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

June 16th, 2014, 6:36 pm #591

Fish said, "Shame on you! Find another platform for your rogue religion."

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

I didn't think you guys could move that fast! The DR Catholic Bible, really?












It's true: the pope shoves his head into it without shame.

Quote
Like
Share

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

June 16th, 2014, 6:38 pm #592

Fish said, "Shame on you! Find another platform for your rogue religion."

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

I didn't think you guys could move that fast! The DR Catholic Bible, really?












It's true: the pope shoves his head into it without shame.

Quote
Like
Share

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

June 16th, 2014, 6:44 pm #593

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Annie,

Just as instrumental music in "worship" has its own history, vocal music in "worship" does as well. Much of its recorded history has already been posted here. Perhaps, there's more research needed and posted here concerning "tuneful singing," Sarge?

We begin, of course, with the recitation (SPEAKING) of hymns to TEACH and ADMONISH ONE ANOTHER (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16). Now (in certain congregations), we have further graduated from congregational singing to the Praise Team singing to/for the congregation!!!! And worse -- the elite musicians are on stage PERFORMING with their microphones: a common sight in evangelical/charismatic churches.

The "tuneful singing" has turned into ... well, here's probably a good explanation of what "tuneful singing" is/has become ... from someone who even affiliates himself with an IM church.[/color]
[color=#000000" size="4" face="times]Why I've Stopped Singing in Your Church[/color]
By Bill Blankschaen (July 15, 2012)

. . .

To be candid, I know how to behave in your church. I've been raised in it my entire life. So I know how to fake it when necessary. Lately, it's been very necessary when the music is playing and we're supposed to be singing, you know, to God. Frankly, I'm tired of it. Maybe all the "seekers" are enjoying it, but I'm finding it hard to sincerely engage in anything resembling worship.

. . .

As best I can sort through my own muddled and messy thoughts, I think there are three things that really bother me about the worship music in many Evangelical Christian churches today:

1. They're really, really simplistic. There, I tried to keep the words small. You certainly put a lot of work into doing that for me each Sunday. It's not just that most of the lyrics are simple as in easy to understand. It's that so many of the songs remind me of the ditties we sang at camp when I was ten. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure the theology in some of those camp songs was more advanced than the ones I've heard in some of your services. But, hey, everybody else seems to be really, really enjoying it so maybe it's just me. Unless, of course, they've also learned how to fake it.

2. They're all pulled from the latest Top 40 Worship channel. Or so it seems. Most songs I hear in evangelical churches of late have been written in the last decade, if that. I know I'm painting with a broad brush here because there have been some really, really (is this helping?) awesome songs written in the last two decades that deserve a place on the all-time worship songs list. We just usually don't sing those. Maybe because they're so three years ago.

What ever happened to the previous 2,000 years of church music history? Oh, I know, every so often you toss a token "hymn" (meaning within just the last century or so) into the mix. But even then, it's a remix that requires melodic jujitsu to keep up with the quicker pace and fancier chord progressions. One distinguishing mark of the worship music of centuries past is that it generally focused more on content than today's simplisitc style. Songs like "Arise, My Soul, Arise"; "Immortal, Invisible"; "Rejoice, the Lord is King"; or even the simple "I Sing the Almighty Power of God" typified a depth of doctrine that taught us as it revealed the glory of our Lord.

3. They repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And rep all right. See what I mean? Really, really annoying. Really. The first time we sang the simplistic ditty, I could tolerate it though I thought the infinite God of all creation deserved better. By the fifth time, I was hearing echoes of Jesus warning about vain repetitions.

. . .
Repeat, repeat, repeat is the definition of a LADED BURDEN. It is called "creating spiritual anxiety by religious rituals." It is there fore called sorcery or witchcraft.

Repeating the same songs out of the blue book over and over just to DO the act of worship is also defined as sorcery. The Jews say that to RECITE the Hallels daily is idolatry. And so the IMAGE is defined as a "song in place of historic truth" or the Word.

I think that the devil got their tongue so that praise singers INTENTIONALLY silence the voice of the victim: music derived from mystery means "to make the lambs dumb before the slaughter" and such music was recognized even by simple people as Sacred Violence. But, they lost their choice and the song came true: "no turning back, no turning back."
Quote
Like
Share

A. Mouse
A. Mouse

June 18th, 2014, 3:31 pm #594



"No Turning Back" is one of my favorites. There is nothing evil or wrong about this song. Praise God!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WACbU8EoDoo
Quote
Share

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

June 18th, 2014, 4:29 pm #595

Original Message <font face="times" size="3">(June 11 2012 at 3:32 AM):</font>

<table width="725" border="0"><tr><td valign="top" width="98%">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="98%"><tr><td width="98%" bgcolor="#ffffff">

<table border="0" width="98%" align="center"><tr><td>
[color=#000000" size="5" face="times]Madison's New (Instrumental) "Vision"[/color]
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Last month the elders announced Madison's new "vision" that approves the use of instrumental music. If someone wrote about this I didn't see it.

They said that using instruments is not a "salvation issue". Both services will use acappella music for now, but the first service will now get a praise team like the second service. And the second service will have more creative worship.

But the youth group gets to start using instrumental music. They said light acoustical instruments.

This seems like a huge change so I was surprised not to see it here yet.


[/color]</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></td></tr></table>

_________________________

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]NOTE:The information above has been submitted anonymously. Meanwhile, we have opted to substitute "Concerned" for "Anonymous" as the name. The message remains unedited.
-----------------------[/color]
[color=#000000" size="3" face="times]We've heard from the author who is a long-time member of Madison and would like to be identified as "MCC-Torn" [... and appropriately so].[/color]
=================================================



=================================================
[color=#0000FF" size="5" face="times]Madison's New (Instrumental) "Vision": Cymbals, Psalteries, Harps ANATHEMA
By Ken Sublett[/color]



Heritage Church of Christ following the ACU pattern has imposed what he calls instrumental music.

http://www.piney.com/Heritage.Church.of ... Music.html

Jim Hackney led by the NACC at ACU gives his "proof texts" all of which are lies because he does not know the context.

http://www.piney.com/Jim.Hackney.Instru ... rship.html

The expression "having cymbals and psalteries and harps" is not a pattern for Christian worship: it is defined as the worship of Apollo (abaddon, Apollyon) and Dionysus first outed at Mount Sinai. If God turned them over to worship the starry host, and scholars agree that the Jews worshipped the starry host on their way back to Babylon, why do you suppose that latter day elders fulfil the warning of Paul against wolves and violently impose the same patternism: Who knows? both the Shadow and any Bible student knows.

http://www.piney.com/Having.Cymbals.and ... s.and.html
Nothing wrong with the song except almost everyone who sings, sangs, sings, sangs it are liars: they are just repeating a mantra by rote which is the definition of SORCERY or the LADED BURDEN.

If they follow Jesus they would DICTO or SPEAK A (1) psalm and the GO OUT. They don't go out: they just sing,sang,sing,sang and lie as in laid.

The point is that in the Bible and contemporaneous commentary by the Jews such as The Book of Enoch, when they fell into mixed-sect "praise teams", wearing of apparel (clergy garbs) they, as at Mount Sinai, also rose up to PLAY WITH ONE ANOTHER. There are numerous recorded views that people who associate making GOOD music claiming to "lead you into the presence of the gods" have FALLEN AND CAN NEVER GET UP: in fact, when you are MARKED (as in character) there is NO TURNING BACK, NO TURNING BACK.

You can lie, cheat and steal to IMPOSE musical machines but there is NO WAY by means fair or foul that you will EVER get a group to "cast out like dung" the Musical Minstrels or their "machines for doing hard work." This is a MARK since there is no command, example or remote HINT that God from Genesis to Revelation and up to and after the "Reformation" of anyone engaging in congregational singing with or without instruments. They cannot be following Jesus who commanded that we teach and observe WHAT He commanded to be taught. Now, if you say you are following Jesus you are lying and a frying.

REMEMBER MY THESIS: Musical Idolatry is not the SIN: musical idolatry is God's MARK that you have sinned beyond recemption. The singers such as the muses as adulteresses-SHEPHERDESSES, instrument players and GRINDERS are REMOVED from the Spiritual Kingdom at the same time the LAMPS are removed: these are symbolized by the Menorah as the seven Spirits OF Christ.




Quote
Like
Share

A. Mouse
A. Mouse

June 19th, 2014, 12:29 am #596


Ken, says "REMEMBER MY THESIS". Yes indeed, Ken condemned MUSIC but God did not.
Quote
Share

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

June 19th, 2014, 3:07 am #597

You leap into conclusions without your boots on.

What Ken said was "there is no command, example or remote inference of congregational singing with or without instruments from Genesis to Revelation and beyond until after John Calvin permitted some Psalms (only) to be rewritten and set to a simple meter to be sung in unison (only)."

What is sin is saying or confessing by practice that "God commanded congregational singing with four different groups singing four different sets of words at four different times with four different tunes as an ACT of worship."

What Paul commanded was to "use one mind and one mouth to speak that which is written for our learning" or "Scripture for out comfort." Martin Luther adding the "singing" part says that this was UNISON SPEAKING. That is the only way that churches all around the earth can SPEAK THE SAME THINGS.

It may even be blasphemy to say or teach by example that therefore God commanded that we sing that which is written by Fanny Crosby or Twila Paris."

The fatal trip point is to therefore say that "we speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent."

A redeeming practice would be if ANYONE who claims the Psalms as their authority CAREFULLY AVOID singing Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs: these are all part of "that which is written for our LEARNING" in the BOOK of Psalms.
Quote
Like
Share

William
William

June 19th, 2014, 7:02 am #598


The absolute veracity of this is a little hard to prove. When Jesus and his disciples sang, it certainly appears they sang together. You may argue that this was not an "assembly", but it is CENI. The singing of the Hallel was highly stylized: they would not have been able to sing together if it were not. Despite other arguments it is difficult to convince that hymnody was not singing. There are good arguments that there was some form of congregational singing from the beginning. This is a link to E. Ferguson's paper on the subject:

http://foracappella.org/wp-content/uplo ... Church.pdf

However, as we now practice it does appear that the idea of singing has evolved. Remember that Paul said that he "would sing with the spirit, but with the understanding also." Songs that cause an emotional response, even if it is by repetition, are not to be trivialized as long as we understand why we do it. How does one sing about the great gifts of the Lord, including the Great Gift, and not express some emotion? Just maintain the understanding, also.

Considering how we sing today, it does appear to be something of a novelty. In fact, choirs seem to have come first. This is an interesting review:

http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Articles/C ... inging.htm

Finally, it should be remembered that David (nor Asaph, nor etc.)wrote any "psalms." The Psalms are part of "the Writings" and the collection known as "the Praises." "Psalms" was the word chosen to best describe the type of praises that they were for Greek readers. I am not sure why they did not just call them the Praises.




Quote
Share

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

June 19th, 2014, 4:44 pm #599

Ferguson did most of his writing by searching the ancient texts without a computer: I did that a lot. Many of the historic statements also "have the rest of the story" which is easy to miss when you are in the publishing business.

I found a copy of the document you cited and have reformatted it to html so you don't have to buy it.

It is well documented that real singing in that oriential style which is neither melody or harmony was introduced AS AN ACT in the year 373 so that citing others needs a chronological tag.

He uses the word A Cappella which is a bad error: it is about 15-17 centuries before "A small group or choir singing IN the Chapel (Cappella) but singing the STYLE of Organum. We have noted that might be a group singing the same note or maybe two notes at the same time. That was never, ever, congregational singing. For i

Eusibius of Caesarea (275-339)

We render our hymn with a living psalterion and a living cithara with spiritual songs. The unison of voices of Christians would be more acceptable to God than any musical instrument. Accordingly in all the churches of God, united in soul and attitude, with one mind and in agreement of faith and piety we send up a unison melody in the words of the Psalms.


Paul commanded "Using ONE MIND and ONE MOUTH to speak that which is written for our learning."

I believe that Paul said:
SPEAK the word one to another
Singing and Melody the heart.
Where LEXIS is the opposite of ODE.

Ferguson defends four part HARMONY not singing the WORDS OF THE PSALMS. Is his church now instrumental?


Quote
Like
Share

A. Mouse
A. Mouse

June 22nd, 2014, 3:35 am #600

You leap into conclusions without your boots on.

What Ken said was "there is no command, example or remote inference of congregational singing with or without instruments from Genesis to Revelation and beyond until after John Calvin permitted some Psalms (only) to be rewritten and set to a simple meter to be sung in unison (only)."

What is sin is saying or confessing by practice that "God commanded congregational singing with four different groups singing four different sets of words at four different times with four different tunes as an ACT of worship."

What Paul commanded was to "use one mind and one mouth to speak that which is written for our learning" or "Scripture for out comfort." Martin Luther adding the "singing" part says that this was UNISON SPEAKING. That is the only way that churches all around the earth can SPEAK THE SAME THINGS.

It may even be blasphemy to say or teach by example that therefore God commanded that we sing that which is written by Fanny Crosby or Twila Paris."

The fatal trip point is to therefore say that "we speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent."

A redeeming practice would be if ANYONE who claims the Psalms as their authority CAREFULLY AVOID singing Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs: these are all part of "that which is written for our LEARNING" in the BOOK of Psalms.
Ken said,

"You leap into conclusions without your boots on.

What Ken said was "there is no command, example or remote inference of congregational singing with or without instruments from Genesis to Revelation and beyond until after John Calvin permitted some Psalms (only) to be rewritten and set to a simple meter to be sung in unison (only)."

What is sin is saying or confessing by practice that "God commanded congregational singing with four different groups singing four different sets of words at four different times with four different tunes as an ACT of worship."

What Paul commanded was to "use one mind and one mouth to speak that which is written for our learning" or "Scripture for out comfort." Martin Luther adding the "singing" part says that this was UNISON SPEAKING. That is the only way that churches all around the earth can SPEAK THE SAME THINGS.

It may even be blasphemy to say or teach by example that therefore God commanded that we sing that which is written by Fanny Crosby or Twila Paris."

The fatal trip point is to therefore say that "we speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent."

A redeeming practice would be if ANYONE who claims the Psalms as their authority CAREFULLY AVOID singing Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs: these are all part of "that which is written for our LEARNING" in the BOOK of Psalms.


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

Ken needs to make up his mind.

MEALY-MOUTHED

adjective
avoiding the use of direct and plain language, as from timidity, excessive delicacy, or hypocrisy; inclined to mince words; insincere, devious, or compromising.

Quote
Share