Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

May 7th, 2011, 1:14 pm #31

The argument about PA systems and IM has gone on seemingly forever. Although we all know the difference between PA systems and musical instruments, Dave is being deliberately obtuse just to further his claim that we can have both, because God condemns neither one by name.

Of course, we know that there is no problem with having PA systems, because God never addressed sound amplification or sound systems in the New Testament. On the other hand, Dave conveniently ignores the fact that, in the New Testament, God has explicitly addressed the making of music in Christian worship and the means by which that music is to be made. We all know that God specified vocal music and stopped there. That's as far as man should go when making music in Christian worship. Yet change agents who implement IM when God specifies vocal music behave like the deliberately obtuse kid who throws a brick when his parents have told him not to throw rocks, then says, "You didn't say I couldn't throw a brick!" Likewise Dave, also being deliberately obtuse, takes things a step further and implies that, because God didn't explicitly say, "Thou shalt not worship me with IM," then IM is on a par with PA systems. We all know that's the age-old, fallacious, apples-and-oranges argument. Since God addressed worship music but not PA systems, the two are NOT on an even par. We may have PA systems, but, based on the general principle of 1 Cor. 4:6, we cannot go beyond the scope of what God has addressed concerning worship music.
Quote
Share

Dave
Dave

May 7th, 2011, 4:14 pm #32

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]This thread is being addressed to IM lovers. I am thinking specifically of Dave who has constantly endorsed and defended the use of musical devices in the assembly of saints. [BTW, Dave, will you allow me to reveal to CM readers your last name? I do not recall you ever mentioning your last name here as you did at the other site (which I would not label as "evil"). I think that you mentioned your last name briefly at the other site only when you challenged Mike to a debate. I could say more about that challenge, etc., but that's really not about this thread. And you edited it out shortly after.]

In many of our discussions with you regarding IM, you never fail to mention that "not using" musical instruments in the gathering of saints is a human or man-made tradition in the church. [By now I hope that you are convinced that "in the church" means "in the church of Christ" that you claim to be a member of.]

Whenever I mention to you that the worship of "the Virgin Mary, Mother of God" is a good example of man-made traditions, you immediately dismiss it in defense of IM as being commanded and authorized by God, as well as being pleasing to Him.

We have just heard of the beatification of the RCC pope John Paul II. (There are so many doctrinal errors in Roman Catholicism. I strongly believe that based on what the Holy Scripture teaches. What about you? Anyway, when time allows, there will be a lot of discussions in the future regarding these errors.)

Just to name a few from a long list of Catholic heresies and "human traditions," here they are:[/color]
  • Prayers for the dead
    </li>
  • Wax candles introduced in church in the 4th century
    </li>
  • Veneration of angels and dead saints
    </li>
  • Worship of Mary, "Mother of God"
    </li>
  • Prayers directed to Mary or dead saints
    </li>
  • Extreme Unction
    </li>
  • Doctrine of Purgatory in the 6th century
    </li>
  • Worship of the cross, images and relics
    </li>
  • Canonization of dead saints
    </li>
  • ... and so many, many more
    </li>
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]It is apparent that the Roman Catholic Church has evolved through the centuries because of the evolution of these man-made traditions. Unlike in the very early centuries, the church that Christ established in about 33AD does not now resemble at all the ever-evolving Roman Catholic Church.

My point is that man-made traditions, including the ones listed above, which were of PAGAN origins, are matters that man-made tradition believers do and observe, instead of what these believers DO NOT DO NOR OBSERVE.

Do you see my point? How can you assert that by "NOT DOING, NOT OBSERVING, something," it is a tradition?

Instead, using musical instruments in the assembly of saints is THE man-made tradition. Recorded history reveals it.[/color]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let us discuss civilly, please. No name-calling, no grammatical concerns, no personal attacks, no hostile remarks. Thanks!
I have been here for over a year Donnie and you know my position, and then you have the nerve to say "I am trying to understand your hesitancy in giving a rebuttal. I think I do understand now. I have presented YOUR rebuttal myself. I have gathered from your various posts that your response would be a resounding Yes to that question."

Donnie, you certainly have given YOUR rebuttal for me. You love INTERPRETING what others have NOT said. Ken and William are the same. You don't like the Truth so you take what others say and make it your lie.
USE quotes if you want to prove something Donnie.
I have been here long enough where you should have MANY of my quotes for the Truth, and as often as I have repeated myself it should be here many times.
Your band of miscreants here take the very Word of God and abuse so you believe it supports your evil way of doing things.
If you would do that with the very Word of God, then why would you have any problem with doing even more with what I say?
Donnie, you have sinned. You could have kept this inside the church, but you didn't get you way with the Madison elders so you thought you could deal them and the others who sided with them a bit of revenge by posting your gripes for all the world to see.
You got what you asked for.
If you need MY REBUTTAL then look by over the threads. It is there. Don't tell others what YOU wanted me to say. Tell them what I ACTUALLY said.
Quote
Share

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

May 7th, 2011, 8:15 pm #33

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

What part of your belief that I listed:

-- when YOU said that God approves/authorizes IM;
-- when YOU said that God is pleased with musical devices in praise;
-- when YOU said that we emulate David for playing instruments;
-- when YOU said that PA equates with IM, therefore, both are OK;
-- when YOU said that "a cappella" is only a tradition

. . . is really NOT YOUR belief?

Using the:

-- "elders" ...
-- "you don't like the truth" ...
-- "you have sinned" ...
-- "you are a liar" ...
-- "you've sinned against the Lord's church" ...
-- "you are cursed" ...
-- "you need to repent" ...

... as YOUR arguments FOR the mechanical operation of instruments of music IN THE ASSEMBLY do not compute. They certainly diminish your credibility and debating skills; they only project your image as a self-righteous, pious and judgmental "Christian."

If you wish to initiate a thread concerning "elders" or "elders are worthy of double honor," etc., feel free to do so.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

May 7th, 2011, 8:33 pm #34

I have been here for over a year Donnie and you know my position, and then you have the nerve to say "I am trying to understand your hesitancy in giving a rebuttal. I think I do understand now. I have presented YOUR rebuttal myself. I have gathered from your various posts that your response would be a resounding Yes to that question."

Donnie, you certainly have given YOUR rebuttal for me. You love INTERPRETING what others have NOT said. Ken and William are the same. You don't like the Truth so you take what others say and make it your lie.
USE quotes if you want to prove something Donnie.
I have been here long enough where you should have MANY of my quotes for the Truth, and as often as I have repeated myself it should be here many times.
Your band of miscreants here take the very Word of God and abuse so you believe it supports your evil way of doing things.
If you would do that with the very Word of God, then why would you have any problem with doing even more with what I say?
Donnie, you have sinned. You could have kept this inside the church, but you didn't get you way with the Madison elders so you thought you could deal them and the others who sided with them a bit of revenge by posting your gripes for all the world to see.
You got what you asked for.
If you need MY REBUTTAL then look by over the threads. It is there. Don't tell others what YOU wanted me to say. Tell them what I ACTUALLY said.
So is Dave using the back door to tell us that it is NOT scriptural to use IM in Christian worship after all? He implies that we have not presented his view about IM accurately. From his previous attitude, we thought he approved and condoned the use of IM in Christian worship. That is, every time we wrote that it was not scriptural to use IM, Dave objected big-time and said that it was only our "preference" to abstain from IM. Now it appears that Dave is doing a 180 and is reversing his former opinion that IM in Christian worship is scriptural. If that's true, then Dave realizes that IM in Christian worship is NOT scriptural.
Quote
Share

Dave
Dave

May 8th, 2011, 1:12 am #35

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]This thread is being addressed to IM lovers. I am thinking specifically of Dave who has constantly endorsed and defended the use of musical devices in the assembly of saints. [BTW, Dave, will you allow me to reveal to CM readers your last name? I do not recall you ever mentioning your last name here as you did at the other site (which I would not label as "evil"). I think that you mentioned your last name briefly at the other site only when you challenged Mike to a debate. I could say more about that challenge, etc., but that's really not about this thread. And you edited it out shortly after.]

In many of our discussions with you regarding IM, you never fail to mention that "not using" musical instruments in the gathering of saints is a human or man-made tradition in the church. [By now I hope that you are convinced that "in the church" means "in the church of Christ" that you claim to be a member of.]

Whenever I mention to you that the worship of "the Virgin Mary, Mother of God" is a good example of man-made traditions, you immediately dismiss it in defense of IM as being commanded and authorized by God, as well as being pleasing to Him.

We have just heard of the beatification of the RCC pope John Paul II. (There are so many doctrinal errors in Roman Catholicism. I strongly believe that based on what the Holy Scripture teaches. What about you? Anyway, when time allows, there will be a lot of discussions in the future regarding these errors.)

Just to name a few from a long list of Catholic heresies and "human traditions," here they are:[/color]
  • Prayers for the dead
    </li>
  • Wax candles introduced in church in the 4th century
    </li>
  • Veneration of angels and dead saints
    </li>
  • Worship of Mary, "Mother of God"
    </li>
  • Prayers directed to Mary or dead saints
    </li>
  • Extreme Unction
    </li>
  • Doctrine of Purgatory in the 6th century
    </li>
  • Worship of the cross, images and relics
    </li>
  • Canonization of dead saints
    </li>
  • ... and so many, many more
    </li>
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]It is apparent that the Roman Catholic Church has evolved through the centuries because of the evolution of these man-made traditions. Unlike in the very early centuries, the church that Christ established in about 33AD does not now resemble at all the ever-evolving Roman Catholic Church.

My point is that man-made traditions, including the ones listed above, which were of PAGAN origins, are matters that man-made tradition believers do and observe, instead of what these believers DO NOT DO NOR OBSERVE.

Do you see my point? How can you assert that by "NOT DOING, NOT OBSERVING, something," it is a tradition?

Instead, using musical instruments in the assembly of saints is THE man-made tradition. Recorded history reveals it.[/color]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let us discuss civilly, please. No name-calling, no grammatical concerns, no personal attacks, no hostile remarks. Thanks!
More on....THE LIES.

It is very evident that the soft shoe shuffle is going on here.....listen to what William just said.

He said "From his previous attitude, we thought he approved and condoned the use of IM in Christian worship. That is, every time we wrote that it was not scriptural to use IM, Dave objected big-time and said that it was only our "preference" to abstain from IM."

Notice here the slippery slope. It started with William saying "...then we'll KNOW all the more that Dave approves of IM in worship assemblies." Then the rock and roll slowed to a waltz with William toning down the lie to him saying that it was "his claim" ("his" being me), and now then it slowed down to William merely saying "and implies that." Now where are we William? Look at the above quote from William. Now, William is saying "WE THOUGHT." When William sees the full truth what does he do?
It is called an abrupt 360. That is what happens when people are confronted with the truth. In the end all they do is cripple their own credibility because of their lies. However it is hard to cripple something that you lost many moons ago.

See Donnie, I use what you and William actually SAID and SAY. It is not that hard. At least it isn't that hard for some people. That is, people that don't mind the Truth.

Yes, Donnie, since you can't prove your allegations against me, which means you lied, then why not show people that these sins of lies are not surprising. You asked about my stance on instrumental music. I told you (and you know) what my stance is from many previous comments from other threads. If you would TRY and hold the Lord's church up for public ridicule, then you certainly would not have any problem with any false allegations against any man that doesn't agree with what you say.
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

May 8th, 2011, 3:02 am #36

Dave persists in double-talk with smoke and mirrors. He waffles back and forth and refuses to say whether he does or does not follow the mainstream Church of Christ, which abstains from IM in Christian worship. Therefore, Dave leaves the impression that he really doesn't know what he believes. Sometimes he wants us to think he advocates IM; at other times, he wants us to think he does not advocate IM. For one who claims to "love the Lord's church," it is ironic that Dave would resort to playing games with this yes-no-flip-flop-don't-give-a-straight-answer about IM. It looks like Dave needs some time to work out some deep-seated problems.
Quote
Share

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

May 8th, 2011, 3:19 am #37

More on....THE LIES.

It is very evident that the soft shoe shuffle is going on here.....listen to what William just said.

He said "From his previous attitude, we thought he approved and condoned the use of IM in Christian worship. That is, every time we wrote that it was not scriptural to use IM, Dave objected big-time and said that it was only our "preference" to abstain from IM."

Notice here the slippery slope. It started with William saying "...then we'll KNOW all the more that Dave approves of IM in worship assemblies." Then the rock and roll slowed to a waltz with William toning down the lie to him saying that it was "his claim" ("his" being me), and now then it slowed down to William merely saying "and implies that." Now where are we William? Look at the above quote from William. Now, William is saying "WE THOUGHT." When William sees the full truth what does he do?
It is called an abrupt 360. That is what happens when people are confronted with the truth. In the end all they do is cripple their own credibility because of their lies. However it is hard to cripple something that you lost many moons ago.

See Donnie, I use what you and William actually SAID and SAY. It is not that hard. At least it isn't that hard for some people. That is, people that don't mind the Truth.

Yes, Donnie, since you can't prove your allegations against me, which means you lied, then why not show people that these sins of lies are not surprising. You asked about my stance on instrumental music. I told you (and you know) what my stance is from many previous comments from other threads. If you would TRY and hold the Lord's church up for public ridicule, then you certainly would not have any problem with any false allegations against any man that doesn't agree with what you say.
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Dave,

I'm very concerned about your systolic/diastolic numbers, if we base them on your hostile, angry, and lacking-in-substance responses. It is not a good thing for you to confuse me and the readers about your stance on the IM issue.

Dave, this is your opportunity to correct the oft-mentioned lies about your belief. So, again, you can straighten me out with a simple YES [it is truth] or NO [it is a lie] to each of the following:

[YES/NO] ____ when YOU said that God approves/authorizes IM;
[YES/NO] ____ when YOU said that God is pleased with musical devices in praise;
[YES/NO] ____ when YOU said that we emulate David for playing instruments;
[YES/NO] ____ when YOU said that PA equates with IM, therefore, both are OK;
[YES/NO] ____ when YOU said that "a cappella" is only a tradition.

Patiently waiting for Dave, once and for all, to settle the misunderstanding and confusion!!![/color]
Quote
Like
Share

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

May 8th, 2011, 3:33 am #38

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]This thread is being addressed to IM lovers. I am thinking specifically of Dave who has constantly endorsed and defended the use of musical devices in the assembly of saints. [BTW, Dave, will you allow me to reveal to CM readers your last name? I do not recall you ever mentioning your last name here as you did at the other site (which I would not label as "evil"). I think that you mentioned your last name briefly at the other site only when you challenged Mike to a debate. I could say more about that challenge, etc., but that's really not about this thread. And you edited it out shortly after.]

In many of our discussions with you regarding IM, you never fail to mention that "not using" musical instruments in the gathering of saints is a human or man-made tradition in the church. [By now I hope that you are convinced that "in the church" means "in the church of Christ" that you claim to be a member of.]

Whenever I mention to you that the worship of "the Virgin Mary, Mother of God" is a good example of man-made traditions, you immediately dismiss it in defense of IM as being commanded and authorized by God, as well as being pleasing to Him.

We have just heard of the beatification of the RCC pope John Paul II. (There are so many doctrinal errors in Roman Catholicism. I strongly believe that based on what the Holy Scripture teaches. What about you? Anyway, when time allows, there will be a lot of discussions in the future regarding these errors.)

Just to name a few from a long list of Catholic heresies and "human traditions," here they are:[/color]
  • Prayers for the dead
    </li>
  • Wax candles introduced in church in the 4th century
    </li>
  • Veneration of angels and dead saints
    </li>
  • Worship of Mary, "Mother of God"
    </li>
  • Prayers directed to Mary or dead saints
    </li>
  • Extreme Unction
    </li>
  • Doctrine of Purgatory in the 6th century
    </li>
  • Worship of the cross, images and relics
    </li>
  • Canonization of dead saints
    </li>
  • ... and so many, many more
    </li>
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]It is apparent that the Roman Catholic Church has evolved through the centuries because of the evolution of these man-made traditions. Unlike in the very early centuries, the church that Christ established in about 33AD does not now resemble at all the ever-evolving Roman Catholic Church.

My point is that man-made traditions, including the ones listed above, which were of PAGAN origins, are matters that man-made tradition believers do and observe, instead of what these believers DO NOT DO NOR OBSERVE.

Do you see my point? How can you assert that by "NOT DOING, NOT OBSERVING, something," it is a tradition?

Instead, using musical instruments in the assembly of saints is THE man-made tradition. Recorded history reveals it.[/color]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let us discuss civilly, please. No name-calling, no grammatical concerns, no personal attacks, no hostile remarks. Thanks!
It may be asking too much for people who have been patterned by sermons as opposed to the text and singing songs calculated to turn you into to women to understand.,

I know of no scholar or preacher who can read the black text on white paper and NOT see what they have always been taught:



Maybe someone would like to twist that?
Quote
Like
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

May 8th, 2011, 3:40 am #39

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

I'm very concerned about your systolic/diastolic numbers, if we base them on your hostile, angry, and lacking-in-substance responses. It is not a good thing for you to confuse me and the readers about your stance on the IM issue.

Dave, this is your opportunity to correct the oft-mentioned lies about your belief. So, again, you can straighten me out with a simple YES [it is truth] or NO [it is a lie] to each of the following:

[YES/NO] ____ when YOU said that God approves/authorizes IM;
[YES/NO] ____ when YOU said that God is pleased with musical devices in praise;
[YES/NO] ____ when YOU said that we emulate David for playing instruments;
[YES/NO] ____ when YOU said that PA equates with IM, therefore, both are OK;
[YES/NO] ____ when YOU said that "a cappella" is only a tradition.

Patiently waiting for Dave, once and for all, to settle the misunderstanding and confusion!!![/color]
It just could be that the more anyone presses Dave for answers, the more Dave sits back and plays his games. Perhaps he flips a coin: heads, he'll push for IM; tails, he won't. Perhaps his games are deliberately designed to confuse those in the mainstream church of Christ. That's indeed quite a "productive" way of life for one who claims to "love the Lord's church."
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

May 8th, 2011, 12:17 pm #40

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]This thread is being addressed to IM lovers. I am thinking specifically of Dave who has constantly endorsed and defended the use of musical devices in the assembly of saints. [BTW, Dave, will you allow me to reveal to CM readers your last name? I do not recall you ever mentioning your last name here as you did at the other site (which I would not label as "evil"). I think that you mentioned your last name briefly at the other site only when you challenged Mike to a debate. I could say more about that challenge, etc., but that's really not about this thread. And you edited it out shortly after.]

In many of our discussions with you regarding IM, you never fail to mention that "not using" musical instruments in the gathering of saints is a human or man-made tradition in the church. [By now I hope that you are convinced that "in the church" means "in the church of Christ" that you claim to be a member of.]

Whenever I mention to you that the worship of "the Virgin Mary, Mother of God" is a good example of man-made traditions, you immediately dismiss it in defense of IM as being commanded and authorized by God, as well as being pleasing to Him.

We have just heard of the beatification of the RCC pope John Paul II. (There are so many doctrinal errors in Roman Catholicism. I strongly believe that based on what the Holy Scripture teaches. What about you? Anyway, when time allows, there will be a lot of discussions in the future regarding these errors.)

Just to name a few from a long list of Catholic heresies and "human traditions," here they are:[/color]
  • Prayers for the dead
    </li>
  • Wax candles introduced in church in the 4th century
    </li>
  • Veneration of angels and dead saints
    </li>
  • Worship of Mary, "Mother of God"
    </li>
  • Prayers directed to Mary or dead saints
    </li>
  • Extreme Unction
    </li>
  • Doctrine of Purgatory in the 6th century
    </li>
  • Worship of the cross, images and relics
    </li>
  • Canonization of dead saints
    </li>
  • ... and so many, many more
    </li>
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]It is apparent that the Roman Catholic Church has evolved through the centuries because of the evolution of these man-made traditions. Unlike in the very early centuries, the church that Christ established in about 33AD does not now resemble at all the ever-evolving Roman Catholic Church.

My point is that man-made traditions, including the ones listed above, which were of PAGAN origins, are matters that man-made tradition believers do and observe, instead of what these believers DO NOT DO NOR OBSERVE.

Do you see my point? How can you assert that by "NOT DOING, NOT OBSERVING, something," it is a tradition?

Instead, using musical instruments in the assembly of saints is THE man-made tradition. Recorded history reveals it.[/color]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let us discuss civilly, please. No name-calling, no grammatical concerns, no personal attacks, no hostile remarks. Thanks!
Dave, what's that voodoo chant you use against us that really marks you as a radical, self-righteous fanatic? Oh yeah, it's "You are cursed!" ZOWIE! That "do" have a ring to it!

Say that again, really put some ZING into it, and entertain us some more. Only do it with special effects. Let's see, we would need an echo chamber and a device that would transform your voice into a really DEEP, double bass. Then you could SHINE and come out with:

YOU (you you)...ARE (are are)...CUUURRRSSSSSSSEDUH (duh duh)!!!

A fierce, demonic "growl" with some smoke and flames added would put the icing on the cake.

Would that suit you, Dave? So come on! Do it again for us and really entertain us with that voodoo hoodoo that you do!
Quote
Share