A video of my girls dancing in church...

How is it not accusing someone of wrong motives to call entertainment what they call worship?

 

My consistent position has been that instruments (and I have never defined which ones) are found in the NT. Yet you find a way to make my remarks inconsistent with what I say. I didn't say a piano was found in the NT. I said instruments are found in the NT, and the piano is an instrument.
Now, can we please the personal attacks and ad hominems out of this discussions, and return to the discussion relating to the OP.

 

DHK, I will compliment you that you are at least consistant...

I think our differences basically come down to this...

I don't think God limited everything we do in the 21st century church to what the 1st century church did... doctrine yes, but practices have changed... The first century church was a very persecuted church... no room for dancing and praising God the way we do today.. .they were running for their lives, hiding in homes... they didn't even have a church building to use...

You limit (or think you do) 21st century worship to how the 1st century church worshipped...

There are 2 words for these stances... and for the life of me I can't remember them... but I am one, and you are the other...

Do you know what words I am thinking about?... it is terms that describe church practices..

And since we disagree on those terms, we will never agree.

But one thing we do agree on... whatever is done in church should glorify God.

 

I thought of them.. the normative and regulative principle of worship...

I believe in the normative principle... you believe in the regulative principle...

That is the basis of this debate.

 

So are you saying that when the Bible says that David danced before the Lord that what the Bible says is a lie?

That is the same kind of argument that liberals and non-Christians use. All of scripture was written in the past.

I can see why it amazes you. Are you suggesting that you are a part of a cult because you do not know what kind of literature Eccl. is and how to interpret that kind of literature. Is your point that worshiping God is vanity?

I believe all of scripture. Do you not? It sure would help your case if you learned how to interpret scripture in light of its historical context. Do you even know what kind of literature Eccl is?

In light of that passage how would you interpret Romans 9:13? Your hermeneutic makes about as much sense as suggesting that God is a chicken because he has wings.

Which of those things in Jn 21:25 did he not do? Does the Bible tell everything?

Apparently you totally missed the point. A number of times your argument was that it is not found in the NT. My point is so what? Numerous things are not mentioned in the NT and did not even exist at the time. Pants are not mentioned in the NT. So why do you wear them? After all you should not do anything not found in the Bible. Right?

That is exactly my point about of which you are ignorant of what worship is. I do not want to insult you but in your persistence to remain ignorant I will simply tell you that you need to do some study because you do not have a clue what true worship is.

Try applying 2 Cor. 10:5.

If you are saying that you cannot serve God while driving then I understand your point. The fact is that one of the words translated "worship" comes from the word for "serve."

That would be pitiful. What is worse is one who thinks he knows when he does not know. A wise person knows what he doesn't know and that generally happens as one gets older.

 

Did someone say 'Chicken wings''... I think I am going to give thanks to God (worship him) for giving us Chicken wings from Buffalo! lol

OK< on with the debate...

 

I don't either. If I did, I wouldn't believe in instruments either. You have stated the Church of Christ position. I don't go that far.

First, buildings built exclusively for worship did not come into being until about 250 A.D. (Wikepedia). There are also many countries today that also don't have church buildings, live in poverty, suffer persecution, are true to the Lord, and though their music may be different than ours, they still would consider dancing as carnal (unless it would be a Charismatic church).

No, not at all. I have been a missionary in a country that worships closer to the way that the believers in the NT did. They worship in open fields, houses--no chairs--sit on the ground, don't use hymn books (too poor), and are greatly persecuted by the majority of the people in the nation.
Believe me; our worship is far different, and we need to be thankful for the freedoms that we do have, the technology that we have, the homes. and all the amenities of life even clean and safe water. I used to have to boil all my water.
I think our technology interferes with our worship. Perhaps that is why it was so difficult for great men like Spurgeon to accept the organ into his church.

But back to reality here. If I can use my family as an example (hopefully without personal attack), you will see that I am not as anti-music as I may come across.
Everyone in my family but me knows how to play the piano.
A couple of them can do well on the organ as well.
My wife plays the flute.
Two of my sons play the guitar; one of them plays a "penny whistle," and recorder.
There are two in the family that play the auto-harp.

We do have instruments in the house, and we do use them. Music is great, especially Godly music. One must search the Bible for principles as to what is Godly and what is not. That is where I believe we disagree. It is not on the instruments per se, but how the instruments are used. It is not on that particular dance, but on the venue of the dance. When the piano is played in church, hymns are played. There may be a time or two when one of them might play an annoying song like "The Entertainer," but never in church. That would be at home. Not that that type of music is entirely wrong; but the church is not the place for it.

Yes we do.

 

I can echo the sentiment about house churches and sitting on the floor. We do that as well. I like it, except when they set me in the chief seat, which happens to be right by the woodstove. The first 5 minutes of it are nice, but sitting there for two hours is almost unbearable.

There is nothing fancy about our services. We have no pews, no instruments---though we do have hymn books (sort of). We sing for at least an hour (no harmony. These people don't harmonize---and if you wanted to, you couldn't). Our voices sound so nice! I enjoy this type of church service!

 

DHK,

Watch the video again with Annsnis girls.

Thats just one example of course.

If a person dancing is dancing for God...and the dance is not nude/erotic/lewd etc...then it brings glory to God.

This is not rocket science, DHK...its pretty simple.


:godisgood:

 

I know some countries where many Christians were executed and the Christians danced as part of their worship. They were not charismatic either.

What country is that?

I find a more intense worship among those who do not have those freedoms we do.

I could not disagree more. It is on the particular dance. I would not want anyone to participate in some of the secular dancing among some teenagers that is sexually suggestive.

I cannot imagine a better place than the church for a clear demonstration of music with godly lyrics for all to be taught what is godly.

 

Does it really make more sense. Think it through.
For the vast majority of people "homosexual marriages" are acceptable, and are not sinful, nor associated with any sinful lifestyle--just as you say. Just because it wasn't as common when you were a teen, or is more widely accepted now doesn't make it sin, does it. Even the government has changed the definition of marriage to accommodate homosexual marriages. Like you say: For the vast majority of people it is not a sin!

This is your reasoning. Sin changes with time. Sin changes with culture. Sin changes with society or as societal mores change. I am sorry, but my principles are based on the Bible not on culture and not on society. You are badly confused if you base your principles on culture rather than the Bible. There is only one standard when it comes to right and wrong--and that is the Word of God.

You can believe what you want. But I back up my beliefs by the Word of God. And dance is one thing you cannot back up by the Word of God.

 

Homosexuality is declared sin by the word of God...
Dancing is not.. .

That is the difference.

You have failed to show where dancing is a sin from the Word of God..

 

Back and forth we go Tiny. You fail to see that you are not being logical. I don't have to prove anything. The Bible is true and I believe it. The NT does not speak of dance. You believe it does. Prove it. That onus is on you, not me. I am not going to do your homework for you. You believe that dancing is Scriptural then where is your Biblical proof? You are the one that must provide the proof, not me. I am not the one changing. You are.

 

No where have I said dancing is in the NT.. I don't limit Biblical hermenuetics to the NT.. .the OT is valid also...

You associated dancing with homosexuality in post 132, and alluded that dancing is sinful.

But you fail to show that from the scriptures.

Worship Dancing is not in the NT. But God accepted it in the OT, as a matter of fact when Michal complained about David dancing, God punished her.

God has not changed.

I don't limit everything done in churches today to the NT...

You don't either..

So why would dancing be any different?

If a person is doing it to the glory of God, who are you to complain? It was dangerous for Michal to complain.

 

Theres something I dont understand, DHK.

I have seen you vigorously argue against Church of Christers who say everything must come from the New Testament to be valid for us today. You say...correctly...that we go according to the entire counsel of the scriptures, not just the NT.

Now, however, you discredit David dancing unto the Lord, because its from the old testament, and everything must be proven from the New Testament.

Could you explain about this?


Thanks.


:godisgood:

 

Explain God logically?

Using your hermeneutical principle show us how you would apply it to men wearing pants.

 

There is an article done by a Baptist at http://www.pastornet.net.au/renewal/journal6/coleman.html

 

That is weird or you are not telling the truth.
I have been in those countries where Christians Christians are executed for their faith. The Christian community mourns, weeps, sometimes uncontrollably. The more carnal Christians begin to riot against the government if they have opportunity or strength in numbers. Often that is not the case. Never have I seen Christians dance because because their Christian brothers and sisters were executed. Having experience as a missionary, I find that hard to believe. I find that hard to believe being acquainted with church history as well. People mourn the death of a loved one, they don't dance when they die.

That was exactly my point.

I would not want anyone to partake in any sensually suggestive dance either.
I don't want any of my people to participate in any dance--period.
Dance is carnal. It has no place in the church. Next thing you will be doing is copying the RCC and be holding weekly BINGO nights, gambling away all your money, but calling it just an innocent recreational activity. They both belong in the same category--carnal, of the world. And they don't bring glory to God.

I am sure that is what the Catholic Church says about BINGO nights as well.
As for godliness, that is just a matter of opinion.
I don't believe any kind of dance is Godly, nor can it be. It is a carnal activity, and always was.

From your highly biased link which was started by a person who was a dance co-ordinator at an Australian church doing a research paper for a secular university: Queensland, he makes this statement:

"The first tradition centred around dance performed by the clergy as part of the Mass."

The RCC is not Christian. They are a church that teaches salvation by works, and points people to Hell. Hindus dance also. Who cares if the RCC dance!

The paper is highly prejudicial and innacurate in its sources. It contradicts known facts researched by others far more objective. This guy took a conclusion and then tried to prove it. He was biased before he started.