to worship. In my opinion, which is just as good as yours, the verses are telling one how to live their life on a daily basis. Eph.5:18 tells us not to get drunk on wine. Using your logic does that mean daily in our lives or just during worship? Of course we all could follow Mr. Sublett and just don't sing, don't preach and don't donate. That would pretty much simplify worship as we know it.

On a side note: Where have you been Donnie? Been missing you at the late service brother.
Quote
Share

B
B

December 22nd, 2011, 5:06 pm #43

The phrase "God didn't say not to" was coined by a Doctor who used to be a regular poster here. I just can't remember his name. Oh well, "B", do you really think snorting cocaine in a good example of "God didn't say not to"? I hope we all know that abusing cocaine is wrong! Perhaps, prescription drug abuse would be a more challenging debate for some people in the Church. I think "B" was the one who deemed IM as sinful.
As far as obeying God's commands and directives, people have had a choice since the days of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden: obey God and do well; or disobey God and sin by looking for imaginary loopholes to justify their personal desires. As far as church music is concerned, people have the choice either to obey God's directive, which only specifies vocal music; or disobey God and sin by looking for imaginary loopholes to justify their personal desire to add IM. One favorite, imaginary loophole is the fallacious rationale of "God didn't say not to use IM," a rational that is not found in the New Testament. Another way to say it is, "God's silence is permissive," but that also is not found in the New Testament. A third way to say it is, "What God doesn't condemn by name is fair game," but that, too, is not found in the New Testament. None of man's justifications for having IM are found in the New Testament. Man can whitewash it and phrase it any way he likes, but it all comes down to the same thing: man chooses to ADD IM and thus circumvent God's command that only specifies vocal music. By doing so, man chooses to sin.

It's your choice.
Quote
Share

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

December 23rd, 2011, 3:54 am #44

Didache 1:5

Hey Ken? Is Didache in the Old Testament or New Testament?

Didn't think so.....

Well, if you're gonna be wrong, and not use Scriptures, at least be consistently wrong.
Tertullian warned against modern polytheists and using the performing arts and crafts to replace the role of the Church to teach the Word of Christ. Giving in the Bible and history never makes it into a compulsion especially these days when there are so many getting your money and then turning into "a theater for musical performance." (confessed by all of those stolen building stealers)

http://www.piney.com/Tertullian.Apology.html

We assemble to read our sacred writings, if any peculiarity of the times makes either forewarning or reminiscence needful. However it be in that respect, with the sacred words we nourish our faith, we animate our hope, we make our confidence more stedfast; and no less by inculcations of God's precepts we confirm good habits. In the same place also exhortations are made, rebukes and sacred censures are administered. For with a great gravity is the work of judging carried on among us, as befits those who feel assured that they are in the sight of God; and you have the most notable example of judgment to come when any one has sinned so grievously as to require his severance from us in prayer, in the congregation and in all sacred intercourse.

The tried men of our elders preside over us, obtaining that honour not by purchase, but by established character. There is no buying and selling of any sort in the things of God. Though we have our treasure-chest, it is not made up of purchase-money, as of a religion that has its price. On the monthly day,

[On ordinary Sundays, "they laid by in store," apparently: one a month they offered.]

if he likes, each puts in a small donation; but only if it be his pleasure, and only if he be able: for there is no compulsion; all is voluntary. These gifts are, as it were, piety's deposit fund. For they are not taken thence and spent on feasts, and drinking-bouts, and eating-houses,
.....but to support and bury poor people,
.....to supply the wants of boys and girls destitute of means and parents,
.....and of old persons confined now to the house;
.....such, too, as have suffered shipwreck; and if there happen to be any in the mines, or banished to the islands, or shut up in the prisons, for nothing but their fidelity to the cause of God's Church, they become the nurslings of their confession


There is no hint that money should be fleeced from individuals and then spent on ministering to criminals. Just because something is good does not mean that it can DIVERT the church from its sole duty of educating people.



Quote
Like
Share

Racnor
Racnor

December 23rd, 2011, 4:00 pm #45

The secular world has no law against abortion. The secular world did not find a crime in betraying Christ. The secular world promotes unholy entertainment. All are wrong. The Spirit of God gives the direction when there is no verse to reference. He can help you too.
The Spirit of God gives the direction when there is no verse to reference. He can help you too.

*****************************************


AM, the home boys here at CM don't believe in the Holy Spirit thing. For them the Holy Spirit is the written Word only. Just saying, if you wanta be a home boy player...
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

December 23rd, 2011, 5:58 pm #46

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Racnor,

OK ... let's not misrepresent what I believe the Scripture teaches about [your expression] "the Holy Spirit thing."

I'll make it brief ... and no one in this world will be able to refute God's truth:[/color]
  • The word "spirit" is a noun, but it is NOT a proper noun as in James, Nashville, etc.
    </li>
  • The word "spirit" has a number of meanings: wind, breath, power, mind, force, etc.
    </li>
  • The noun "spirit" can be described: an adjective will do that -- unholy, holy, evil.
    </li>
  • The expression "holy spirit" is used in Scripture a number of times, but it is NOT a proper name
    </li>
  • The "holy spirit" describes the kind of spirit that God or Christ has -- that spirit is HOLY!!!!!!!
    </li>
  • That's why you will often see the "spirit" or "holy spirit" is appended (with the preposition "OF") to these proper names -- OF the Lord ... OF the Father ... OF Christ ... OF Jesus Christ ... OF God ... OF our God!!!!!
    </li>
  • The proper name that can be referred to as "the Spirit" or "the Holy Spirit" is the Father Himself -- as He is a spirit (John 4:24) and He is without a question HOLY.
    </li>
  • The proper name that also can be referred to as "the Spirit" or "the Holy Spirit" is Christ Himself -- as He is the Spirit of truth, the Comforter (cf. the book of John).</li>
Quote
Like
Share

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

December 23rd, 2011, 6:14 pm #47

Historically a cappella churches with instrumental services returned to national directory

http://www.christianchronicle.org/blog/ ... directory/

This should remove any appearance of a HQ exclusion from "Churches of Christ in the United States", published by 21st Century Christian.

Good, unifying move, 21st Century Christian. It is a pity this website promotes division rather than unity.
B. I believe you are mistaken in using Eph.5:19 and Col.3:16 to try to prove that vocal singing is the only authorized way to worship. In my opinion, which is just as good as yours, the verses are telling one how to live their life on a daily basis. Eph.5:18 tells us not to get drunk on wine. Using your logic does that mean daily in our lives or just during worship? Of course we all could follow Mr. Sublett and just don't sing, don't preach and don't donate. That would pretty much simplify worship as we know it.

Jesus "synagogued" with the disciples two first days of the week in a row. Of course, He never had a worship team present on either day. The synagogue met each rest day at least and the Ekklesia met roughly once a week.

"Don't get drunk on wine BEFORE you speak" would point anyone claiming to be a teacher to what all of the people especially in Ephesus would understand: "Don't get FLUTED DOWN with wine" which would outlaw any of the pagan symposia where getting drunk on wine and music was the meaning of the CROOKED RACE. The symposium was a pretty good model for pseudo-churches who--as Scripture warns--getting drunk without wine: getting drunk on passion, pride and ignorance. You cannot run a NEW WINESKIN holy tavern without music: that's what Paul was saying but NOT to those not OF TRUTH or OF FAITH.

kat-auleô , A. charm by flute-playing, tinos Pl.Lg.790e, cf. R.411a; tina Alciphr.2.1: metaph., se . . -êsô phobôi I will flute to you on a ghastly flute, E.HF871 (troch.):--Pass., of persons, methuôn kai katauloumenos drinking wine to the strains of the flute, Pl.R.561c; k. pros chelônidos psophon to be played to on the flute with lyre accompaniment,

2. c. gen. loci, make a place sound with flute-playing, Thphr.Fr.87:-- Pass., resound with flute-playing, nêsos katêuleito Plu.Ant.56

hupauleô , play on the flute in accompaniment, melos tisi Alcm. 78 ; penthimon ti D.C.74.5 ; hu. lusiôidos 1 one who played women's characters in male attire, Plut. Posidon.4J. ; Pandionidi Luc. Harm.1 : abs., Id.Salt.83.
[REMEMBER DAVID'S NAKED DANCE?}

<a href="http://www.piney.com/ChFatTat.html">(Tatian
to the Greeks, Ante-Nicene, Vol. II, p.
75).</a>


Last edited by Ken.Sublett on December 23rd, 2011, 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

January 7th, 2012, 8:54 pm #48

Historically a cappella churches with instrumental services returned to national directory

http://www.christianchronicle.org/blog/ ... directory/

This should remove any appearance of a HQ exclusion from "Churches of Christ in the United States", published by 21st Century Christian.

Good, unifying move, 21st Century Christian. It is a pity this website promotes division rather than unity.
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]An article titled "Jay Guin, Change Agent" informs us that:[/color]
Jay Guin is an elder at University Church of Christ in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. He serves as an elder and is busy teaching and shepherding the flock. Jay is also an attorney so the bills get paid at home. He has been a speaker at some of the most popular and well-known Church of Christ lectureships and is an author. His book The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace: God's antidotes for division within the Churches of Christ and at least four others are favorites of many readers.
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Ray, one of our posters, and Jay Guin have something in common; they both opine that incorporating instrumental music in "non-instrumental" churches of Christ PROMOTE UNITY.

Here's Jay Guin's response to the article: "'Historically' a cappella churches with instrumental services returned to national directory":[/color]
My compliments to Carl Royster, Mac Lynn, and 21st Century Christian for a truly courageous and correct decision. Amen!

Those who disagree with the decision all make the same error all implicitly assume that error of any kind damns. Notice how the objectors all argue based on their position on instrumental music as though proving the instrumentalists in error somehow proves they must not be fellowshiped! Thats a huge logical leap which no one even tries to prove from scripture.

Heres the problem: There are countless other areas where we disagree among one another in the Churches of Christ and yet continue to extend fellowship. Why is it the instrumental music is a fellowship issue and, say, steeples on the building are not? Where I grew up, steeples were quite controversial.

Obviously, some issues truly are fellowship issues such as faith in Jesus as Son of God. But others are not (Heard anyone demand a church split over whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father or the Father and the Son lately?)

So what is the standard? How do we tell based solely on the Bible whether a disagreement is a salvation or fellowship issue? And until someone can answer that question, the debate is pointless.

And those who wish to divide over the instrument have never articulated a sensible, Bible-based standard for distinguishing instrumental music from all the other issues over which we dont divide. That makes the choice utterly arbitrary indeed, self-made religion.

# 8 December 2011 at 7:31 pm
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]BTW, some of my posts in response to the article have been published.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

January 13th, 2012, 10:34 pm #49

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]If Jay Guin truly believes that the church of Christ of which he claims to be a member is the New Testament church that Christ established at Pentecost, then, he would be presenting arguments in favor of the NT church.

But I'm afraid he does not have that "New Testament church" mindset. Instead, sadly, he has the "denominational church of Christ" mindset--very strongly contrary to the Restoration Movement principle that the New Testament church that Christ built is not a denomination and that members of the NT church of Christ Jesus are simply "Christians" and leaving [not embracing] denominationalism. But is it really that surprising to hear arguments against the church coming out of the mouths of change agents like Jay Guin? I think NOT. In fact, the change agents are attempting to rewrite the history of the Restoration Movement.

Having said all that, it is apparent that Jay Guin is anti-church of Christ. We'll just have to keep waiting [and it may be forevermore] for Jay Guin to come back to his doctrinal-spiritual senses as he has FAILED to realize that mechanically operating musical objects and other musical accessories while Christians are hymning God's truth as they teach and admonish one another IS A CHURCH OF CHRIST issue.

Jay's deception, whether he realizes it or not, is in his attempt to convince the religious world that instrumental music in the assembly is a global, universal religious issue ... when it is NOT. The denominational world does not have an issue with instrumental music. Even major religious bodies (many of whose original founders were strongly opposed to IM) use musical instruments in their assemblies, and, therefore, instrumental music is not an issue with them.

Again, instrumental music is almost uniquely an issue with the NT church of Christ Jesus. ["Almost" ... because the Primitive Baptist Church considers IM an issue. And there may be a few others.]

Instead of Jay Guin aligning himself with the church of Christ he claims to be a member of, he is essentially expressing arguments for IM that are ANTI-CHURCH. Who can be anymore aware that churches of Christ, including those in the 1st century era (the Corinthian, Galatian, Colossian, Ephesian and other congregations then) did not and do not indulge in mechanical music in their gatherings THAN JAY GUIN?

Jay Guin, you are a LEADER OF DISCORD. While your unscriptural arguments favor those in the denomination world -- the Catholic, Protestant and Community Churches -- your unscriptural arguments are CONTRARY TO, CONTROVERSIAL, UNNECESSARY and DIVISIVE in the church of Christ of which you claim to be a member and, worse, you are a misleader.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

January 16th, 2012, 8:13 pm #50

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]The SILENCE from the ardent followers, supporters and disciples of the liberal, progressive CHANGE AGENTS (Jay Guin, Rick Atchley, Max Lucado, Al Maxey, et al) is deafening.

Oh, SILENCE?

Let's discuss "silence." There are two (2) differing and opposing interpretations of one of the Restoration Movement principles: "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent."[/color]

(1) LAW OF SILENCE -- what it meant to our Restoration Movement forefathers and heritage, e.g. instrumental music and/or dancing: There is no command or directive from God whatsoever to worship or offer service to Him with musical instruments. None from the Old Testament. None from the New Testament. SIMPLE!!! STRAIGHTFORWARD!!! NO CONFUSION!!!

------------------------ VERSUS -------------------------

(2) LAW OF SILENCE -- what it means to the change agents who seek to rewrite (write their own version of) the Restoration Movement history; who seek to transform the New Testament church of Christ into a denomination; who have altered certain doctrines and teachings of Christ and the apostles in order to be denomination-friendly and denomination-conforming. They frequently quote Psalm 150 (a poetry) as their proof of God's command and other OT passages to prove that "God's followers" practiced it. Wow!!! The pagans did a lot of that musical idolatry and dancing, too. Truth is that there is not a single command or directive from God (verbal or written) for His followers to offer such type of worship or service to Him--NONE to be found in the entire Bible. You know, it is very easy to concoct a man-made specification, such as: "What is NOT PROHIBITIVE is AUTHORITATIVE." Or, claim to know God's thought and assert man's conclusion that: "God did not say 'not to'; therefore God authorized it." Better yet: "God had thought about it, got too busy, and forgot to put it in writing."
Quote
Like
Share