bmerr said:
Eric,
bmerr here. The point is that incense, gopher wood, and singing are all commanded by God. Adding to any of these is adding to God's commands. Singing and playing are two different actions.
They still are not mutually exlusive as those physical substances are. Even if you speak of "adding" and using both, to add another type of incense means less sweet incense, and to add another type of wood means less gopher wood. Playing an instrument does not of a necessity mean less singing.
Something else many don't seem to realize, is that the command to sing is (from what I've been told, anyway) what's called a "reflexive reciprocal" command. In other words, I'm singing to you, you're singing to me, he's singing to her, she's singing to him, etc. It' s how we teach and admonish one another.
If one insists on adding the playing of a musical instrument, then the whole congregation must also play an instrument. what a train wreck that would be!
That would seem to be what that passage is saying. But if that's the case, then does your group do that? If a church objected to adding instruments on the grounds that they sing to each other, then I would not be able to argue as much on instruments. But if you all are just doing the same thing as the rest of us, and "everybody now take out the hymnals and turn to #whatever; OK, first verse...", and all sing "to God" or whatever, then this instruments issue is a ridiculous thing to dispute over.
(While congeregational singing is one thing, still, singing to one anoher does seem highly odd, and unheard of. Basically, everyone would be doing a solo, and not all are good enough singers for that. Woudn't it be chaotic just from all these people singing different things at the same time even if there were no instruments? I don't think this is telling us how to run part of our "worship service", but rather a general attitude we are to have.)
Playing does not "carry out" singing, thus it is not an expedient. In some cases, (depending on the skill of the pianist), it actually does cancel out the singing! :laugh: Regardless, a piano, or organ, etc, no matter how skillful the player may be, cannot teach or admonish. No instrument can. Nor can an instrument have grace in it's heart. Mechanical instruments simply do not meet the criteria for the music commanded in worship.
People have to beware of that, and not show off, as happens sometimes. But I was not trying to say it was expedient, but rather thay it did not
necessarily cancel out singing, and thus not banned on any such assumption.
Though neither one of us would claim men as an authority, if you are a Baptist, you may be surprised to learn that well respected Baptists, as well as men from other denominations, once held the same postition on the instrument as faithful churches of Christ do. If you like, I'll post some quotes from Charles Spugeon, Adam Clark, and a few others. The point would be to demonstrate that faithful churches of Christ are simply still holding to ground long since surrendered by most denominations.
I've heard those before, because over on the music forum, people trying to advocate traditional (plain) hymns only (with instruments or not) often use that, just as you do, to answer our point of David's dancing. They go even further and try to go back to the ECF's. But all of those people are men, and the Church had been influenced by platonic dualism, which assumed worship should be all somber and plain, and they projected this back to the NT, and then had to regard David as something God "allowed" under the "dispensation of the flesh" but was never really pleased with, as plain worship is now "the newness of the spirit". But none of that is taught in either testament, but is rather people reading the Bible through their own philosophy. And since Primitive Baptists hold the identical view as yours, it figures that this teaching existed in Baptist history. Still, that doesn;t mean it was right. One group,
www.piney.com/MuPsalm150.html goes further, using the same line of reasoning and allegorization to show that singing altogether is figurative, and not to be literally done, but really only means "speaking to God in prayer and listening to Him through His Word". "Worship" means "prostrate"; which "eliminates the physical possibility to play music"!
Seems to me that a building in which to assemble would be profitable, so that one could focus on the message, instead of how hot, cold, wet, windy, dark, etc it was outside.
There was also the home, as it was originally (esp. after they were ejected from the synagogues). That is still more simple than having to maintain a bulding.
To my knowledge, elders are not paid. We do support a man who preaches and teaches us regularly, so that he is able to spend his time in study (from which we benefit), instead of working all the time, like the rest of us slobs.
Well, that's your church. Aren; some cofC's run more just like other Churches? Still, in the NT, the person who stayed and studied like that was a literal "elder" (older person, who was too old to work), not someone paid just to stay home and prepare sermons all week. (Or to visit the sick, ahd such, which was not relegated to just one person). And this was probably more along the lines of food and a place to stay, (as all the elderly were to be "honored", idelly by their children), rather than a "paycheck". Money (as well as food and shelter) were given to travelling ministers (such as the spostles themselves) not stationary young ministers who were able to work.
How one dresses for worship is an indication of his attitude toward worship and God. Appropriate (modest) clothing is not all that expensive.
I'm not talking modesty, but rather dressy, which is realy not necessary for worship.
What good is a faith that is not manifested by appropriate actions? Faith apart from works is dead. So are works apart from faith. I don't understand how you are making the point, but not getting the point. Baptism apart from faith in Christ, repentance from sin, and confession of Christ as Lord is useless. I've never advocated salvation by "baptism alone".
No, but you still make that the point or moment of actual salvation. That is not merely a "manifestation" of a faith that saves, but rather an act
resulting in salvation, which makes salvation by a work.
The writer of Hebrews must not have understood that, either, for heb 5:9 tells us that christ is become the author of eternal salvation unto all htem that obey him.
Try to refrain from making the fantastic leap from required obedience to required sinless perfection. Nobody's advocating sinless perfection. But anyone can perfectly obey the gospel, which brings one "into Christ" where all spiritual blessings are (Eph 1:3), including resting in the righteousness and perfection of Christ.
And it has been explained that "obey the Gospel" is to "believe" it, not to do specific works.
Hold on, there, cowboy! It's the Bible, not bmerr, and not mman, that describes the grace of God that bringeth salvation to all men as teaching us (Titus 2:11-12). We didn't write it, we're just reading it.
And you're taking that passage and running wild with it, dogie!
Whoah!:laugh:
That does not say that the salvation is in following the instructions. For then, we would be right back to the dilemma of the Israelites under the Law of Moses. What grace is that, that they didn't have, then?
The grace of God is forgiveness of sins through Christ, which had appeared, and once we are fogiven, then we are not to go back to the sins that warranted the forgiveness in the first place, as Paul teaches elsewhere. Also, since part of the grace was superseding the letter for the spirit, it is the spirit that convicts us to deny lusts, and those other things, while a person following the letter might miss that (as the legalists back then were). So still, the "teaching" itself is NOT the "grace", bt rather it
comes from the grace, as something
additional to the salvation, which is by grace.
To fail to obey the gospel is not to be "lost on a technicality". It is simply refusal to obey God's commands. If the gospel were presented properly, no one would want to "postpone their baptism 'till next week". they would understand it's importance, and thus, it's neccessity, and submit to it immediately, as we see again and again in the book of Acts.
The problem is that the gospel is not presented properly in denominational assemblies.
In Christ,
bmerr
That's putting the delay on the person, but you still admitted that you might not baptize the person right away until you were sure that he understood the truth and was not phony and such. Even if you were going to take him to the nearest pool or whaterver right then, he could still die on the way, and
you can't say he "refused to obey the command".
)