Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

October 28th, 2010, 4:06 am #31

We are to follow the New Testament doctrine, for that does not change. Living with modern inventions has nothing to do with doctrine, unless we use those inventions to pervert and abuse New Testament doctrine. Apparently some folks think that worshipping as the first-century Christians did means we are also to live as they did, dress as they did, eat the exact same foods as they did, have the same jobs that they did; ditch electricity, cars, indoor plumbing, computers, cell phones, antibiotics, vaccines; in short, ditch everything invented, developed, or discovered after the first century. Yet all of those are material things that have nothing to do with New Testament doctrine as such.

If all Christians lived in communes, I suppose we would be dividing our means and distributing them evenly for the good of all, as the first-century Christians did. American society is more individualistic on the whole. If you feel the need to join a commune, however, go ahead. Nothing wrong with it. I'm sure that doesn't give you the answer you wanted. That might prompt you to give a sarcastic reply, and then again it might not. No matter. If you don't, somebody else will. It goes with the territory.

As for washing feet, there are groups who do just that. Maybe that practice should be revived throughout all of Christianity.

What sarcasm? There are others on this board who are "experts" in hyperbole, insults, and sarcastic responses. They know who they are.
Quote
Share

Sonny
Sonny

October 30th, 2010, 5:51 pm #32

If the denominations, ultra-liberals, and others Sonny mentioned are to make it to heaven, they must put away their man-made doctrines and do-as-we-please attitudes and follow the teachings of Christ in the New Testament. That is what the "narrow way" is--the Gospel of Christ, not of man. Clearly, many denominations do NOT follow what is commanded in the New Testament. If they persist, how can they be saved? How can God forgive those who continue to ignore and scoff at what He has commanded in the New Testament? Christ has clearly warned us that such people will not be saved.

Sonny wrote to me: "You may not see me as making it...BUT YOU WOULD FIND SOME OTHER REASON..." By that, Sonny seems to have concluded that I have as much as condemned him to hell, when I have neither said nor thought anything of the sort. What a profoundly strange and judgmental attitude on his part! Sonny is right in one aspect, however: only God is the judge.

By "tolerance and acceptance," does that mean we embrace and encourage those who practice doctrines alien to the Gospel of Christ? Here's the answer:

"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds" (2 John 1:9-11 KJV).
I agree that one is to continue in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9). What is this doctrine, that some there in Ephesus in the 1st Century were not keeping? 2 John 7 tells us (Also 1 John 2:18, 22, and 4:3) - "Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist."

The doctrine of Christ the apostle John is speaking of is that Jesus came in the flesh. The gnostics were saying otherwise. This had serious consequences, including saying one could do whatever they wanted with their body (sexual immorality).

The doctrine of Christ IS NOT speaking of disfellowshipping those who exercise any liberty whatsoever or have any difference.

I DO NOT KNOW OF ANY CHRISTIAN OR CHURCH TODAY THAT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THIS DOCTRINE, THAT JESUS CAME IN THE FLESH. I DO NOT KNOW ANY CHURCH TEACHING DOCETISM OR GNOSTICISM. Praise God.

To say the doctrine of Christ pertains to crayons, clapping and puppets in a classroom, and dozens of other differences in the adult Christian world is to make the way narrower than the actual texts and contexts of Matthew 7:13-14 and 2 John 9-11.

-Sonny
Quote
Share

Richard
Richard

October 30th, 2010, 8:41 pm #33

We are to follow the New Testament doctrine, for that does not change. Living with modern inventions has nothing to do with doctrine, unless we use those inventions to pervert and abuse New Testament doctrine. Apparently some folks think that worshipping as the first-century Christians did means we are also to live as they did, dress as they did, eat the exact same foods as they did, have the same jobs that they did; ditch electricity, cars, indoor plumbing, computers, cell phones, antibiotics, vaccines; in short, ditch everything invented, developed, or discovered after the first century. Yet all of those are material things that have nothing to do with New Testament doctrine as such.

If all Christians lived in communes, I suppose we would be dividing our means and distributing them evenly for the good of all, as the first-century Christians did. American society is more individualistic on the whole. If you feel the need to join a commune, however, go ahead. Nothing wrong with it. I'm sure that doesn't give you the answer you wanted. That might prompt you to give a sarcastic reply, and then again it might not. No matter. If you don't, somebody else will. It goes with the territory.

As for washing feet, there are groups who do just that. Maybe that practice should be revived throughout all of Christianity.

What sarcasm? There are others on this board who are "experts" in hyperbole, insults, and sarcastic responses. They know who they are.
More to the point, Dr. Crump. People of your particular belief system, according to the teachings of folks like you, believe that somehow God only gave you and others with whom you agree the power to discern what the bible is teaching. I recon there are 1.5 billion Muslims who would totally disagree with you. On this point you and I would be on the same side. I only need to read about the crusades and what happened throughout Europe several centuries ago to see what happens when a few people get together and think they have all the answers.

I was raised in the "one true church" by a set of parents who followed that form of doctrine, in fact, my dad was a preacher for many, many years. Even as a child I had disagreements with my father because what he preached from the bible was not what I was reading and understanding. My teaching in Christianity 101, from the time I was a child, was that as long as you worshiped in the correct manner and lived a decent life, you were ok. Then there were the arguments about what if I were on the way to be baptized and I got killed? Or, what if I were about to have a fatal car crash and said a dirty word just before impact? I could go on forever about all the ignorant arguments there were over the most insignificant things.

The whole point I was trying to make about "barely mentioned", was that they acts of worship that I was taught as a child to be the one true way to salvation are not mentioned in the same context I was being taught. There are things about the church of Christ that keep me there. I believe that baptism is essential for salvation, I do not agree that once we are saved we are always saved; that's where the story ends. I prefer a capella music, and I would never attend a worship service where that sort of thing goes on. I don't agree with the church of Christ concept of the Lord's Supper, that's taken way out of context as far as I can see, but I can tolerate the symbolism for what it is.

The thing that bothers me is that all I ever heard about was works and a worship service, and then I read the bible and it talks about love and forgiveness. Yes, I understand that there are things that we have to DO because we are Christians, but those things we are to DO are not part of some worship service, and the things we do can not save us. That comes from grace through faith and is a gift we are given. Worship is spiritual, not physical, and I'm not going to retype the verses I used in my last post. Christianity is about a way to live a life, not wether we can check off a list of things we do on Sunday morning that will somehow justify our salvation. The worship service so many people get so upset over couldn't have been all THAT important. If it were, wouldn't it have been laid out just as plain as baptism is? Would not the scripture go into great detail if that worship service was that important? I think it would have, in fact, I know it would have because there are so many things that the scriptures do tell us, and the bible is very specific with those commandments. What I do see, all through the new Testament, is how we are supposed to live our lives, and how we are to conduct ourselves with the world and with our brothers and sisters in Christ. These things are listed over and over again throughout the New Testament and that "all important" worship service is not mentioned at all. When it did talk about a worship service over in Corinthians, it looked nothing like what we do today.

No smearing here sir. I'm sorry if I sounded a little defensive in my last post. I've read so many of yours that seem to reek of sarcasm, but maybe I'm wrong and just don't know what's in your heart. For that, I'm truly sorry for judging your intent. I am no liberal, just someone who enjoys reading and who tries to take away past experience and accept things for what they really are. I am a very moral person, and I do my best to live a good clean life and attempt to live by the teachings of Jesus. I don't always do a good job of that, but thank God for his son and the salvation we are offered through grace.
Quote
Share

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

October 31st, 2010, 4:05 pm #34

BELOW ARE 2 CHURCHES WE MAY NEED TO ADD TO THE FOUL AND INFAMOUS "WALL OF SHAME".

Since a few brothers on this site have about as much intolerance and disdain for praise teams as they do IM, I wonder if you believe the Inner-City Church of Christ in Nashville is in right standing with God (or is a church of shame)? They do not have instruments, but do have a praise team of 4 men who stand with microphones on stage each Sunday morning.

Also, there is a congregation in Zambia that allows all the children (and just the children) to sing "Jesus Loves Me" and other songs in front of the congregation as part of Sunday worship. Is this acceptable or unacceptable worship?

If your answer is negative, you might want to look into that one and take concerned members globally.

-Sonny
I didn't say singing was a sin, I was and am saying that no one "SANG" any of the Bible in the modern "gay Troubadour" or ACappella fella style. A Cappella identifies the Pope's castrated opra "worship team" the Pope used in the Sistine because they were so much more true to the faith than the precenters singing FALSETTO like the Levites.

It is true that "one cannot ride a horse if one has no horse." Lucian of Samosata.

Modern exegetes do not agree in this matter. For a time many would admit no metre at all in the Psalms. Davison (Hast., "Dict. of the Bible", s. v.) writes: "though metre is not discernible in the Psalms, it does not follow that rhythm is excluded". This rhythm, however, "defies analysis and systematization". Driver ("Introd. to Lit. of O. T.", New York, 1892, 339) admits in Hebrew poetry "no metre in the strict sense of the term". Exegetes who find metre in the Psalms are of four schools, according as they
....explain Hebrew metre by quantity,
....by the number of syllables,
....by accent,
....or by both quantity and accent.
(from The Catholic Encyclopedia)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12533a.htm

Up to the Edict of Milan (AD 313), the psalms were interspersed with lessons.

By the time of Gregory I (circa 600), the Mass and Office had assumed a fixed shape and antiphonal psalmody (the chanting of a psalm alternately by two choirs) and responsorial psalmody (when the congregation responded to a psalm sung by a cantor) were institutionalized.The distinction between these types later faded.


There was no "congregational singing with or without instrumental accompaniment until after the Reformation."

I like the PATTERNISM of Jesus: Meet once a year, no preaching, no collection plates, eat the Lord's Supper (feast of unleavened bread), CHANT one Hymn (one of the Biblical hallel's) and then GO OUT. "Next appointed hour" will be next year, same time.

The word Humneo "descant upon in song or speech II. tell over and over again, harp upon, repeat, recite. recite the form of the law.

I am sure that no one will read (or comprehend) this so I intend to drown my sorrows in another POT of coffee and take a nap in the recliner when Kitty (that's her name: she was catnapped from a parking lot) says it is time.
Quote
Like
Share

Dave
Dave

October 31st, 2010, 6:06 pm #35

Ken Sublett said...."I didn't say singing was a sin, I was and am saying that no one "SANG" any of the Bible in the modern "gay Troubadour" or ACappella fella style. A Cappella identifies the Pope's castrated opra "worship team" the Pope used in the Sistine because they were so much more true to the faith than the precenters singing FALSETTO like the Levites."

ummmm Donnie???....the singing that you dearly behold to IS a capella. Therefore Ken is saying that the a capella manner of singing that the conservative base is singing to today is sinful. YES KEN, you are saying that the SANGING that goes on today is sinful. ALso, the praise team only leads in the a capella manner. Neither the praise team or the congregational use your FALSETTO type......that is just your hopeful doomsday message.
About your hopeful always gloom and doom message......as the saying goes Ken.....be careful of what you ask for......YOU may get it. Prophetic for the person himself.
Quote
Share

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

November 1st, 2010, 12:22 am #36

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

Even With Ken's considerable explanation of the HISTORY of a cappella, you still do not understand it. You don't even acknowledge anything regarding the Pope [you know, the POPE -- I think you've heard of the papacy of the Roman Catholic Church] and his "worship team"--his CHOIR BOYS, those falsetto singers, those high-pitched boys singing "in the manner of a chapel" -- "a cappella."

Instrumental music is one issue -- we've discussed that issue countless times already.

The "Praise Team" is another issue -- that's what Ken is trying to explain to you specifically. The problem with your misunderstanding is due to you fallacious logic:

-- "a cappella" is non-instrumental
-- the "Praise Team" sings "a cappella"
-- therefore, God needs the "Praise Team." Does He?

Based on that logic, why not just use the Pope's CHOIR BOYS [his castrated "worship team" to "help" the saints gathered "worship" the Father?

How much plainer does it have to be to help you understand anything related to singing?

Ummmmm, too. I already told you: Nobody says singing is a sin. But for you to assert that God needs the services of a GROUP of professional, elite musicians in worship to Him is yours and of postmodern man's creative thinking. Tell me, how would you like for the Pope's CHOIR BOYS lead your worship to the Father? They, too, sing "a cappella" [your narrow definition without regard for history], do they not? [/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Dave
Dave

November 1st, 2010, 1:03 am #37

Let's try this again, for the learned impaired. Ken says "I didn't say singing was a sin, I was and am saying that no one "SANG" any of the Bible in the modern "gay Troubadour" or ACappella fella style. A Cappella identifies the Pope's castrated opra "worship team" the Pope used in the Sistine because they were so much more true to the faith than the precenters singing FALSETTO like the Levites."

Donnnie, I do understand....and you do too. Playing dumb doesn't look good on you. Ken's comment that no no one in the Bible sang in the modern a capella style is not misunderstood by anyone. He is saying that our a capella of today is close to that of that of the catholic choir (Hence....Ken says "A Cappella identifies the Pope's castrated opra "worship team" the Pope used...."). Donnie, you also know that Ken is actually putting down your traditional service. Just go down with the ship and quit acting like you and Ken know what you are saying. Ken is not only putting down the praise team but ANY singing in the a capella style. Just take your lumps and hush man! To make sure that everyone understands what you are trying here......I want to show how you tried to pull the attention away from this discussion again (because it is a no win situation)by trying to make this an instrumental issue. It never has been.


So keep up your circus Donnie. You've got all three rings going on right now.
Looking good!
Quote
Share

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

November 1st, 2010, 3:11 am #38

Dave,

After all, the RE-explaining of the TRUE HISTORY of "a cappella," unfortunately, you STILL do not understand. The Pope's a cappella "CHOIR BOYS" team is just way ahead of the progressive neo-church of Christ's a cappella "PRAISE BOYS AND GIRLS" team of the 21st century.

The quote from Ken in your first paragraph is that history that you still do NOT comprehend. I agree with Ken. Ken and I disagree with you and the change agents you are emulating.

The Pope's idea was that God needed the CHOIR BOYS during the Mass.

The Change Agents' idea is that God needs the PRAISE TEAM to assist the "Worship Leader" with performing to/for the congregation.

Next time, why don't you ask God if He really needs the Pope's CHOIR BOYS or your Worship Leader's PRAISE TEAM.

Then, let me know His response to your question.
Quote
Like
Share

Dave
Dave

November 1st, 2010, 4:45 am #39

Donnie, when you say...."Next time, why don't you ask God if He really needs the Pope's CHOIR BOYS or your Worship Leader's PRAISE TEAM," then I know that you aren't into this for a discussion, but only to act out, and act immature as your partner in crime William Crump continues to do.
That, in essence, is the THEME of this site.
Donnie wants meaningful dialogue, or so he claims until he is on the short end of the Truth.....so what does he/they (including William Crump) resort to?
Name calling, slander, reviling and statements that do not have anything to do with the discussion.
That is why you two were banned multiple times from Faithsite. Your 'behavior was unbecoming of a Christian.'
It still is!
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

November 1st, 2010, 1:21 pm #40

Dave should be careful about accusing others of name-calling and slander, when he is highly proficient in slinging slander, character assassinations, insults, sarcasm, and other verbal abuse at those with whom he disagrees. Mote and beam, my boy, mote and beam.
Quote
Share