The Law of Silence: Two Views: The intoxicating New Wineskin heresy.

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

May 26th, 2012, 4:50 pm #21

God does not speak to the wise or Sophists: Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites named by Christ in Ezekiel 33 as self-speakers, singers and instrument players. God IS silent because Jesus said that God HIDES from them. God sends them strong delusions and makes them foolish

http://www.piney.com/Isaiah.57.The.Law.odddf Silence.html

http://www.piney.com/CENI.Commands.Exam ... ences.html





The Spirit OF [preposition] Christ defined the future Ekklesia or Church of Christ both inclusively and exclusively in the prophets. In Isaiah 57

http://www.piney.com/Isaiah.57.The.Law.of.Silence.html

In Isaiah 50 Christ defined the future MOCKING and SMITING of Messiah in a musical sense by the Levites

http://www.piney.com/Isaiah.50.Smitten.Plucked.html

In Isaiah 55 Christ outlawed spending ou money for the Free Water of the Word. Beginning in the wilderness the only ROLE is to read the word for its' comfort and doctrine. Equating the Word and Spirit is universal.

http://www.piney.com/Isaiah.55.Word.Spirit.html

In Isaiah 58 Christ outlawed speaking our own words or seeking our own pleasure.

http://www.piney.com/Isaiah.58.html

That doesn't prevent Rick Atchley from using buffoonery to mock the Law of Silence.
2. Since honoring the commands of Christ for the future reign of Christ defined inclusively and exclusively to MARK those who mock His word.
3. The Spirit OF Christ in Jeremiah 23 says that is blaspheming the Holy Spirit of Christ

http://www.piney.com/Rick.Atchley.Law.of.Silence.html







The New Wineskins Magazine builds on the foundation of Al Maxey, Edward Fudge and others. This was part of the Jubilee movement--from Nashville a city set on seven hills--when Rubel Shelly, Max Lucado, Rick Atchley and others thought the time was right to RESTRUCTURE all Churches of Christ into defacto Christian Churches or Baptist Churches.

http://www.piney.com/New.Winskins.Magazine.html

H. Leo Boles proving that the Christian Church invented the Law of Silence.

http://www.piney.com/Unity.Boles.html

Boles:
"Areas of silence," "liberty of opinion," and "the realm of expediency" are trite phrases used by leaders in the "Christian Church" and have been coined and put on a par with the teachings of the New Testament. It is just another way of saying that the opinions of men may guide the people of God, and that some of the people of God should submit to the opinions of men. There was unity with God's people so long as they respected the slogan, "Where the scriptures speak, we speak; and where the scriptures are silent, we are silent"; but when brethren began to claim the authority to speak where the New Testament is silent, and impose their opinions upon other brethren, division and separation were the inevitable results.

W.R. Walker, in Christian Standard, May 27, 1939, said: "There are two areas in our religious living in which the authority of Christ must be recognized. The first embraces all his teaching and that of his inspired followers, the `vocal area' ; but there is another area, the `area of silence."' He further said:

"I am persuaded that Christ has authority in the `areas of silence.'
Christ, by his silence, in every situation concerning which
he has left no direct teaching,
has bestowed on me this authority to act for myself."


Boles: Here are the two standards or rules recognized
.....by many in the "Christian Church,"
..........namely, that of "walking by faith,"
..........and that of "walking by opinion."

W.R. Walker calls the opinions of man in the "areas of silence" "the authority of Christ." This is tantamount to saying that man's opinions in the "areas of silence" are of equal force with the word of God.

I join issue with him on this point. There can be no unity in the "area of silence," as there can be no unity on opinions when each man claims the authority to do what is right in his own eyes. This would violate every scripture that God has given instructing his people to be "of the same mind, the same judgment of one accord."

Romans 14 outlaws anything that does not edify or educate in the assembly (romans 15) where the COMMAND is to speak "with one mind and one mouth that which is written for our learning." No one with eyes or ears could fail to read that.

Jay Guin Romans 14

http://www.piney.com/Jay.Guin.Romans.14.html


Ronnie Normans on Romans 14

http://www.piney.com/Norman.Romans.14.html

Terry Rush:

http://www.piney.com/Terry.Rush.Review.html

Last edited by Ken.Sublett on May 26th, 2012, 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

May 27th, 2012, 2:22 am #22

The change agents reject the concept of "Law of Silence," because that expression is not found in Scripture. Yet its PRINCIPLE is definitely found in the Old and New Testaments alike when we are told not to add to or take from God's Word:

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you" (Deut. 4:2 KJV).

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book" (Rev. 22:18-19 KJV).

When God commands anything, we are not free to expand upon or edit His commands according to what pleases us. That's what the two passages above mean. God doesn't have to say, "Worship me with singing but not with mechanical instruments." His explicit directive that we worship Him with singing is sufficient alone. To add instruments when God hasn't commanded them in the New Testament is to pollute God's directive.

On the other hand, the change agents' excuse to do as they please is, "God didn't say not to do thus and so." That statement is not only absent from the Old and New Testaments, there is no principle even remotely akin to it. The reason is that "God didn't say not to do thus and so" is a fabrication of those who are dissatisfied with following God's Word AS WRITTEN in the New Testament.
<em>B (no login)
Posted May 26, 2012 9:31 AM

The change agents reject the concept of "Law of Silence," because that expression is not found in Scripture. Yet its PRINCIPLE is definitely found in the Old and New Testaments alike when we are told not to add to or take from God's Word:

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you" (Deut. 4:2 KJV).

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book" (Rev. 22:18-19 KJV).

When God commands anything, we are not free to expand upon or edit His commands according to what pleases us. That's what the two passages above mean. God doesn't have to say, "Worship me with singing but not with mechanical instruments." His explicit directive that we worship Him with singing is sufficient alone. To add instruments when God hasn't commanded them in the New Testament is to pollute God's directive.

On the other hand, the change agents' excuse to do as they please is, "God didn't say not to do thus and so." That statement is not only absent from the Old and New Testaments, there is no principle even remotely akin to it. The reason is that "God didn't say not to do thus and so" is a fabrication of those who are dissatisfied with following God's Word AS WRITTEN in the New Testament.</em>

The "Law of Silence" is a man-made construct. When God forbids something, He speaks to it specifically. Silence does not permit or prohibit.
The above quotes are taken out of context. Moses was told not to add to or take away from the Law given by God. John was told not to add to or take from the message given in Revelation.
I find ironic you find it necessary to interpret the command to sing to mean only a capella music is allowed. Isn't that adding to scripture when you seek to bind your preference on others? Doesn't that violate Romans 14 - "All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth , or is offended , or is made weak . Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."
Nowhere in scripture does God condemn or forbid instrumental music. Yet you would change the plain meaning of the passage to mean singing only. Who then is the "change agent"? Don't you recognize the double standard inherent in your argument? Apparently not.
Quote
Share

B
B

May 27th, 2012, 11:02 am #23

You would change the plain meaning of the passage to mean ADDING instrumental music to the singing if desired, when instrumental music isn't mentioned at all. You would change a command of God that specifies vocal music. Why do you think God specified vocal music but omitted instrumental music? Do you assume God gave us a ittle "push" with vocal music and "meant" for us to take it from there with other kinds of music like instrumental music?

You hold to the sentiment of, "God doesn't condemn instrumental music, so we may use it." That's the same sentiment of "God didn't say not to use instrumental music." You ignore the fact that such a sentiment is found nowhere in Scripture. We all know God commands singing. But you don't ask the question, "Does God anywhere in the New Testament also command instrumental music?" You also do not ask, "Do we have permission from God to ADD anything more to His explicit commands over, above, and beyond what He has specified in the New Testament?" The answer is NO. If God's silence neither permits nor prohibits, then Christians must be guided by what is WRITTEN and SPECIFIED in the New Testament. They certainly can't have a "Christianity" based on everything that is NOT written therein. That's a "Christianity" based entirely on man-made constructs.
Quote
Share

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

May 27th, 2012, 5:35 pm #24

God does not speak to the wise or Sophists: Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites named by Christ in Ezekiel 33 as self-speakers, singers and instrument players. God IS silent because Jesus said that God HIDES from them. God sends them strong delusions and makes them foolish

http://www.piney.com/Isaiah.57.The.Law.odddf Silence.html

http://www.piney.com/CENI.Commands.Exam ... ences.html





The Spirit OF [preposition] Christ defined the future Ekklesia or Church of Christ both inclusively and exclusively in the prophets. In Isaiah 57

http://www.piney.com/Isaiah.57.The.Law.of.Silence.html

In Isaiah 50 Christ defined the future MOCKING and SMITING of Messiah in a musical sense by the Levites

http://www.piney.com/Isaiah.50.Smitten.Plucked.html

In Isaiah 55 Christ outlawed spending ou money for the Free Water of the Word. Beginning in the wilderness the only ROLE is to read the word for its' comfort and doctrine. Equating the Word and Spirit is universal.

http://www.piney.com/Isaiah.55.Word.Spirit.html

In Isaiah 58 Christ outlawed speaking our own words or seeking our own pleasure.

http://www.piney.com/Isaiah.58.html

That doesn't prevent Rick Atchley from using buffoonery to mock the Law of Silence.
2. Since honoring the commands of Christ for the future reign of Christ defined inclusively and exclusively to MARK those who mock His word.
3. The Spirit OF Christ in Jeremiah 23 says that is blaspheming the Holy Spirit of Christ

http://www.piney.com/Rick.Atchley.Law.of.Silence.html







The New Wineskins Magazine builds on the foundation of Al Maxey, Edward Fudge and others. This was part of the Jubilee movement--from Nashville a city set on seven hills--when Rubel Shelly, Max Lucado, Rick Atchley and others thought the time was right to RESTRUCTURE all Churches of Christ into defacto Christian Churches or Baptist Churches.

http://www.piney.com/New.Winskins.Magazine.html

H. Leo Boles proving that the Christian Church invented the Law of Silence.

http://www.piney.com/Unity.Boles.html

Boles:
"Areas of silence," "liberty of opinion," and "the realm of expediency" are trite phrases used by leaders in the "Christian Church" and have been coined and put on a par with the teachings of the New Testament. It is just another way of saying that the opinions of men may guide the people of God, and that some of the people of God should submit to the opinions of men. There was unity with God's people so long as they respected the slogan, "Where the scriptures speak, we speak; and where the scriptures are silent, we are silent"; but when brethren began to claim the authority to speak where the New Testament is silent, and impose their opinions upon other brethren, division and separation were the inevitable results.

W.R. Walker, in Christian Standard, May 27, 1939, said: "There are two areas in our religious living in which the authority of Christ must be recognized. The first embraces all his teaching and that of his inspired followers, the `vocal area' ; but there is another area, the `area of silence."' He further said:

"I am persuaded that Christ has authority in the `areas of silence.'
Christ, by his silence, in every situation concerning which
he has left no direct teaching,
has bestowed on me this authority to act for myself."


Boles: Here are the two standards or rules recognized
.....by many in the "Christian Church,"
..........namely, that of "walking by faith,"
..........and that of "walking by opinion."

W.R. Walker calls the opinions of man in the "areas of silence" "the authority of Christ." This is tantamount to saying that man's opinions in the "areas of silence" are of equal force with the word of God.

I join issue with him on this point. There can be no unity in the "area of silence," as there can be no unity on opinions when each man claims the authority to do what is right in his own eyes. This would violate every scripture that God has given instructing his people to be "of the same mind, the same judgment of one accord."

Cade, Maxey, Guin, Fudge say:<font face="arial" size="4">The "Law of Silence" is a man-made construct. When God forbids something, He speaks to it specifically. Silence does not permit or prohibit.

The above quotes are taken out of context. Moses was told not to add to or take away from the Law given by God. John was told not to add to or take from the message given in Revelation. I find ironic you find it necessary to interpret the command to sing to mean only a capella music is allowed

Nowhere in scripture does God condemn or forbid instrumental music. Yet you would change the plain meaning of the passage to mean singing only. Who then is the "change agent"? Don't you recognize the double standard inherent in your argument? Apparently not.


THE HIRELING-CHANGLINGS ADD THE INSTRUMENT TO THE WORD SING. You need a DIRECT COMMAND to add to the word SING.

There is no Bible or literary event where SING can possibley mean SING AND PLAY AN INSTRUMENT. The command to SING is not God being silent and to refute that is blasphemy because it claims that the Spirit OF Christ said something He did NOT say.
Only instrumentalists use the "law of silence" as proven by these posts.

Rev. 15:3 And they SING the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb,
.....SAYING, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty;
..... just and true are THY ways, thou King of saints.


SINGING can only be accomplished by SAYING as proven from this passage. You can SING with an INSTRUMENT but you CANNOT say the works of God because HIS WAYS do not ADD what only the musicators add.

Point One: Moses SPAKE or RECITED his song so the elders could LEARN it and repeat it later.
.....It was Miriam who caused the women to break out or escape with the sistrum
.....her badge of being a Prophetess of Hathor--the man killer. A Soothsayer as were the Levites

Point Two: Sing: G103 ad ad'-o A primary verb; to sing:sing.

Point Three: Song: G5603 d o-day' From G103 ; a chant or ode (the general term for any words sung;
and G5568 still more specifically a Hebrew cantillation:song.

Cantillation is a SAYING using the MOUTH word: SAYING the Words of "a god" is always called SINGING but not related to a musical instrument.

The VOICE "accompanies" a Psalmos: the voice is the Harp of God used to communicate and not musicate.

G5568 psalmos psal-mos' From G5567 ; a set piece of music, that is, a sacred ode
.....accompanied with
.....the voice,
.....harp
.....or other instrument; a psalm);
.....collectively the book of the Psalms:
.....psalm. SAME AS Compare G5603 .

Ode , h, CONTRAST for aoio,
aoid (q. v.)), of dirges, pollas thrnn das S.El.88 (anap.); lgousi t' aoids be read) and in Pi. l.c. (unless melizen or MODULATE be read).]

Luke 7:32 They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying,
.....We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced;
.....we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.

The MEN ware really BOYS which in Christ's prophecy in Isaiah 3 would be perverted people: This was the universal MARK of the pagan worship in the marketplace (Romans 14) still lusted after in contrast to the synagogue (Romans 15) where the command is to use that which is written for our learning: a musical instrument cannot TEACH as David believed in his "god awakening" psalms

Jesus consigned the singers with instruments to the Agora or Marketplace: this was the mark of Dionysus worship intending to use music to force people to BOW DOWN and be sodomized as the MARK of the Old Wineskin religion from Egypt onward.

1Corinthians 14:7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp,
.....except they give a distinction in the sounds,
.....how shall it be known what is piped or harped?

AOIDE CAN be accompanied with an instrument in CONTRAST to ODE which cannot be accompanied. AOIDE never includes an instrument unless that instrument is NAMED. The NAMED instrument of PSALLO is the human voice.

Point Four: SAYING: G3004 leg leg'-o A primary verb; properly to lay forth, that is, (figuratively) relate (in words [usually of systematic or set discourse; .... by implication to mean:--ask, bid, boast, call, describe, give out, name, put forth, say (-ing, on), shew, speak, tell, utter.

PAUL MAKES IT CLEAR THAT WE CANNOT SING WITH A HARP

1Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue,
<font color="#FFFFFF">.....
my spirit prayeth,
.....but my understanding is unfruitful.
1Corinthians 14:15 What is it then?
.....I will pray with the spirit,
.....and I will pray with the understanding also:
.....I will sing [PSALLO] with the spirit,
.....and I will sing with the understanding also.


Cade, Maxey, Guin etal COMMANDS that we PSALLO with a musical instruments.
Paul said that we PSALLO with the heart: you cannot hear it.

Psallo NEVER means to PLAY an instrument: it means PLUCK
When Psallo means play the instrument MUST be named.
Paul commanded PSALLO With the Heart: make the heart strings "sing" as any literate of the time would grasp

1Corinthians 14:16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit,
..... how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks,
..... seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?


If you PSALLO with a HARP how can those who assemble to be EDUCATED or understand?
They cannot. Therefore, you are the HYPOCRITE of Ezekiel 33 Rhetoricians, performance singers, instrument players.
The MARK is that people have NO INTENTION of obeying.

Paul said to psallo WITH the SPIRIT and WITH UNDERSTANDING. This is the normal Paul's ANTITHESIS to the perverted pagans who intended to "make the lambs dumb before the slaughter" so they could be fleeced.

Job etal shows the CONTRAST to those speaking LYING VANITIES: Instruments were always said to "lie" because the intention was to DECEIVE the people

Jonah 2:8 They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy.
.....vntas , Magicae vanitates, Plin. 26, 4, 9, § 18; cf. id. 27, 8, 35, § 57.
.....mgcus i magici, that were invoked by incantations (as Pluto, Hecate, Proserpine),
.....Tib. 1, 2, 62; Luc. 6, 577: linguae, i. e. hieroglyphics, id. 3, 222;
.....but lingua, skilled in incantations,

.....cantus, Juv. 6, 610: magicae RESONANT ubi Memnone CHORDE mysterious,
Jonah 2:9 BUT I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving;
I will pay that that I have vowed. Salvation is of the LORD.


Cade, Maxey, Guin etal speak LYING VANITIES: all self-compositions are vanity and intended to be MAGICAL MUSIC "to lead you into the presence of God"
Last edited by Ken.Sublett on May 27th, 2012, 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

B
B

May 27th, 2012, 6:08 pm #25

You would change the plain meaning of the passage to mean ADDING instrumental music to the singing if desired, when instrumental music isn't mentioned at all. You would change a command of God that specifies vocal music. Why do you think God specified vocal music but omitted instrumental music? Do you assume God gave us a ittle "push" with vocal music and "meant" for us to take it from there with other kinds of music like instrumental music?

You hold to the sentiment of, "God doesn't condemn instrumental music, so we may use it." That's the same sentiment of "God didn't say not to use instrumental music." You ignore the fact that such a sentiment is found nowhere in Scripture. We all know God commands singing. But you don't ask the question, "Does God anywhere in the New Testament also command instrumental music?" You also do not ask, "Do we have permission from God to ADD anything more to His explicit commands over, above, and beyond what He has specified in the New Testament?" The answer is NO. If God's silence neither permits nor prohibits, then Christians must be guided by what is WRITTEN and SPECIFIED in the New Testament. They certainly can't have a "Christianity" based on everything that is NOT written therein. That's a "Christianity" based entirely on man-made constructs.
Person A says, "God explicitly commands vocal music but says nothing about instrumental music. Therefore, I cannot ADD a different kind of music to what God has already commanded, because God explicitly forbids that I add to or take from any of His commandments."

Both of Person A's sentences are based entirely on New Testament Scripture (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16, Rev. 22:18-19).

Person B says, "God explicitly commands vocal music but says nothing about instrumental music. Therefore, I can ADD a different kind of music to what God has already commanded, because God doesn't explicitly forbid it."

Whereas Person B's first sentence is based on New Testament Scripture (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16), his second sentence is not. Person B deliberately ignores the fact that God has explicitly forbidden us to add to or take from any of his commandments. Person B prefers such man-contrived notions as, "What God does not forbid by name is fair game" and "God didn't say not to have instrumental music." Instead of obeying what is clearly WRITTEN in the New Testament, Person B thinks, "Unless God lists every conceivable 'Thou shalt not' that is possible, I will do as I please." Person B and all like-minded people are dissatisfied with what God has WRITTEN in the New Testament and seek excuses to go over, above, and beyond it.

Quote
Share

Joined: February 16th, 2012, 8:07 pm

May 27th, 2012, 10:09 pm #26

You would change the plain meaning of the passage to mean ADDING instrumental music to the singing if desired, when instrumental music isn't mentioned at all. You would change a command of God that specifies vocal music. Why do you think God specified vocal music but omitted instrumental music? Do you assume God gave us a ittle "push" with vocal music and "meant" for us to take it from there with other kinds of music like instrumental music?

You hold to the sentiment of, "God doesn't condemn instrumental music, so we may use it." That's the same sentiment of "God didn't say not to use instrumental music." You ignore the fact that such a sentiment is found nowhere in Scripture. We all know God commands singing. But you don't ask the question, "Does God anywhere in the New Testament also command instrumental music?" You also do not ask, "Do we have permission from God to ADD anything more to His explicit commands over, above, and beyond what He has specified in the New Testament?" The answer is NO. If God's silence neither permits nor prohibits, then Christians must be guided by what is WRITTEN and SPECIFIED in the New Testament. They certainly can't have a "Christianity" based on everything that is NOT written therein. That's a "Christianity" based entirely on man-made constructs.
<em>B (no login)
Posted May 27, 2012 7:02 AM

You would change the plain meaning of the passage to mean ADDING instrumental music to the singing if desired, when instrumental music isn't mentioned at all. You would change a command of God that specifies vocal music. Why do you think God specified vocal music but omitted instrumental music? Do you assume God gave us a ittle "push" with vocal music and "meant" for us to take it from there with other kinds of music like instrumental music?

You hold to the sentiment of, "God doesn't condemn instrumental music, so we may use it." That's the same sentiment of "God didn't say not to use instrumental music." You ignore the fact that such a sentiment is found nowhere in Scripture. We all know God commands singing. But you don't ask the question, "Does God anywhere in the New Testament also command instrumental music?" You also do not ask, "Do we have permission from God to ADD anything more to His explicit commands over, above, and beyond what He has specified in the New Testament?" The answer is NO. If God's silence neither permits nor prohibits, then Christians must be guided by what is WRITTEN and SPECIFIED in the New Testament. They certainly can't have a "Christianity" based on everything that is NOT written therein. That's a "Christianity" based entirely on man-made constructs.</em>

When God speaks to a matter, the debate is over. When God is silent on a matter, then we have to use good judgment. May we use instruments to accompany our singing? We certainly may; God is silent on the matter. The question then becomes, "Should we use instrumental accompaniment?" If it will cause a major disruption in the congregation, probably not. Point is, we have that freedom to choose when God is silent on any given issue. Within the bounds of holiness, God gives us the opportunity to exercise good judgment. Even you have that opportunity; I suggest you begin by learning the difference between tradition and truth.
Quote
Like
Share

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

May 27th, 2012, 11:21 pm #27

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

You continue to be defiant: You still argue with God even when He is silent.

If the Roman Catholic Church opines while God is silent and when Brian Cade and the change agents opine while God is silent, they all have something in common. Consider the following RCC teachings that Brian should agree with because the Scripture is silent about these matters:

1. Directing prayers to Mary is not prohibited in Scripture;
2. Purgatory is a fine place while unsure of heaven or hell;
3. Peter is the first pope; papacy is to continue;
4. Holy Water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by the priest, is authorized;
5. Canonization of dead saints is just fine;
6. The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand--good;
7. The Scripture does not prohibit the sale of indulgences;
8. Confession of sin to the priest is not forbidden in Scripture;
9. There are scores of man-made dogmas not listed above.

Brian, if we went by YOUR "law of non-prohibitive," the list of man-made traditions [real ones] would be endless.

It is common knowledge, Brian, that implementation of mechanical music in the church of Christ has caused disruption, division, alienation, confusion. You and the other change agents must stop changing the church of Christ Jesus to what it is not. Start your own FROM SCRATCH!!![/color]
Quote
Like
Share

B
B

May 27th, 2012, 11:22 pm #28

<em>B (no login)
Posted May 27, 2012 7:02 AM

You would change the plain meaning of the passage to mean ADDING instrumental music to the singing if desired, when instrumental music isn't mentioned at all. You would change a command of God that specifies vocal music. Why do you think God specified vocal music but omitted instrumental music? Do you assume God gave us a ittle "push" with vocal music and "meant" for us to take it from there with other kinds of music like instrumental music?

You hold to the sentiment of, "God doesn't condemn instrumental music, so we may use it." That's the same sentiment of "God didn't say not to use instrumental music." You ignore the fact that such a sentiment is found nowhere in Scripture. We all know God commands singing. But you don't ask the question, "Does God anywhere in the New Testament also command instrumental music?" You also do not ask, "Do we have permission from God to ADD anything more to His explicit commands over, above, and beyond what He has specified in the New Testament?" The answer is NO. If God's silence neither permits nor prohibits, then Christians must be guided by what is WRITTEN and SPECIFIED in the New Testament. They certainly can't have a "Christianity" based on everything that is NOT written therein. That's a "Christianity" based entirely on man-made constructs.</em>

When God speaks to a matter, the debate is over. When God is silent on a matter, then we have to use good judgment. May we use instruments to accompany our singing? We certainly may; God is silent on the matter. The question then becomes, "Should we use instrumental accompaniment?" If it will cause a major disruption in the congregation, probably not. Point is, we have that freedom to choose when God is silent on any given issue. Within the bounds of holiness, God gives us the opportunity to exercise good judgment. Even you have that opportunity; I suggest you begin by learning the difference between tradition and truth.
When God speaks about a matter, the debate is indeed OVER. Since we are forbidden to ADD to or take from any of God's existing commands, then WE ARE NOT COMMANDED, WE ARE NOT FREE to add instruments to the vocal music that God has explicitly commanded.

You should learn to follow the Word of God AS WRITTEN in the New Testament instead of corrupting God's commands with your personal preferences and traditions. To sing without adding instruments is to follow God's command AS WRITTEN. To ADD instruments is to follow man's tradition.

Brian evidently denies that God forbids us to add to or take from His explicit commandments.
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

May 28th, 2012, 3:33 am #29

<em>B (no login)
Posted May 27, 2012 7:22 PM

When God speaks about a matter, the debate is indeed OVER. Since we are forbidden to ADD to or take from any of God's existing commands, then WE ARE NOT COMMANDED, WE ARE NOT FREE to add instruments to the vocal music that God has explicitly commanded.

You should learn to follow the Word of God AS WRITTEN in the New Testament instead of corrupting God's commands with your personal preferences and traditions. To sing without adding instruments is to follow God's command AS WRITTEN. To ADD instruments is to follow man's tradition.

Brian evidently denies that God forbids us to add to or take from His explicit commandments.</em>

Silence neither permits nor forbids. When God prohibits or permits, He speaks to the matter. Scripture is silent on the use of instrumental music to accompany singing. If it violates your conscience to sing with instrumental accompaniment, don't do it. However, that does not give you leave to bind your conviction on your brethren to the point of calling down judgment on them. That's not your place.
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

May 28th, 2012, 5:02 am #30

God does not speak to the wise or Sophists: Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites named by Christ in Ezekiel 33 as self-speakers, singers and instrument players. God IS silent because Jesus said that God HIDES from them. God sends them strong delusions and makes them foolish

http://www.piney.com/Isaiah.57.The.Law.odddf Silence.html

http://www.piney.com/CENI.Commands.Exam ... ences.html





The Spirit OF [preposition] Christ defined the future Ekklesia or Church of Christ both inclusively and exclusively in the prophets. In Isaiah 57

http://www.piney.com/Isaiah.57.The.Law.of.Silence.html

In Isaiah 50 Christ defined the future MOCKING and SMITING of Messiah in a musical sense by the Levites

http://www.piney.com/Isaiah.50.Smitten.Plucked.html

In Isaiah 55 Christ outlawed spending ou money for the Free Water of the Word. Beginning in the wilderness the only ROLE is to read the word for its' comfort and doctrine. Equating the Word and Spirit is universal.

http://www.piney.com/Isaiah.55.Word.Spirit.html

In Isaiah 58 Christ outlawed speaking our own words or seeking our own pleasure.

http://www.piney.com/Isaiah.58.html

That doesn't prevent Rick Atchley from using buffoonery to mock the Law of Silence.
2. Since honoring the commands of Christ for the future reign of Christ defined inclusively and exclusively to MARK those who mock His word.
3. The Spirit OF Christ in Jeremiah 23 says that is blaspheming the Holy Spirit of Christ

http://www.piney.com/Rick.Atchley.Law.of.Silence.html







The New Wineskins Magazine builds on the foundation of Al Maxey, Edward Fudge and others. This was part of the Jubilee movement--from Nashville a city set on seven hills--when Rubel Shelly, Max Lucado, Rick Atchley and others thought the time was right to RESTRUCTURE all Churches of Christ into defacto Christian Churches or Baptist Churches.

http://www.piney.com/New.Winskins.Magazine.html

H. Leo Boles proving that the Christian Church invented the Law of Silence.

http://www.piney.com/Unity.Boles.html

Boles:
"Areas of silence," "liberty of opinion," and "the realm of expediency" are trite phrases used by leaders in the "Christian Church" and have been coined and put on a par with the teachings of the New Testament. It is just another way of saying that the opinions of men may guide the people of God, and that some of the people of God should submit to the opinions of men. There was unity with God's people so long as they respected the slogan, "Where the scriptures speak, we speak; and where the scriptures are silent, we are silent"; but when brethren began to claim the authority to speak where the New Testament is silent, and impose their opinions upon other brethren, division and separation were the inevitable results.

W.R. Walker, in Christian Standard, May 27, 1939, said: "There are two areas in our religious living in which the authority of Christ must be recognized. The first embraces all his teaching and that of his inspired followers, the `vocal area' ; but there is another area, the `area of silence."' He further said:

"I am persuaded that Christ has authority in the `areas of silence.'
Christ, by his silence, in every situation concerning which
he has left no direct teaching,
has bestowed on me this authority to act for myself."


Boles: Here are the two standards or rules recognized
.....by many in the "Christian Church,"
..........namely, that of "walking by faith,"
..........and that of "walking by opinion."

W.R. Walker calls the opinions of man in the "areas of silence" "the authority of Christ." This is tantamount to saying that man's opinions in the "areas of silence" are of equal force with the word of God.

I join issue with him on this point. There can be no unity in the "area of silence," as there can be no unity on opinions when each man claims the authority to do what is right in his own eyes. This would violate every scripture that God has given instructing his people to be "of the same mind, the same judgment of one accord."

Mr. Cruz said "Scripture does not specify this prohibition: "Thou shalt not worship Mary, 'Mother of God.'"

Yet the Scriptures say differently....
Matthew 4
10 Get out of here, Satan, Jesus told him. For the Scriptures say,
You must worship the Lord your God
and serve only him.
Quote
Share