NOT Using Musical Instruments in the Assembly: Is It a Human Tradition?

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

May 2nd, 2011, 7:20 am #1

[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!
Quote
Like
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

May 2nd, 2011, 1:59 pm #2

According to the change agents' theology, God approves of the statement, "God didn't say not to" (even though that statement is not found anywhere in the New Testament); failure to adhere to that statement is a man-made tradition. According to that theology, man can follow any doctrine that he ASSUMES to be true, even if it is not found in the New Testament. Indeed, THAT is a man-made tradition. Change agents also claim that God authorizes and commands instrumental music in CHRISTIAN worship. But no such authorization or command exists in the New Testament, which is the source for understanding Christian worship. Therefore, saying that we have "divine authority" for using IM in Christian worship is an untruth and is definitely a man-made tradition.

BTW, Donnie, if Dave really has NOT revealed his last name at CM and he deleted it at FaithSite, then the infernal regions would be building igloos before he'd ever let you reveal his last name here. Paranoia does have its price.
Quote
Share

Dave
Dave

May 2nd, 2011, 4:09 pm #3

[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 will not dignify this conversation with rebuttal.
First, Donnie, you lied....again. I caught Ken in a lie the other day when he attributed something unSciptural to Jesus. I want to prove that you ALSO have lied.
You said the following two statements.
#1--"I am thinking specifically of Dave who has constantly endorsed and defended the use of musical devices in the assembly of saints."
#2--"....you immediately dismiss it in defense of IM as being commanded and authorized by God, as well as being pleasing to Him."

Prove, ANYWHERE, with FACTS and QUOTES, where those two statements can be proven to be true and where they would be attributed to me.

As I said before with Ken....this should be good.
Quote
Share

Fred Whaley
Fred Whaley

May 2nd, 2011, 7:46 pm #4

[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!
If name-calling and grammatical corrections are not allowed then the crass Doctor Crump will feel disinterested. Fred on the other hand would like to chime in with questions for Donnie Cruz. If the "denominations" do not practice these Roman Catholic traditions does this mean they are also "the church." Do not the most conservative in the Church of Christ speak and treat the Church of Christ as a denomination? And doesn't the Catholic Church practice singing more biblically than the Church of Christ? They sing in unison rather than four-part harmony. So does this mean the Church of Christ is not the true church because of a worship practice begun by man of four-part harmony?

Fred Whaley
Quote
Share

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

May 3rd, 2011, 7:23 am #5

I will not dignify this conversation with rebuttal.
First, Donnie, you lied....again. I caught Ken in a lie the other day when he attributed something unSciptural to Jesus. I want to prove that you ALSO have lied.
You said the following two statements.
#1--"I am thinking specifically of Dave who has constantly endorsed and defended the use of musical devices in the assembly of saints."
#2--"....you immediately dismiss it in defense of IM as being commanded and authorized by God, as well as being pleasing to Him."

Prove, ANYWHERE, with FACTS and QUOTES, where those two statements can be proven to be true and where they would be attributed to me.

As I said before with Ken....this should be good.
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Dave,

It is either "this evil website" or "a den of liars." Right, Dave? Well, do you know what the Bible says about that which is evil? "Abstain from all appearance of evil" (I Thess. 5:22). But here you are -- it's not only about the "appearance of evil" but [worse] it is also about YOUR actual participation in "this evil website."

Dave, if you're not a keen observant of your own posts, let me tell you that many of your posted messages are not devoid of angry, hateful and hostile remarks and personal attacks that do not characterize a civil religious discussion.

"First, Donnie, you lied....again. I caught Ken in a lie the other day when he attributed something unSciptural to Jesus. I want to prove that you ALSO have lied." Really, Dave?

You know, it was totally unnecessary [in fact, un-Christlike] to make that assertion against me or Ken or anyone for that matter. Is that your way of carrying on a conversation with a family member, a friend, an enemy? The rest of your post would have clearly presented your objective for me to prove my statements.

(1) The statements I made were not direct quotations from you. They did not begin and end with quotation marks. So, they are not lies.

(2) Since they were not direct quotations from you, it was my understanding of what you've said countless times.

Endorsing a belief, doctrine or teaching simply means giving support or agreeing or basically saying, "I'll second that motion." It can also mean being behind or approving of. Haven't you advocated the notion that God approves or is pleased with the mechanical operation of musical instruments in the assembly? And if God approves it, Dave also approves it?

You have also strongly defended the use of musical devices in the gathering.

Dave has said: "That was also foolish to try and parallel the issue of instrumental music with the Catholic worship of Mary."

I think not!!! Truth is that it was the Roman Catholic Church that started both:

(1) The worship of the "Virgin Mary, Mother of God."
(2) The use of musical instruments.

They are both man-made traditions!!! "As recently as the 1800s, most Protestant churches sang congregationally, and preached against 'praising God with machinery.'"

Dave, you need to make a confession, if the statements I made are no longer true:

(1) So that you now agree with churches of Christ by not defending the use of musical devices in the assembly of saints.

(2) So that you are now convinced that both: (a) the worship of the "Virgin Mary, Mother of God, and (b) instrumental music in the assembly are man-made traditions.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Dave
Dave

May 3rd, 2011, 12:08 pm #6

[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!
Donnie, when you make the following assertation, I cringe. You said...."You know, it was totally unnecessary [in fact, un-Christlike] to make that assertion against me or Ken or anyone for that matter. Is that your way of carrying on a conversation with a family member, a friend, an enemy?"

Now you want to sound contrite? How convenient, and it doesn't surprise me. Here, with a public audience you try to work your evil magic.....again. You have tried time and time again, with me, to "act out" the part of a CONCERNED Christian. Donnie, with the way you have handled most everything here, including dealing with anyone that disagrees with you, and even more importantly the manner in which you have violated even the congregation that you attend, I would consider you more of an enemy of the Lord, and not merely me. I get really nauseated, Donnie, when you want to call me down for "carrying on a conversation with a family member."
YOU can say that and have time and time again, rebuked elders at Madison, by name, on a public forum such as this?
You can't talk about family Donnie in such a way. You don't have the right. You are on the OUTSIDE looking in. If you want to be INSIDE the family once more, you have to make a public repentance for a public sin.

Again, I will not dignify this discussion with a rebuttal, only to let you know that you DID indeed lie....again.

Number 1.....you said...."(1) The statements I made were not direct quotations from you. They did not begin and end with quotation marks. So, they are not lies."

They ARE indeed lies. You did NOT say that I quoted them, which is even worse. You took it on your own to attribute this ("I am thinking specifically of Dave who has constantly endorsed and defended the use of musical devices in the assembly of saints."), to me. As I said...you accused me of something that you cannot prove. You took what I have been saying all along and twisted (and more like WARPED) my words so it became what you wanted your public audience here to hear. You deliberately turned around my thoughts about what I have said here all along. It is a lie, not a play on words, but a lie.

Donnie, you also said..."(2) Since they were not direct quotations from you, it was my understanding of what you've said countless times."

It is NOT your understanding of what I said, and you very well know that. What you do understand is that you didn't like what you heard from me so you attributed something false to me so you could continue your charades here at this wicked website.

Again, prove what you ATTRIBUTED, or what you WANTED me to say. If you believe I endorsed such a belief, then prove it. I will not, in all cases, stand by idly while another man, such as you, takes liberty with his interpretation of the Word of God. Ken Sublett is ever worse than you. He claims, of course, it isn't interpretation though. I guess that is what happens when you believe that you are better than even the KJV translators. You said that I have "strongly defended the use of musical devices in the gathering."
From what I have said, prove it!


Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

May 3rd, 2011, 5:54 pm #7

Dave's emotions are out of control; surely he is letting Donnie get under his skin. All Dave needs to do is answer Donnie's questions about whether or not Dave supports or condones having instrumental music in the assembly of the saints and be done with it.
Quote
Share

Fred Whaley
Fred Whaley

May 3rd, 2011, 6:18 pm #8

Dr. Crump - Your statements manifest your bossy and tenacious personality and impatience with people.

Fred Whaley
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

May 3rd, 2011, 8:56 pm #9

Donnie, when you make the following assertation, I cringe. You said...."You know, it was totally unnecessary [in fact, un-Christlike] to make that assertion against me or Ken or anyone for that matter. Is that your way of carrying on a conversation with a family member, a friend, an enemy?"

Now you want to sound contrite? How convenient, and it doesn't surprise me. Here, with a public audience you try to work your evil magic.....again. You have tried time and time again, with me, to "act out" the part of a CONCERNED Christian. Donnie, with the way you have handled most everything here, including dealing with anyone that disagrees with you, and even more importantly the manner in which you have violated even the congregation that you attend, I would consider you more of an enemy of the Lord, and not merely me. I get really nauseated, Donnie, when you want to call me down for "carrying on a conversation with a family member."
YOU can say that and have time and time again, rebuked elders at Madison, by name, on a public forum such as this?
You can't talk about family Donnie in such a way. You don't have the right. You are on the OUTSIDE looking in. If you want to be INSIDE the family once more, you have to make a public repentance for a public sin.

Again, I will not dignify this discussion with a rebuttal, only to let you know that you DID indeed lie....again.

Number 1.....you said...."(1) The statements I made were not direct quotations from you. They did not begin and end with quotation marks. So, they are not lies."

They ARE indeed lies. You did NOT say that I quoted them, which is even worse. You took it on your own to attribute this ("I am thinking specifically of Dave who has constantly endorsed and defended the use of musical devices in the assembly of saints."), to me. As I said...you accused me of something that you cannot prove. You took what I have been saying all along and twisted (and more like WARPED) my words so it became what you wanted your public audience here to hear. You deliberately turned around my thoughts about what I have said here all along. It is a lie, not a play on words, but a lie.

Donnie, you also said..."(2) Since they were not direct quotations from you, it was my understanding of what you've said countless times."

It is NOT your understanding of what I said, and you very well know that. What you do understand is that you didn't like what you heard from me so you attributed something false to me so you could continue your charades here at this wicked website.

Again, prove what you ATTRIBUTED, or what you WANTED me to say. If you believe I endorsed such a belief, then prove it. I will not, in all cases, stand by idly while another man, such as you, takes liberty with his interpretation of the Word of God. Ken Sublett is ever worse than you. He claims, of course, it isn't interpretation though. I guess that is what happens when you believe that you are better than even the KJV translators. You said that I have "strongly defended the use of musical devices in the gathering."
From what I have said, prove it!

Dave wrote: "Again, I will not dignify this discussion with a rebuttal..."

So if Dave's 563-word response was not a rebuttal, what was it?

BTW, just out of curiosity, what is "assertation" [sic]?
Quote
Share

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

May 4th, 2011, 9:08 am #10

Donnie, when you make the following assertation, I cringe. You said...."You know, it was totally unnecessary [in fact, un-Christlike] to make that assertion against me or Ken or anyone for that matter. Is that your way of carrying on a conversation with a family member, a friend, an enemy?"

Now you want to sound contrite? How convenient, and it doesn't surprise me. Here, with a public audience you try to work your evil magic.....again. You have tried time and time again, with me, to "act out" the part of a CONCERNED Christian. Donnie, with the way you have handled most everything here, including dealing with anyone that disagrees with you, and even more importantly the manner in which you have violated even the congregation that you attend, I would consider you more of an enemy of the Lord, and not merely me. I get really nauseated, Donnie, when you want to call me down for "carrying on a conversation with a family member."
YOU can say that and have time and time again, rebuked elders at Madison, by name, on a public forum such as this?
You can't talk about family Donnie in such a way. You don't have the right. You are on the OUTSIDE looking in. If you want to be INSIDE the family once more, you have to make a public repentance for a public sin.

Again, I will not dignify this discussion with a rebuttal, only to let you know that you DID indeed lie....again.

Number 1.....you said...."(1) The statements I made were not direct quotations from you. They did not begin and end with quotation marks. So, they are not lies."

They ARE indeed lies. You did NOT say that I quoted them, which is even worse. You took it on your own to attribute this ("I am thinking specifically of Dave who has constantly endorsed and defended the use of musical devices in the assembly of saints."), to me. As I said...you accused me of something that you cannot prove. You took what I have been saying all along and twisted (and more like WARPED) my words so it became what you wanted your public audience here to hear. You deliberately turned around my thoughts about what I have said here all along. It is a lie, not a play on words, but a lie.

Donnie, you also said..."(2) Since they were not direct quotations from you, it was my understanding of what you've said countless times."

It is NOT your understanding of what I said, and you very well know that. What you do understand is that you didn't like what you heard from me so you attributed something false to me so you could continue your charades here at this wicked website.

Again, prove what you ATTRIBUTED, or what you WANTED me to say. If you believe I endorsed such a belief, then prove it. I will not, in all cases, stand by idly while another man, such as you, takes liberty with his interpretation of the Word of God. Ken Sublett is ever worse than you. He claims, of course, it isn't interpretation though. I guess that is what happens when you believe that you are better than even the KJV translators. You said that I have "strongly defended the use of musical devices in the gathering."
From what I have said, prove it!

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

You've become an expert in evasion, avoidance and deviation from simple subject matters of discussion. The main point I initially brought up was concerning the "use" or "no use" of the musical machinery when the saints gather/assemble to teach and admonish one another in ... songs.

This major point is all associated with the suggestion from the progressive and liberal members of the church [and that includes David Fie---, Fred Whaley, et al] that the "none use" of IM in the church of Christ is only a TRADITION. Either (1) a tradition is "apostolic" [biblical] or (2) it is human [man-made]. The liberal-minded folks are so busy promoting their agenda of feel-good praise music and are so fixated on instrumental accompaniment. To them "none use" of musical devices, therefore, is a man-made tradition.

I know that references to musical instruments as musical devices and objects--and inanimate, lifeless, unnecessary, divisive at that--make your blood boil. But don't let that get to you because the descriptions are accurate.

The historical fact is that the use of musical instruments in "worship" in the "Christian" era was originated by the Roman Catholic Church; that the Protestant Churches [whose many of their founders were opposed to such use] imitated the RCC and propagated the RCC's man-made practice or tradition in/about the 1800s.

Dave, you have deviated from the subject matter. Instead, you have exposed your anger and hostility and personal attacks by redirecting our focus to extraneous matters such as: "you ALSO have lied"; "you want to sound contrite"; and numerous other holier-than-thou comments [just re-read Dave's posts].

What does all that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

I have a solution for you, Dave, to make your life and mine easier. I do have several questions, but here are a few for a start. I have them numbered so that we can easily identify your response to the specific question. You've referenced these in your responses, so they shouldn't be surprising to you:[/color]
<ol>[*]Do you believe that elders can or sometimes do commit mistakes and make wrong decisions?
________________________________________
</li>[*]Do you believe that since elders are worthy of double honor, you would just sit back, be silent and allow them to teach doctrines that YOU know are unscriptural and contrary to God's will?
________________________________________
</li>[*]Are you in favor of the elders who've made a decision to implement a practice that is unnecessary, unbiblical, controversial and divisive?
________________________________________
</li>[*]What do you think is the responsibility of the elders or the eldership that caused the division in the congregation?
________________________________________
</li>[*]I would not call you a liar just because you disagree with me. But why do you persist or insist on calling someone else a liar just because he disagrees with you?
________________________________________
</li>[*]Since the church of Christ does not use or is opposed to the use of instrumental music in the assembly, is this a human (man-made) tradition in the church?
________________________________________
</li>[*]Do you believe that the worship of the "Virgin Mary, Mother of God" is a man-made tradition in the Roman Catholic Church?
________________________________________
</li>[*]Do you believe that according to the history of the Christian era, the Roman Catholic Christ was the first to introduce instrumental music in "the[ir] church"?
________________________________________
</li>[*]Do you believe that instrumental music in the Catholic and many Protestant Churches is a man-made tradition? If not, please explain.
________________________________________
</li>[*]You have labeled ConcernedMembers as an "evil site" or a "den of liars," do you believe in abstaining "from ALL appearance of evil" (I Thess. 5:22)?
________________________________________
</li>[*]Do you believe, think or feel that not only that you have not abstained "from the appearance of all evil," but also that you have actually participated in the "evil" works of this site?
________________________________________
</li>[*]Do you NOW believe the fact that churches of Christ do not practice mechanical music in their assemblies?
________________________________________
</li>[*]The change agents are promoting the idea that the church, the body of Christ, should be denomination-friendly to the extent that we compromise the truth and accept some of their teachings and beliefs? Do you agree with the change agents?
________________________________________
</li>[*]Even though churches of Christ do not use musical machinery in their assemblies, the change agents have been somewhat successful in transforming a few congregations into Community Church-ism by implementing the IM practice. They are subtle in their efforts. They use the incremental approach as their methodology to transform these churches. They are going against the grain. And so are you. Do you agree with this assessment? If not, please explain.
________________________________________
</li>[/list][color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Sorry, it's so late ... must end this for now.

Fred, I'll respond to your questions later.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share