Matthew 18:15-17

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

September 7th, 2011, 1:28 am #11

Actually, Matt. 18:15-17 addresses the situation when one individual does wrong against another individual, whereas Romans 16:17 addresses those who insist on espousing and promoting unscriptural doctrines; such people are to be marked (identified) and avoided. Since the change agents so espouse unscriptural doctrines, it is therefore RIGHT and SCRIPTURAL to mark them and avoid them. Yet change agents and their sympathizers would twist Scripture and make gullible people believe that it is "wrong" and "sinful" to identify them as the false teachers that they are.

Change agents are indeed very desperate people.
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

September 7th, 2011, 4:01 am #12

I wouldn't expect you to pen such an apology Donnie.
Your arrogance and pride is huge....huge enough even to keep you out of heaven.
Dave wrote of Donnie: "Your arrogance and pride is huge....huge enough even to keep you out of heaven."

So now Dave, based on his own personal criteria, is deciding who will be barred from heaven. Talk about blatant arrogance...

Dave should have much better control over his anger.
Quote
Share

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

September 7th, 2011, 5:12 am #13

Attack me as being angry. Deny that this site is divisive or going against Matthew 18:15-17. I am just guessing you have never talked directly with Rick Atchley about any issues, nor any of these other Christian men. Have you? If not, these actions are wrong and sinful. If so, but now going public on this forum instead of directly to those congregations, is wrong and sinful. Jesus may or may not be angry for you not living by Matthew 18:15-17. I have no reason to be angry. Again, I believe your motives are pure.

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

Your demand that I apologize and repent certainly had an angry tone. It wasn't even a request that I thought would be coming from someone (like you) -- with the willingness and patience to discuss matters civilly as I have learned to know you. You did surprise me, in fact. For one to think or feel that the other is angry is not an attack. But for one to demand an apology and repentance is self-righteous and condemnatory.

Is there any reason for me talk directly to Rick Atchley about his motive to transform the Richland Hills into an instrumental-music-loving congregation? I think NOT. It's too late for that. Besides, I am sure he's heard plenty from other congregations already. So, there's no need for you to guess about it anymore -- I have NOT talked directly to Rick Atchley.

I find it interesting that you specifically mentioned Rick Atchley, and not any of the other change agents. Why, Sonny? The best Rick could do after the transformation was to change the name to "The Hills Church of Christ." (Wait. There was already the "Richland Hills Christian Church.")

That's OK. We can use "The Hills Church of Christ" as an example of what's troubling to many members of a congregation undergoing a major transformation. Here it is -- family members, relative and friends may sadly and unfortunately experience separation: some remain in the congregation while others seek fellowship somewhere else.

Do you really want to know who's causing division in the church? No, not I. No, not the Scripture. Try again. It's the change agent, stupid.[/color]

Quote
Like
Share

Dave
Dave

September 7th, 2011, 1:52 pm #14

Brother Cruz,

Post a letter of apology and repentance on this website and no longer publish divisive filth.

-Sonny
William Crump said "Since Christ through Paul only said to sing..."

Paul NEVER said to ONLY sing, but to sing. Nice play on words William. When you are looking to prove your point without the backing of the Scriptures you have to resort to such devious tactics.


William also said "What about those as well as rest rooms, electricity, air conditioning, heating, kitchens, podiums, pews, song books, carpets, drapes, and a thousand other non-essentials that are in virtually all churches? Having any or all of those items does NOT violate the New Testament, because Christ never addressed any of them. None of those items clash or defy the Gospel or any of Christ's explicit directives."

Correct, and instruments played to aid the singing ALSO do not clash or defy the Gospel or any of Christ's explicit directives. With or without the instruments, the directive of singing is still accomplished.
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

September 7th, 2011, 2:15 pm #15

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

Your demand that I apologize and repent certainly had an angry tone. It wasn't even a request that I thought would be coming from someone (like you) -- with the willingness and patience to discuss matters civilly as I have learned to know you. You did surprise me, in fact. For one to think or feel that the other is angry is not an attack. But for one to demand an apology and repentance is self-righteous and condemnatory.

Is there any reason for me talk directly to Rick Atchley about his motive to transform the Richland Hills into an instrumental-music-loving congregation? I think NOT. It's too late for that. Besides, I am sure he's heard plenty from other congregations already. So, there's no need for you to guess about it anymore -- I have NOT talked directly to Rick Atchley.

I find it interesting that you specifically mentioned Rick Atchley, and not any of the other change agents. Why, Sonny? The best Rick could do after the transformation was to change the name to "The Hills Church of Christ." (Wait. There was already the "Richland Hills Christian Church.")

That's OK. We can use "The Hills Church of Christ" as an example of what's troubling to many members of a congregation undergoing a major transformation. Here it is -- family members, relative and friends may sadly and unfortunately experience separation: some remain in the congregation while others seek fellowship somewhere else.

Do you really want to know who's causing division in the church? No, not I. No, not the Scripture. Try again. It's the change agent, stupid.[/color]
Resist seemingly sweet-tempered change agents often enough, and their "Christian" facades will peel away to reveal previously unknown creatures who roar and gnash their teeth in bitter anger at those who oppose them.
Quote
Share

Dave
Dave

September 7th, 2011, 2:33 pm #16

Brother Cruz,

Post a letter of apology and repentance on this website and no longer publish divisive filth.

-Sonny
Two commands....
1)You shall not kill
2)Sing

Number one is definitive.....no gray areas.
Number two is not meant to be as definitive as number 1. It is general and is not prohibitive of aids (instruments of music) to accompany the singing. To sing with an instrument to accompany the singing is just that....SINGING WHILE playing an instrument to accompany the singing. The singing is accomplished with a capella or instruments of music to AID the singing.
END OF STORY!

Quote
Share

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

September 7th, 2011, 7:07 pm #17

A cappella singing with two-, three-, or four-part harmony does not alter the New Testament, because Christ never addressed harmony in singing. Had Christ said, "Praise Me by singing in unison" or "Praise Me with four-part harmony," then to sing otherwise would have been to defy His Word. Since Christ through Paul only said to sing and make melody in the heart, then harmony is not a factor; neither is volume or tempo, because Christ never addressed those. Had Christ said, "Praise Me with music," then we would have had carte blanche to praise Him with whatever kinds of music (vocal and/or instrumental) we desired. Instead, Christ limited us to singing and making melody in the heart. If we ADD instruments, it's another kind of music Christ did not authorize. He need not condemn IM with words; His directives are sufficient to limit us, for we may not override His explicit directives. Those who claim that IM is fine because it "accompanies" or "enhances" the singing do speak where Christ has not spoken.

What about the good-ole PA systems that some folks always like to bring up? What about those as well as rest rooms, electricity, air conditioning, heating, kitchens, podiums, pews, song books, carpets, drapes, and a thousand other non-essentials that are in virtually all churches? Having any or all of those items does NOT violate the New Testament, because Christ never addressed any of them. None of those items clash or defy the Gospel or any of Christ's explicit directives. Yet many people would rather yield to their worldly desires; hence, they insist on mixing, comparing, and confusing doctrinal issues (which Christ explicitly addressed in the New Testament) with non-essential issues (which Christ never addressed).
if you are speaking to a crowd you bump up the volume. Your voice has a built in amplifier and speaker.
The people sat on a hill to listen to Jesus: a natural theater

When Paul spoke in a forum or Greek theater the acoustics were designed so that people could hear the message..
Resounding bronze gongs were vases set at locations and they actually amplified the sound.

Singing teams would be like many sounding brass singing a DIFFERENT tune to make certain that your emotion got frazzled but you were not educated.

People who toss up PA systems simply do not and probably cannot understand that the church is A School of the Word: anything that makes the words clear throughout a building (can't worship but you can educate) does not upset simple simon's common sense.

If on the other hand, you make loud instrumental noise you intend that the performer and not Jesus be heard.

The task is EDUCATION: I have posted three quick studies (for students only) and the Bible proves that anyone wanting to act up or perform is self seeking.

Violent Men take the Kingdom of Violence: instruments are machines for doing WORK.
The Kingdom does not come with OBSERVATIONS: surprise scholars: that means religious OBSERVATIONS.
We are saved by grace through faith INSTEAD of WORKS: works are preaching, entertainment singing, playing instruments, dancing, drama.

Instruments ARE radically condemned by the Prophets and Apostles: If you cannot read the text and define the words then maybe you HAVE predestinated yourselves to burn to the sound of wind, string and percussion instrument says Christ in Spirit in Isaiah 30.

It is true, alas, God hath not said, thou shalt not launch yourself alive (now) into the lake of fire.
Quote
Like
Share

R*
R*

September 7th, 2011, 9:23 pm #18

A cappella singing with two-, three-, or four-part harmony does not alter the New Testament, because Christ never addressed harmony in singing. Had Christ said, "Praise Me by singing in unison" or "Praise Me with four-part harmony," then to sing otherwise would have been to defy His Word. Since Christ through Paul only said to sing and make melody in the heart, then harmony is not a factor; neither is volume or tempo, because Christ never addressed those. Had Christ said, "Praise Me with music," then we would have had carte blanche to praise Him with whatever kinds of music (vocal and/or instrumental) we desired. Instead, Christ limited us to singing and making melody in the heart. If we ADD instruments, it's another kind of music Christ did not authorize. He need not condemn IM with words; His directives are sufficient to limit us, for we may not override His explicit directives. Those who claim that IM is fine because it "accompanies" or "enhances" the singing do speak where Christ has not spoken.

What about the good-ole PA systems that some folks always like to bring up? What about those as well as rest rooms, electricity, air conditioning, heating, kitchens, podiums, pews, song books, carpets, drapes, and a thousand other non-essentials that are in virtually all churches? Having any or all of those items does NOT violate the New Testament, because Christ never addressed any of them. None of those items clash or defy the Gospel or any of Christ's explicit directives. Yet many people would rather yield to their worldly desires; hence, they insist on mixing, comparing, and confusing doctrinal issues (which Christ explicitly addressed in the New Testament) with non-essential issues (which Christ never addressed).
Dr. Crump, if we use your logic, God did address singing but God did not mention anything about adding complex harmony to the songs. We are to merely "sing". Therefore, we may sing but to add two-, three-, or four-part harmony is not authorized by God.

But wait, Dr. Crump wants to include the two-, three-, or four-part harmony. You now change your logic in an attempt to justify your traditions. Dr. Crump used the "God didn't say not to" logic.

In my opinion, the "singing" is accomplished whether we use IM and/or two-, three-, or four-part harmony. That's the bottom line. I feel this argument is much to do about nothing. JMHO
Quote
Share

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

September 8th, 2011, 12:12 am #19

If you preach a sermon on your favorite outline.
You are speaking for the purpose of Teaching them.

If Rick Atchley sends his full orchestra with instruments and lots of falsetto (mouring the loss he he!)

You will still be preaching your favorite sermon outline.

Now, lets say absolutely that the command is

Rom 15: That which is writteen for our lerning
Eph 5 The Will of God, or the Spirit or the Word (John 6:63)
Eph 3 The WORD of Christ.

Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs are"that which is written for our learning."

Now, Tricky Ricky has as much right to turn his tricks on route 66 to silence YOUR mouth ans you have the right to silence the mouth of Jesus by preaching OR playing instruments.

You can teach with singing although the word means to speak or cantillate. However, you can only HINDER teaching by playing instruments.

Now try real hard: Ekklesia or Synagogue is a School of the Word of Christ in the Prophets and apostles. If you can't define "church" I submit that you are not in Jesus Christ.

If you do not know the meaning of DISCIPLE then I submit that you cannot possibley be a Christian: Jesus' CENI was to command to be taught what HE commanded to be taught and that extended until He returns again.

If I put a drop of black acid into a glass of pure white milk, it IS NO LONGER called milk but dilute ACID.

You don't know of any preacher or "scholar" promoting music who has made a similar study of the UNIVERSAL command to READ or SPEAK. "Melody as tunefulness belongs to the 19th century."
Quote
Like
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

September 8th, 2011, 1:19 am #20

Dr. Crump, if we use your logic, God did address singing but God did not mention anything about adding complex harmony to the songs. We are to merely "sing". Therefore, we may sing but to add two-, three-, or four-part harmony is not authorized by God.

But wait, Dr. Crump wants to include the two-, three-, or four-part harmony. You now change your logic in an attempt to justify your traditions. Dr. Crump used the "God didn't say not to" logic.

In my opinion, the "singing" is accomplished whether we use IM and/or two-, three-, or four-part harmony. That's the bottom line. I feel this argument is much to do about nothing. JMHO
We need not belabor the point. It is simple enough to those who are not in rebellion. God addressed vocal music, which is singing. He did NOT ADD instrumental music, which is a DIFFERENT KIND of music. God did not specify the WAY TO SING, although we know there are several ways--loudly, softly, fast, slow, with harmony or in unison. Therefore, the volume, tempo, and harmony/unison are of our choosing. The KIND of music we use is NOT of our own choosing. We are limited only to singing, because God only specified singing. Had God addressed volume, tempo, and harmony/unison, we would have been bound by whatever restrictions God had imposed there.

It's quite simple enough. Don't be in rebellion. Now let's move on.

Quote
Share