Dave
Dave

April 18th, 2011, 4:05 pm #11

According to 1 Cor. 4:6, we are not to go above what is written in Scripture. That is, we are not to add to, take from, or in any way alter God's commands as presented in the New Testament. To do so is sinful. If something about a command does not suit us and we tweak it so that it becomes more palatable to the masses, then that is sinful. Likewise, manufacturing taboos that are not present in the New Testament is also sinful.

For example, if a congregation decides to change its meeting time and someone condemns that change as sinful, that person sins, because the New Testament does not address meeting times. Likewise, condemning a change in the number of hymns sung or the order of worship is sinful, because the New Testament does not address those issues.

Pushing for denominationalism, some members of the Church of Christ claim that it is a sin to condemn anything that God does not explicitly forbid by name, despite the fact that God may have already addressed the issue.

For example, the New Testament specifies bread and fruit of the vine as the emblems for the Lord's Supper, yet some people advocate alternatives like pizza and soft drinks, because the New Testament does not forbid those items by name. The argument is that if God had wanted ONLY bread and fruit of the vine, He would have said not to use any other emblems. It's the old bit of "God didn't say not to." Because those people claim that condemning pizza and soft drinks is sinful, they manufacture a taboo that is not present in the New Testament. Hence, they sin.

A similar example involves instrumental music. Although Christ through Paul tells us to sing and make melody in our hearts (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), advocates of instruments claim that condemning instruments is sinful, because the New Testament does not explicitly condemn them by name. The argument is that if God had wanted ONLY vocal music, He would have said not to use any other forms of music. Again, it's the old bit of "God didn't say not to." Because those people claim that condemning instrumental music is sinful, they manufacture a taboo that is not present in the New Testament. Hence, they sin.

People who manufacture taboos to please themselves in worship are not willing to take Gods explicit commands in the New Testament and abide by them. They would have God make an extensive, exhaustive list of every conceivable item in the universe that is forbidden; without such a list, they do as they please. That, of course, is utterly ridiculous.
Donnie asked the question
"Question: There is no command, example or implication in the New Testament that inanimate and lifeless musical devices are to be used in the assembly of NT saints. Isn't that the tradition of Christ and His apostles?"


Absolutely NOT! That is the very essence of the problem here. Men like you have taken an issue like a capella and MADE it a man-made tradition that you believe to be more sacred over other traditions. Even if history doesn't show that the first century church used instruments of music....it was not their tradition. It was IN THE MANNER in which they decided to carry out their worship to God and His Son. The Scriptures don't tell us why they didn't use instruments, but it certainly DOES NOT condemn them. Since they were mentioned in the OT and as being used to worship God by David....if there was a problem with such the NT writers would have mentioned it. The NT writers knew of the Old Law and they knew of David's Psalms and his praise to God with instruments. No Donnie, we don't have OT Scripture stating that instrumental music was ever authorized either. We also have the Psalms speaking of using everything, both physically and spiritually, to worship our Lord. Again, do you ever see mention that the Lord was unhappy with David's praise with instruments? When God was displeased with David, do we not see the mention of this? The NT authors would have mentioned a problem with this if it WERE a problem. Instruments of music were still available in the first century, but history doesn't show the church using them. That doesn't make it sinful. It will NEVER make it sinful.
SO don't try to pin that one on our Lord and Savior. You have no right, and it is inexcusable for a person like you to knowingly and sinfully to do so. It is a man-made tradition because YOU made it that way.... not Christ and His apostles. The only command that is in place is to SING. Jesus and His apostles sung. The issue is not whether the command to sing is violated, but man wanting his tradition of a capella to be upheld as Scripture. The fact is if men sing, whether a capplla or accompanied, the command to sing is fulfilled. Jesus and the apostles never had a problem with it. Why should you? YOU have a problem with it because someone is encroaching on your man-made tradition. You take advantage of history by saying because of example and inference the Scriptures don't mention the singing being accompanied by instruments of music. We have been through this time and time again about many, many other items that the Scriptures don't mention. You group all your nice preferences under AIDS and TOOLS, and then make outcasts of those that you don't prefer by calling them ADDITIONS. A list of TOOLS, AIDS, and ADDITIONS concocted by men......not God!
The tradition of a capella is not in of itself wrong. The sin lies when men like you want to make one man-made tradition sacred over another one.
Jesus Christ told of us worshiping in Spirit and in Truth. Whether we use only the voice or the voice accompanied by instrument is not the issue. The heart and our spirit is where we worship. We are commanded to sing. We comply either vocal only or being AIDED by an instrument. The instrument does not prohibit us from singing.
Donnie, your trouble lies with the fact that you know better and have decided not to follow what is good and decent.
With all the people in this world that needs Jesus and His Saving Love....you guys want to bicker about instrumental music not being authorized.
Bicker on gents. See where it gets you.

A point to be made.....
Is it wrong for a man to follow the Old law of circumcision and have his children circumcised? Is it wrong for another man to not follow the Old law of circumcision and leave his children uncircumcised?
The situation again lies with the heart. Neither is wrong, and neither is right. Paul spoke about our circumcision today as being a heart rendered day in and day out worship to God. The same way with when we do get together on the first day of the week and worship Him. He wants us to pour out our love to Him with our singing together. As with a man wanting to have his child circumcised or not, the same goes with the singing being accompanied or not. The key is to sing with our hearts and souls giving all to Jesus.
Man comes in and fouls it up by putting conditions on our worship to God. He says that you can't do this and you can't do that if it isn't authorized specifically, and then he turns right around and does the opposite by doing what is still not authorized specifically.
So man abuses more Scripture and umbrellas his preferences under
1 Corinthians 14
40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.
If a man so wishes, he can place a lot of items under this Scripture, and take out the ones that go against the traditions that he PREFERS.
PREFERENCE people......preference only!
Quote
Share

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

April 18th, 2011, 4:19 pm #12

According to 1 Cor. 4:6, we are not to go above what is written in Scripture. That is, we are not to add to, take from, or in any way alter God's commands as presented in the New Testament. To do so is sinful. If something about a command does not suit us and we tweak it so that it becomes more palatable to the masses, then that is sinful. Likewise, manufacturing taboos that are not present in the New Testament is also sinful.

For example, if a congregation decides to change its meeting time and someone condemns that change as sinful, that person sins, because the New Testament does not address meeting times. Likewise, condemning a change in the number of hymns sung or the order of worship is sinful, because the New Testament does not address those issues.

Pushing for denominationalism, some members of the Church of Christ claim that it is a sin to condemn anything that God does not explicitly forbid by name, despite the fact that God may have already addressed the issue.

For example, the New Testament specifies bread and fruit of the vine as the emblems for the Lord's Supper, yet some people advocate alternatives like pizza and soft drinks, because the New Testament does not forbid those items by name. The argument is that if God had wanted ONLY bread and fruit of the vine, He would have said not to use any other emblems. It's the old bit of "God didn't say not to." Because those people claim that condemning pizza and soft drinks is sinful, they manufacture a taboo that is not present in the New Testament. Hence, they sin.

A similar example involves instrumental music. Although Christ through Paul tells us to sing and make melody in our hearts (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), advocates of instruments claim that condemning instruments is sinful, because the New Testament does not explicitly condemn them by name. The argument is that if God had wanted ONLY vocal music, He would have said not to use any other forms of music. Again, it's the old bit of "God didn't say not to." Because those people claim that condemning instrumental music is sinful, they manufacture a taboo that is not present in the New Testament. Hence, they sin.

People who manufacture taboos to please themselves in worship are not willing to take Gods explicit commands in the New Testament and abide by them. They would have God make an extensive, exhaustive list of every conceivable item in the universe that is forbidden; without such a list, they do as they please. That, of course, is utterly ridiculous.
It is amazingly prophetic that the "angels of light" make a cottage industry out of tellying the dupes that God never said anything about Commands, Examples and Inferences (CENI). They hold "workshops of evil" and mock those who believe that when Christ speaks it is AFFIRMATIVE: if He says "command them what I have commanded to be taught" He does not have to tell the NON-DELUSIONAL people that "you can ALSO teach out of your evil imagination." This is obviously the WACO SYNDROME.

2Pet. 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words
......which were spoken before by the HOLY PROPHETS
......and of the commandment of us the APOSTLES of the Lord and Saviour

Not even Jesus of Nazareth as the Incarnate Word had authority to command something the one God the Father in heaven has not communicated to Him by His Spirit or "breath."

John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words,
......hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken,
......the same shall judge him in the last day.
John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself;
......but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment,
......what I should say, and what I should speak.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him,
......If a man love me, he will keep MY words: (CENI)
......and my Father will love him,
......and WE will come unto him,
......and make our abode with him.
John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings:
......and the word which ye hear is not mine,
......but the Fathers which sent me.
John 14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, (paraklete)
......which is the Holy Ghost,
......whom the Father will send in my name, (His name will be Jesus)
......he shall teach you all things,
......and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Father-Son abides in us when we keep God's commandments. In the same way WE abid IN Father-Son when we keep God's commandments. Neither means INSIDE of but in connection.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father,
......even the spirit OF truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the spirit OF truth (Post-resurrected Jesus), is come,
......he will guide you into all truth:
......for he shall not speak of himself;
......but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak:
......and he will shew you things to come

Eph. 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
......Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Eph. 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men,
......as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit

THAT MEANS THAT HE DOES NOT SPEAK THROUGH YOUR PREACHER OR "WORSHIP LEADER"





Quote
Like
Share

Dave
Dave

April 18th, 2011, 4:42 pm #13

According to 1 Cor. 4:6, we are not to go above what is written in Scripture. That is, we are not to add to, take from, or in any way alter God's commands as presented in the New Testament. To do so is sinful. If something about a command does not suit us and we tweak it so that it becomes more palatable to the masses, then that is sinful. Likewise, manufacturing taboos that are not present in the New Testament is also sinful.

For example, if a congregation decides to change its meeting time and someone condemns that change as sinful, that person sins, because the New Testament does not address meeting times. Likewise, condemning a change in the number of hymns sung or the order of worship is sinful, because the New Testament does not address those issues.

Pushing for denominationalism, some members of the Church of Christ claim that it is a sin to condemn anything that God does not explicitly forbid by name, despite the fact that God may have already addressed the issue.

For example, the New Testament specifies bread and fruit of the vine as the emblems for the Lord's Supper, yet some people advocate alternatives like pizza and soft drinks, because the New Testament does not forbid those items by name. The argument is that if God had wanted ONLY bread and fruit of the vine, He would have said not to use any other emblems. It's the old bit of "God didn't say not to." Because those people claim that condemning pizza and soft drinks is sinful, they manufacture a taboo that is not present in the New Testament. Hence, they sin.

A similar example involves instrumental music. Although Christ through Paul tells us to sing and make melody in our hearts (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), advocates of instruments claim that condemning instruments is sinful, because the New Testament does not explicitly condemn them by name. The argument is that if God had wanted ONLY vocal music, He would have said not to use any other forms of music. Again, it's the old bit of "God didn't say not to." Because those people claim that condemning instrumental music is sinful, they manufacture a taboo that is not present in the New Testament. Hence, they sin.

People who manufacture taboos to please themselves in worship are not willing to take Gods explicit commands in the New Testament and abide by them. They would have God make an extensive, exhaustive list of every conceivable item in the universe that is forbidden; without such a list, they do as they please. That, of course, is utterly ridiculous.
Donnie said...."Please STOP accusing the church of which YOU claim to be a member as the church that is following man-made traditions."
No Donnie, I am accusing YOU of following man-made traditions.....not the church. The church is still perfect, even with you TRYING to foul it up. Notice the capitalized TRYING? You may try, but to no avail.

William Crump said..."Taking an explicit, New Testament command of God and adding ANYTHING MORE to it is a tradition of man; that ADDITION is sinful."

You can add the PA but not the piano? Nope. They are both aids. Neither the PA nor the piano keep man from obeying the command to sing. Both the piano and PA bring order to the worship. 1 Corinthians 14:40.
You can wail away about what you want instead of what God wants until our Lord comes again, and then again.....you can also wail away after He comes again too. Plenty of time for your wailing before and after. A bit of the gnashing of teeth too....I might say.
Quote
Share

Dave
Dave

April 18th, 2011, 4:46 pm #14

According to 1 Cor. 4:6, we are not to go above what is written in Scripture. That is, we are not to add to, take from, or in any way alter God's commands as presented in the New Testament. To do so is sinful. If something about a command does not suit us and we tweak it so that it becomes more palatable to the masses, then that is sinful. Likewise, manufacturing taboos that are not present in the New Testament is also sinful.

For example, if a congregation decides to change its meeting time and someone condemns that change as sinful, that person sins, because the New Testament does not address meeting times. Likewise, condemning a change in the number of hymns sung or the order of worship is sinful, because the New Testament does not address those issues.

Pushing for denominationalism, some members of the Church of Christ claim that it is a sin to condemn anything that God does not explicitly forbid by name, despite the fact that God may have already addressed the issue.

For example, the New Testament specifies bread and fruit of the vine as the emblems for the Lord's Supper, yet some people advocate alternatives like pizza and soft drinks, because the New Testament does not forbid those items by name. The argument is that if God had wanted ONLY bread and fruit of the vine, He would have said not to use any other emblems. It's the old bit of "God didn't say not to." Because those people claim that condemning pizza and soft drinks is sinful, they manufacture a taboo that is not present in the New Testament. Hence, they sin.

A similar example involves instrumental music. Although Christ through Paul tells us to sing and make melody in our hearts (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), advocates of instruments claim that condemning instruments is sinful, because the New Testament does not explicitly condemn them by name. The argument is that if God had wanted ONLY vocal music, He would have said not to use any other forms of music. Again, it's the old bit of "God didn't say not to." Because those people claim that condemning instrumental music is sinful, they manufacture a taboo that is not present in the New Testament. Hence, they sin.

People who manufacture taboos to please themselves in worship are not willing to take Gods explicit commands in the New Testament and abide by them. They would have God make an extensive, exhaustive list of every conceivable item in the universe that is forbidden; without such a list, they do as they please. That, of course, is utterly ridiculous.
One about Zeus, or about the flute pan-god. If you don't have time nor the inclination for either of those oldies but goodies, just conjure up anything. You do so well at just making it up as you go anyway.
Quote
Share

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

April 18th, 2011, 4:56 pm #15

Acts 17:30 And the
times of this ignorance God winked at; [ignorance means ignorance]
but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Acts 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day,
in the which he will judge the world in righteousness
by that man whom he hath ordained;
whereof he hath given assurance unto all men,
in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Pausanias Description of Greece and the religion of the Marketplace where Jesus CAST the pipers, singers and dancers as well as the collection plates.

[1.1.4] The Athenians have also another harbor, at Munychia, with a temple of Artemis of Munychia, and yet another at Phalerum, as I have already stated, and near it is a sanctuary of Demeter. Here there is also a temple of Athena Sciras, and one of Zeus some distance away, and altars of the gods named Unknown

[1.2.5] One of the porticoes contains shrines of gods, and a gymnasium called that of Hermes.
This fits the Abomination of Desolation which forced moral Jews to flee Jerusalem to be replaced by Kenites or Cainites.

In it is the house of Pulytion, at which it is said that a mystic rite was performed by the most notable Athenians, parodying the Eleusinian mysteries.

But in my time it was devoted to the worship of Dionysus. This Dionysus they call Melpomenus (Minstrel), on the same principle as they call Apollo Musegetes (Leader of the Muses). The MELODY word is MELOS and Psallo is NEVER used of music.

Here there are images of Athena Paeonia (Healer), of Zeus, of Mnemosyne (Memory) and of the Muses, an Apollo, the votive offering and work of Eubulides, and Acratus, a daemon attendant upon Apollo; it is only a face of him worked into the wall.

After the precinct of Apollo is a building that contains earthen ware images, Amphictyon, king of Athens, feasting Dionysus and other gods.

The Abomination of Desolation was music and perversion worship of Zeus and Dionysus.
Quote
Like
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

April 18th, 2011, 5:08 pm #16

Donnie asked the question
"Question: There is no command, example or implication in the New Testament that inanimate and lifeless musical devices are to be used in the assembly of NT saints. Isn't that the tradition of Christ and His apostles?"


Absolutely NOT! That is the very essence of the problem here. Men like you have taken an issue like a capella and MADE it a man-made tradition that you believe to be more sacred over other traditions. Even if history doesn't show that the first century church used instruments of music....it was not their tradition. It was IN THE MANNER in which they decided to carry out their worship to God and His Son. The Scriptures don't tell us why they didn't use instruments, but it certainly DOES NOT condemn them. Since they were mentioned in the OT and as being used to worship God by David....if there was a problem with such the NT writers would have mentioned it. The NT writers knew of the Old Law and they knew of David's Psalms and his praise to God with instruments. No Donnie, we don't have OT Scripture stating that instrumental music was ever authorized either. We also have the Psalms speaking of using everything, both physically and spiritually, to worship our Lord. Again, do you ever see mention that the Lord was unhappy with David's praise with instruments? When God was displeased with David, do we not see the mention of this? The NT authors would have mentioned a problem with this if it WERE a problem. Instruments of music were still available in the first century, but history doesn't show the church using them. That doesn't make it sinful. It will NEVER make it sinful.
SO don't try to pin that one on our Lord and Savior. You have no right, and it is inexcusable for a person like you to knowingly and sinfully to do so. It is a man-made tradition because YOU made it that way.... not Christ and His apostles. The only command that is in place is to SING. Jesus and His apostles sung. The issue is not whether the command to sing is violated, but man wanting his tradition of a capella to be upheld as Scripture. The fact is if men sing, whether a capplla or accompanied, the command to sing is fulfilled. Jesus and the apostles never had a problem with it. Why should you? YOU have a problem with it because someone is encroaching on your man-made tradition. You take advantage of history by saying because of example and inference the Scriptures don't mention the singing being accompanied by instruments of music. We have been through this time and time again about many, many other items that the Scriptures don't mention. You group all your nice preferences under AIDS and TOOLS, and then make outcasts of those that you don't prefer by calling them ADDITIONS. A list of TOOLS, AIDS, and ADDITIONS concocted by men......not God!
The tradition of a capella is not in of itself wrong. The sin lies when men like you want to make one man-made tradition sacred over another one.
Jesus Christ told of us worshiping in Spirit and in Truth. Whether we use only the voice or the voice accompanied by instrument is not the issue. The heart and our spirit is where we worship. We are commanded to sing. We comply either vocal only or being AIDED by an instrument. The instrument does not prohibit us from singing.
Donnie, your trouble lies with the fact that you know better and have decided not to follow what is good and decent.
With all the people in this world that needs Jesus and His Saving Love....you guys want to bicker about instrumental music not being authorized.
Bicker on gents. See where it gets you.

A point to be made.....
Is it wrong for a man to follow the Old law of circumcision and have his children circumcised? Is it wrong for another man to not follow the Old law of circumcision and leave his children uncircumcised?
The situation again lies with the heart. Neither is wrong, and neither is right. Paul spoke about our circumcision today as being a heart rendered day in and day out worship to God. The same way with when we do get together on the first day of the week and worship Him. He wants us to pour out our love to Him with our singing together. As with a man wanting to have his child circumcised or not, the same goes with the singing being accompanied or not. The key is to sing with our hearts and souls giving all to Jesus.
Man comes in and fouls it up by putting conditions on our worship to God. He says that you can't do this and you can't do that if it isn't authorized specifically, and then he turns right around and does the opposite by doing what is still not authorized specifically.
So man abuses more Scripture and umbrellas his preferences under
1 Corinthians 14
40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.
If a man so wishes, he can place a lot of items under this Scripture, and take out the ones that go against the traditions that he PREFERS.
PREFERENCE people......preference only!
Since God/Christ through Paul has told us to use vocal music in worship, then to sing strictly a cappella is to obey that command. That obedience is neither a man-made tradition nor a preference. Since the New Covenant mentions nothing about using musical instruments, man has NO RIGHT to presume that God's silence is permissive. While God presumes nothing, man takes it upon himself to do so. It is most certainly a man-made tradition to PRESUME that God's silence is permissive, when there is NOTHING to that effect in the New Testament. Just simply follow His command to SING and let it go at that. It is also a man-made tradition to perpetuate worthless arguments that desperately seek loopholes in God's explicit command to sing.
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

April 18th, 2011, 5:38 pm #17

Donnie said...."Please STOP accusing the church of which YOU claim to be a member as the church that is following man-made traditions."
No Donnie, I am accusing YOU of following man-made traditions.....not the church. The church is still perfect, even with you TRYING to foul it up. Notice the capitalized TRYING? You may try, but to no avail.

William Crump said..."Taking an explicit, New Testament command of God and adding ANYTHING MORE to it is a tradition of man; that ADDITION is sinful."

You can add the PA but not the piano? Nope. They are both aids. Neither the PA nor the piano keep man from obeying the command to sing. Both the piano and PA bring order to the worship. 1 Corinthians 14:40.
You can wail away about what you want instead of what God wants until our Lord comes again, and then again.....you can also wail away after He comes again too. Plenty of time for your wailing before and after. A bit of the gnashing of teeth too....I might say.
Sorry, Dave, but you continue to perpetuate the old apples-and-oranges bit. God doesn't address PA systems (and hundreds of other non-spiritual items), so there is no problem in having them; they are, indeed, aids. Their presence does not conflict with New Testament Scripture.

On the other hand, God DOES address worship music. The only kind of music that he mentions is vocal music, which is a cappella singing--singing without the accompaniment of musical instruments. So, it boils down to whether we want to obey New Testament Scripture and sing a cappella; or whether we want to be defiant, ADD to NT Scripture, and bring in the musical instruments, which DO conflict with NT Scripture. Man's tradition is to consider instruments as "aids" that "enhance" and "accompany" our singing, but God mentions nothing about aiding, enhancing, or accompanying our singing. Our simple voices in song are sufficient. What about singing in unison or in 2-, 3-, or 4-part harmony? God just tells us to SING; He specifies nothing about unison or harmony. Therefore, the choice is ours.

The only way we could ever rightfully bring in instruments would be if God in the New Testament had said something generic to the effect of, "Worship Me with music." That would have given us carte blanche to use either vocal music, instrumental music, or combinations of the two.
Quote
Share

Rocnar
Rocnar

April 18th, 2011, 6:15 pm #18

Dave mentioned "sound doctrine," "traditions of men," and "traditions of God." According to the "sound doctrine" of the New Testament, we are to sing and make melody in our hearts (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). That is also the "tradition of God" in the New Covenant. Taking an explicit, New Testament command of God and adding ANYTHING MORE to it is a tradition of man; that ADDITION is sinful. Adding instrumental music when God has specified vocal music is a tradition of man; that ADDITION is sinful. Likewise, it is a tradition of man to say that it is sinful to condemn instrumental music. That manufactured taboo is also a sin, because it is NOT found in the New Testament. Such a man-made taboo further implies that strictly singing a cappella in worship is sinful. The sinful traditions of men can be quite asinine.
You can't have it both ways. If you want to be the verbatim hard-line type, your "singing" would be more like speaking words or "chanting" as there would be no melody in your songs, only in your heart. Think about it. However, your present position on the use of instruments being sinful is more like "the pot calling the kettle black".

Quote
Share

Dave
Dave

April 18th, 2011, 8:27 pm #19

According to 1 Cor. 4:6, we are not to go above what is written in Scripture. That is, we are not to add to, take from, or in any way alter God's commands as presented in the New Testament. To do so is sinful. If something about a command does not suit us and we tweak it so that it becomes more palatable to the masses, then that is sinful. Likewise, manufacturing taboos that are not present in the New Testament is also sinful.

For example, if a congregation decides to change its meeting time and someone condemns that change as sinful, that person sins, because the New Testament does not address meeting times. Likewise, condemning a change in the number of hymns sung or the order of worship is sinful, because the New Testament does not address those issues.

Pushing for denominationalism, some members of the Church of Christ claim that it is a sin to condemn anything that God does not explicitly forbid by name, despite the fact that God may have already addressed the issue.

For example, the New Testament specifies bread and fruit of the vine as the emblems for the Lord's Supper, yet some people advocate alternatives like pizza and soft drinks, because the New Testament does not forbid those items by name. The argument is that if God had wanted ONLY bread and fruit of the vine, He would have said not to use any other emblems. It's the old bit of "God didn't say not to." Because those people claim that condemning pizza and soft drinks is sinful, they manufacture a taboo that is not present in the New Testament. Hence, they sin.

A similar example involves instrumental music. Although Christ through Paul tells us to sing and make melody in our hearts (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), advocates of instruments claim that condemning instruments is sinful, because the New Testament does not explicitly condemn them by name. The argument is that if God had wanted ONLY vocal music, He would have said not to use any other forms of music. Again, it's the old bit of "God didn't say not to." Because those people claim that condemning instrumental music is sinful, they manufacture a taboo that is not present in the New Testament. Hence, they sin.

People who manufacture taboos to please themselves in worship are not willing to take Gods explicit commands in the New Testament and abide by them. They would have God make an extensive, exhaustive list of every conceivable item in the universe that is forbidden; without such a list, they do as they please. That, of course, is utterly ridiculous.
William,
You said that God doesn't address hundreds of other non-spiritual items (you mentioned a PA system as one of them). William, the reason I know that you really could care less about whether you are doing what God wants is because the article that you posted for reading the other day by Paul Smithson ("He Didn't Say Not To") mentions that God's silence is non-permissive, YET you counter that with saying that what is not mentioned is ok. See what I mean William? You are good about hanging onto what sounds good today, but ready and more than willing to change your mind tomorrow. Get into politics and out of Christianity if that's your angle. You aren't in this for the Truth. You are in it to be right, even with the high stake being the forfeiture of your very own soul.

Tell me to, and again, how you can back your claim of musical instruments conflicting with NT Scripture? You cannot do that. The command is to SING, we can do that with our voices alone or accompanied. That was a false statement...period. You say that our simple voices in song is sufficient? Then why do we need a PA system? We don't, but we PREFER one. It matters not the size of the crowd either. Churches of thousands upon thousands have sang without a PA system. We PREFER to amplify, so we do. Again, if vocal was ONLY inferred, then why not have God say that it iis wrong....instead of you? But hey.......people listen to men over what God says all the time. They never succeed either.
Quote
Share

Dave
Dave

April 18th, 2011, 8:30 pm #20

According to 1 Cor. 4:6, we are not to go above what is written in Scripture. That is, we are not to add to, take from, or in any way alter God's commands as presented in the New Testament. To do so is sinful. If something about a command does not suit us and we tweak it so that it becomes more palatable to the masses, then that is sinful. Likewise, manufacturing taboos that are not present in the New Testament is also sinful.

For example, if a congregation decides to change its meeting time and someone condemns that change as sinful, that person sins, because the New Testament does not address meeting times. Likewise, condemning a change in the number of hymns sung or the order of worship is sinful, because the New Testament does not address those issues.

Pushing for denominationalism, some members of the Church of Christ claim that it is a sin to condemn anything that God does not explicitly forbid by name, despite the fact that God may have already addressed the issue.

For example, the New Testament specifies bread and fruit of the vine as the emblems for the Lord's Supper, yet some people advocate alternatives like pizza and soft drinks, because the New Testament does not forbid those items by name. The argument is that if God had wanted ONLY bread and fruit of the vine, He would have said not to use any other emblems. It's the old bit of "God didn't say not to." Because those people claim that condemning pizza and soft drinks is sinful, they manufacture a taboo that is not present in the New Testament. Hence, they sin.

A similar example involves instrumental music. Although Christ through Paul tells us to sing and make melody in our hearts (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), advocates of instruments claim that condemning instruments is sinful, because the New Testament does not explicitly condemn them by name. The argument is that if God had wanted ONLY vocal music, He would have said not to use any other forms of music. Again, it's the old bit of "God didn't say not to." Because those people claim that condemning instrumental music is sinful, they manufacture a taboo that is not present in the New Testament. Hence, they sin.

People who manufacture taboos to please themselves in worship are not willing to take Gods explicit commands in the New Testament and abide by them. They would have God make an extensive, exhaustive list of every conceivable item in the universe that is forbidden; without such a list, they do as they please. That, of course, is utterly ridiculous.
Ken,
Why would you ever worship Zeus? I knew that you had a lot of it wrong, but I did think you worshiped the One and Only God. Don't tell me that you've gone off the deep end???
Quote
Share