Manufacturing Taboos

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

April 17th, 2011, 3:44 pm #1

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.
Quote
Share

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

April 17th, 2011, 4:48 pm #2

The problem on both sides of the issue is that they DENY Christ and are indeed ANTI-Christs and blasphemers by hiding from the fact that Christ defined the future REST in inclusive and exclusive terms. Peter affirms that Jesus Christ led by that same Spirit made the prophecies more certain. As Jesus commanded that "we teach that which HE commanded to be taught," in 2 Peter 1-2 Peter outlawed private interpretations or further expoundings: a MARK of a false teacher is that he does not teach "that which is written for our learning." Christ was EXPLICIT: we are just dumb and dumber.

Luke 11:48 Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers:
......for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.
Luke 11:49 Therefore also said the WISDOM of God,
......I will send them prophets and apostles,
......and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
Luke 11:50 That the blood of all the prophets,
......which was shed from the foundation of the world,
......may be required of this generation;
Luke 11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias,
......which perished between the altar and the temple:
......verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

John 6:44 No man can come to me,
......except the Father which hath sent me draw him:
......and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:45 It is written in the prophets,
......And they shall be all taught of God.
......Every man therefore that hath heard,
......and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Baptism is the MARK or SEAL that one is a Disciple of Christ beginning in the Prophets. By being deliberately ignorant of the Prophets they blasphem the Spirit of Christ by denying that He outlawed all of the performing arts and crafts. They further blaspheme by claiming that their vain and evil imagination is the Spirit person speaking to them. Christ defined them in Jeremiah 23.

......Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized:
......and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Romans 1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

Ephesians 2:20 And are built
......upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
......Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Ephesians 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;

Heb. 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners
......spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb. 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,
......whom he hath appointed heir of all things,
......by whom also he made the worlds;

James 5:10 Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord,
......for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience.

1Peter 1:10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently,
......who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
1Peter 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time
......the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify,
......when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
1Peter 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves,
......but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you
......by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost
......sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

God the One Father in heaven made Jesus of Nazareth to be both Lord and Christ. When the father "breathed" on Jesus as the Son (Word) it was articulated into audible words. Jesus commanded that we teach that which HE commanded to be taught: if they cannot understand that then it is a MARK that God hides himself from the WISE (Sophists: preachers, singers, players, actors) and Jesus will not PRAY for those of the WORLD:

kosmos , metaph., of ornaments of speech, such as epithets, Id.9.9 (pl.), Arist.Rh.1408a14, Po.1457b2, 1458a33; hadumel k. keladein to sing sweet songs of praise, Pi.O.11 (10).13 (s.v.l.).
Pind. O. 11 My tongue wants to foster such themes; [10] but it is by the gift of a god that a man flourishes with a skillful mind, as with anything else. For the present rest assured, Hagesidamus son of Archestratus: for the sake of your boxing victory,
...... I shall loudly sing a sweet song, an adornment for your garland of golden olive,
...... [15] while I honor the race of the Western Locrians.
There, Muses, join in the victory-song; I shall pledge my word to you that we will find there a race that does not repel the stranger, or is inexperienced in fine deeds, but one that is wise and warlike too.


2Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy;
...... whereunto ye do well that ye take heed,
......as unto a light that shineth in a dark place,
......until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
2Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture
......is of any private interpretation. (further expounding)
2Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:
......but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

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:
Quote
Like
Share

Rocnar
Rocnar

April 17th, 2011, 8:37 pm #3

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.
Changing meeting times or order of worship is okay because God didn't address it.

Isn't that not an example of "God didn't say not to"?

Dr. Crump didn't you not coin the phrase "God didn't say not to"?

Seriously, is it not the same thing?
Quote
Share

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

April 17th, 2011, 8:55 pm #4

Disciples of Christ meet to DO Bible class. We restrict the meaning of "worship" to giving attendance to the Word of Christ (only).

If you get the Driven Purpose it doesn't matter when you assemble: if you meet to worship in the pagan sense it doesn't matter THAT you assemble.

If you catch on that ekklesia or synagogue is a "word only" reading, discussing and decising assembly then we can turn the singy-clappys into pole dancers.
Quote
Like
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

April 18th, 2011, 12:52 am #5

Changing meeting times or order of worship is okay because God didn't address it.

Isn't that not an example of "God didn't say not to"?

Dr. Crump didn't you not coin the phrase "God didn't say not to"?

Seriously, is it not the same thing?
No, I did not coin the phrase, "God didn't say not to." It would not have mattered if I had.

Apparently some people believe that, for example, justifying a PA system in the church because "God didn't say not to" is exactly the same as justifying instrumental music in worship because "God didn't say not to." But are those two situations spiritually identical? I hardly think so. If a homosexual man says "I love you" to his same-sex partner and a "straight" man says the same words to his "straight" wife, are both situations identical spiritually? Is the homosexual "love" spiritually equivalent to the "straight" love? Absolutely not. The former is an abomination, whereas the latter is not.

Do intelligent people really justify non-spiritual items like PA systems, kitchens, toilets, pews, church buildings, indoor plumbing, and thousands of other incidentals with "God didn't say not to?" People don't need to, because God never addressed those non-spiritual matters; hence, they should present no problems. On the other hand, people more readily resort to the principle of "God didn't say not to" whenever they want to defy or get around one or more of God's commands; in so doing, they apparently think they can "pull the wool over God's eyes." It's the same as a child who is caught throwing a brick through a window after his parents have told him not to throw rocks. When asked why he disobeyed, the defiant child says, "You only said I couldn't throw rocks; you didn't say I couldn't throw a brick." The child thought he could "justify" his foolish act as long as it was outside the circle of what the parents did not explicitly forbid by name--throwing ROCKS.

People pull similar stunts in the Church. Despite God's directives, these people have the same defiant attitude of "God didn't say not to." They make a mockery of God's explicit commands by altering or skirting them to suit their worldly desires.
Quote
Share

Rocnar
Rocnar

April 18th, 2011, 1:09 am #6

Disciples of Christ meet to DO Bible class. We restrict the meaning of "worship" to giving attendance to the Word of Christ (only).

If you get the Driven Purpose it doesn't matter when you assemble: if you meet to worship in the pagan sense it doesn't matter THAT you assemble.

If you catch on that ekklesia or synagogue is a "word only" reading, discussing and decising assembly then we can turn the singy-clappys into pole dancers.
I'm not smart in the usual way but baiting me to inquire about the fate of the musical instrument players since they were apparently spared, won't defer the question, but I won't ask anyway. The new pole dancers needed musicators to play while they danced. No reply needed.
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

April 18th, 2011, 1:36 am #7

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.
Here are some links that mention "God didn't say not to":

http://www.bassfishing.org/thebiblespea ... dntsay.htm

http://www.aconqueringfaith.net/2008/03 ... ot-to.html

http://www.gospelpreceptor.com/BreweJ46.htm

http://www.simplebiblestudies.com/SOinsuff.htm

http://www.focusmagazine.org/Articles/musicNT.htm

http://www.cedarparkchurchofchrist.org/ ... s002l4.htm

http://www.cvillechurch.com/Articles200 ... rToGod.htm

Quote
Share

Dave
Dave

April 18th, 2011, 5:50 am #8

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.
You can have your lame discussions about the instrumental music bit. It is lame now, it was lame then, and it will always be lame. Some contributors here have NEVER insinuated that 'God didn't say to." It is just more of the same here at concernedmembers. Instead of sound Scriptural teachings, they would rather try to smear anyone who doesn't agree with them. They would rather conjure up out of thin air a story about what someone said to fulfill their sinful fantasies.

Do you need more proof? If you don't have enough already, then here is the straw that breaks the camel's back. When someone ABUSES I Corinthians 4:6 repeatedly, over and over, when they know better because they have been taught better, you know that they could care less about sound doctrine and counting on the traditions of men instead of the traditions of God.

Mark 7
8 "You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.
9 And he continued, You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!

To show the horrid abuse of 1 Corinthians 4:6 coming from the wolf in sheep's clothing we will delve into it with fervid study.
We will look at the verses before and after verse 6 and see how it is obvious that the meaning that the above Christian imposter wants to be focal here is indeed his way instead of God's Way. The verse could never mean what he wants it to mean.
1 Corinthians 3

21 So then, no more boasting about human leaders! All things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the futureall are yours, 23 and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.
1 Corinthians 4
1 This, then, is how you ought to regard us: as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed. 2 Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. 3 I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God.
6Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, Do not go beyond what is written. Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other. 7 For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?

As ANYONE that cares to ATTEMPT to think about what is being said here would surely know that it cannot be talking about the written Word. Why? First of all the Word was not in written form, except for the Old Law and even then Paul was not speaking of that. I started back with the final verses of 1 Corinthians 3 because Paul so adequately begins to form a background for verse 6 in the following chapter. He is showing, without a shadow of a doubt, that all men are of one body, of Christ Jesus our Lord, and no other man. He comes full circle with this in Chapter 4 with the REST of verse 6. You see why men who try constantly to distort the Word would show only the part that they can use for their human traditions. The rest of the verse makes it null and void!!! AFTER "Do not go beyond what is written," we also see "Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other." Paul was telling the congregation at Corinth to not follow ANY man, but only Christ. He didn't want other men leading them astray so stick to what Paul said about Christ being the only leader of the Kingdom.
If the case were that man should not go beyond what is written, then he would have sinned by meeting in a church building (no direct Scripture for that). He would have sinned for using a PA system (no direct Scripture for that). He would have sinned by using the internet to get the word out about Jesus saves (no direct Scripture for that), etc., etc.
The Christian imposter also will tell you that everything that HE likes for his man-made tradtions can be covered under the following Scripture:
1 Corinthians 14:40
But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

However, the same can be said for worshiping with instruments of music, because they also can give order. These imposters will say that a PA system is an AID or TOOL where a musical instrument is an addition. You see the evil that abounds here? If they want their human traditions, then they need to write their own book, call it whatever religion they prefer, and leave those who want to follow Jesus alone.

This is not the only time that the above perpetrator has shown his lack of love for the Precious Word of God. Evil in....evil out. Trash in.....trash out. Concernedmembers.....literally and figuratively.....stinks!!!

All of this hideous behavior just to lift high another sacred man-made tradition. Men will burn in hell because of lifting them up.
Quote
Share

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

April 18th, 2011, 7:10 am #9

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Dave, you said that: "you know that they could care less about sound doctrine and counting on the traditions of men instead of the traditions of God."

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?

Historical facts are that the early NT Christians did not use musical objects in their assemblies; that it was the Roman Catholic Church that introduced IM; that the Protestant Churches have imitated the RCC and propagated the use of these inanimate objects (just like their idols and graven images). It is the Roman Catholic Church that is replete with human/papal traditions. It is NOT the church of Christ that adheres to man-made traditions, such as the use of musical instruments in the assembly. Please STOP accusing the church of which YOU claim to be a member as the church that is following man-made traditions.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

April 18th, 2011, 2:03 pm #10

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.
Quote
Share