Churches of Christ...Continued

[bmerr]

Darron,

bmerr here. So how do you "Follow only what is written in the Scriptures" if you "go beyond what is written" by adding the instrument? You can't do both.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[DHK]

Darron,

bmerr here. So how do you "Follow only what is written in the Scriptures" if you "go beyond what is written" by adding the instrument? You can't do both.

In Christ,

bmerr

G
Go beyond what is written?
How can one go beyond eternity? Pretty hard trick in my books!
God has instruments in heaven.
God has music in heaven.
God has choirs in heaven.
The choir has music in heaven.
Bmerr you will be in the minority if you plan on going to heaven. All throughout eternity you will have to put up with "instruments." The Lord may force you to play one (forever and ever) just for your own obstinate attitude on earth, as punishment.
DHK

 

[Darron Steele]

Darron,

bmerr here. So how do you "Follow only what is written in the Scriptures" if you "go beyond what is written" by adding the instrument? You can't do both.

In Christ,

bmerr

G
Go beyond what is written?
How can one go beyond eternity? Pretty hard trick in my books!
God has instruments in heaven.
God has music in heaven.
God has choirs in heaven.
The choir has music in heaven.
Bmerr you will be in the minority if you plan on going to heaven. All throughout eternity you will have to put up with "instruments." The Lord may force you to play one (forever and ever) just for your own obstinate attitude on earth, as punishment.
DHK

Adding? Instruments in worship is a general Old Testament admonition and practice not nullified in the New Testament. The nullification is done by some Churches of Christ "beyond what is written."

DHK: I do not believe anyone will be punished it Heaven. However, the Lord enjoys changing us. I know: I used to hate the very presence of children, but now I am avid into children's ministries. Perhaps in Heaven, DHK will be given a glorified body without his prejudice, and with that new body he will joyfully play an instrument in Heaven. It would be a testimony to God's ability to change us.

The above post is a repeat of an idea repeatedly discredited. Even after these ideas are discredited, they are simply repeated. With these people, progress will rarely if ever be made; they are just going to believe and do whatever they decide to. They will do it in matters where Scripture is silent, and they will do it in even in the "elementary principles" of "what is written."

The reason why I discuss and debate with hard-line Church of Christ people is as follows: others watch these interactions. In the Churches of Christ, new converts will be watching the hard-liners on one hand and those who have redirected on the other. These interactions will make it clear to them that the path to go is not to the hard-line. Of course, outside the Churches of Christ, it will be more evident to new Christians that the hard-line Churches of Christ are not the way to go.

Such interactions, while fruitless to the people with whom we are talking to, will be of immense benefit to observers, and will help us help the hard-liners wither out.

 

[Darron Steele]

Correction:

DHK: I do not believe anyone will be punished it Heaven. However, the Lord enjoys changing us. I know: I used to hate the very presence of children, but now I am avid into children's ministries. Perhaps in Heaven, DHK will be given a glorified body without his prejudice, and with that new body he will joyfully play an instrument in Heaven. It would be a testimony to God's ability to change us...

should instead have "Perhaps in Heaven, bmerr..."
Apologies to DHK. My typing is too often lagging behind my thinking.

-----------------------------------------

Apologies from bmerr for missing this direct question in a frenzy of his postings. From 07-10-2006, 01:31 PM

Darron,

bmerr here. If you don't mind my asking, how exactly, were you saved at a Baptist church? Did you respond to an invitation as found in the Scriptures?

No. You seem to be assuming a bodily activity to obtain salvation, as the Churches of Christ typically assume. Of course, this is at variance with Romans 4:5 and Ephesians 2:8-10.

I was saved in the quiet of a preacher's study, looking over the Bible with a Baptist youth pastor. He showed me the need of the Gospel, and how it worked by what Christ did. When I accepted this, I was saved.

Afterward, we went through the "sinner's prayer," and then he verified with me to be sure that I did pick up that it had to be more than an intellectual assent. I had picked that up -- it was something I would need to act on.

How is it that you quote 1 Pet 3:21, which says in black and white that "baptism doth also now save us", and then turn around and "explain" that it is the repentance prior to baptism that saves us, and not baptism?

Easy -- the rest of the verse. I quoted it in my post that you referred to.

I read past six words.

 

[mman]

G
Go beyond what is written?
How can one go beyond eternity? Pretty hard trick in my books!
God has instruments in heaven.
God has music in heaven.
God has choirs in heaven.
The choir has music in heaven.
Bmerr you will be in the minority if you plan on going to heaven. All throughout eternity you will have to put up with "instruments." The Lord may force you to play one (forever and ever) just for your own obstinate attitude on earth, as punishment.
DHK

First of all, there is no evidence that there will be instruments of music in heaven, regardless of what the majority think.

Most things in the book of Revelation are symbolic, not literal.

If you want to take the referenced harps literally, then don't you need to take other things literally also? Just because something is practiced in Heaven is not authority for us to practice the same.

Examples:

Matthew 22:30 - In heaven there is no marriage. Yet people who forbid marriage on earth are guilty of apostasy (1 Tim. 4:1-3; Heb. 13:4).

Using your logic, we should do away with marriage on this earth. Is it not evident that the rules for heaven are not the same as the rules for earth.

Now back to some things in the immediate context of the harps in Revelation. Should we literally use the following in our worship today on earth?

1) A lamb (5:6; 14:1,4) - a literal, woolly animal in our worship? They had them in Old Testament worship, as well as in heaven.

Using your logic, that is fine. Do you really believe there will be a literal lamb in heaven?

2) Golden bowls of incense (5:8). They had this in the Old Testament too.

Using you logic that is fine and acceptable. Better start doing it now, because it will be used for all eternity, even though we have no instructions concerning them in our worship today.

3) Mt. Zion (14:1) - a literal, physical mountain in Jerusalem has some significance in our worship? It did in the Old Testament.

4) Four living creatures (5:6,8,11; 14:3; 15:7)

5) The throne of God (5:1,6,7) - literally in our worship?

6) Voice of many waters and a voice of great thunder (14:2) - Note: "as (like) the voice ... as (like) the voice."

7) 144,000 virgins (14:1,4) - a literal number of literal virgins?

8) Sea of glass mingled with fire (15:2) - note "like a sea."

9) The beast (15:2) - shall we literally defeat a literal beast, then rejoice over it in our worship?

10) Seven angels with seven plagues (15:1,6,8)

11) Harps

Should we take all these literally and put them in our worship services? If not, then why do so with the harps? Furthermore, this logic would only allow for the use of harps.

We have no more right to use the rules of heaven as authority for our practice today than we have to use the Old Testament rules.

As in the Old Testament, when God wanted to talk about instruments in Revelation, He plainly did so. Have you ever wondered why are there no such passages referring to instruments in our worship in the church?

Why is it when people want to justify instruments in the worship of the New Testament church, why must they go everywhere except to the instructions given to the New Testament church? The answer is simple.

They go to the Old Testament to try to show what we should do in the New Testament. They go to heaven to try to show what we should do on earth. Why don't they just find instruments in the passages talking about worship in the New Testament church? Because they are not there!

The fact instruments are so conspicuously mentioned in the Old Testament and in heaven simply makes all the more obvious the fact that they are not mentioned regarding the New Testament church. The only sensible, honest explanation is that God did not mention them because He did not want them.

Instruments were divisive when they were introduced and they continue to be so today. Those of us who CANNOT worship with them are divided with those who CHOOSE to use them. While the one who chooses to use them can in good conscience worship without them, the converse is not true.

Instruments were added to please man, i.e., because man likes it. Since when is that valid justification with God. God must be worshipped in TRUTH (Jn 4:24) and the only source of truth is His word (Jn 17:17), not man's likes.

 

[mman]

As for the Noah situation: he was directed to use gopher wood. Had he mixed any other type of wood that would have made the ark made of anything besides 100% gopher wood, he would have disobeyed a direct command.

Singing is still 100% singing whether there is an instrumental accompaniment or not.

General command - Wood
Specific command - Gopher wood

General command - Music
Specific command - Singing

You see, when God commanded the use of Gopher wood, that excluded all other types of wood.

When God commanded singing, that excluded all other types of music.

If one adds an instrument, they now have two types of music.

What was the wood authorized by God?
What is the music authorized by God?

If someone adds leavened bread in addition to the unleavened bread because they like that better, the unleavened bread is still 100% unleavened bread. Therefore, by your logic, that would be fine.

The argument that nobody can defeat concerning the use of mechanical instruments of music is that many CANNOT use them in worship without it being a sin, because they think it is wrong, therefore it is wrong. However, those who choose to use them can worship without them and not violate their conscience. The person who CANNOT use them has NOWHERE to retreat, however, those that choose to use them does.

What pervails? Love for the weaker brother or a desire to please yourself?

Along these same lines, I don't think there is anyone who would argue that singing without the use of mechanical instuments of music is sinful. That is the safest, surest ground. Why would anyone want to test the limits of God rather than be firmly planted on safe ground?

 

[mman]

No. You seem to be assuming a bodily activity to obtain salvation, as the Churches of Christ typically assume. Of course, this is at variance with Romans 4:5 and Ephesians 2:8-10.

Was Peter, who was speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, at variance with Romans 4:5 and Eph 2:8-10 when the question was answered, "What must we DO" in Acts 2:38?

Was Ananias, who was sent directly by the Lord, at variance with Rom and Eph when he gave Saul instructions to "Arise and be baptized and wash away his sins calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16).

Was Jesus himself at variance with Rom and Eph when he said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned"? (Mk 16:16)

Do Rom and Eph contradict or somehow void the actual recorded EXAMPLES of conversion, or are these passages in full and complete harmony?

 

[Darron Steele]

Was Peter, who was speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, at variance with Romans 4:5 and Eph 2:8-10 when the question was answered, "What must we DO" in Acts 2:38?

Was Ananias, who was sent directly by the Lord, at variance with Rom and Eph when he gave Saul instructions to "Arise and be baptized and wash away his sins calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16).

Was Jesus himself at variance with Rom and Eph when he said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned"? (Mk 16:16)

Do Rom and Eph contradict or somehow void the actual recorded EXAMPLES of conversion, or are these passages in full and complete harmony?

I believe I wrote also the following at 07-08-2006, 07:44 PM about Acts 2:38 on this thread. I will repost it with some modifications:

At Acts 2:38, because of difference in Greek verb tenses, the KJV “be baptized”
does not have the same force as “repent” (in Zodhiates, 397). Hence, "what must we do" is "Repent."

Acts 2:38 is more clear in foreign language translations. Spanish and Portuguese have more nuanced verb tenses than ours. At Acts 2:38, the equivalent to KJV "repent" is imperative, but the equivalent to KJV "be baptized" is subjunctive, making it an obligation. The obligation was from the commanded repentance. Hence, the command is to repent for the remission of sins, and the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ was how to obey the command to repent. Whether or not the penitent Jews would have been saved without baptism being completed is another matter because Peter obviously expected all of them to live that day, but the passage in Spanish and Portuguese suggests that repentance itself was what was for Spanish "perdón" = pardon of sins, but that submission to baptism was obligated from that repentance.

For an example of this, I posted this link to a reproduction of the relevant page of an old Portuguese D'Almeida New Testament:
http://www.sbb.org.br/images/originais_nt2/0130.tif .
Although I have repeatedly referenced the original languages on this part of the verse and how it is reflected in foreign language translations, no one seems to want to do anything besides insist upon English translations here and regurgitate what I contend has to be better supported.

07-07-2006, 01:35 PM I wrote
Recalling his own conversion, at Acts 22:16 Paul remembers Ananias saying to him “‘And now, why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sinnes, calling on the name of the Lord’” (KJV 1611). Some interpreters who do not understand Ephesians 2:8-10 believe the phrase “wash away thy sinnes” points backwards to “be baptized”; they believe this passage means that baptism washes away sins. First, regardless of Paul’s baptismal situation, at Acts 26:18 Paul explains that the Lord told him that his mission was to the Gentiles “para que reciban, por la fe que es en mí, remisión de pecados y suerte entre los santificados” (RVR 1909) = “in-order that they-might-receive, by the faith that is in me, remission of sins and lot among the sanctified.” For Gentiles, salvation was to be by faith. Second, the Greek and probably the KJV translators meant the phrase “calling...Lord” as an appositive to describe “wash...sins”; another appositive: “get some rest, go to sleep.” The phrase “wash away thy sinnes” points forward. Third, the word “and” separates “be baptized” from “Arise.” When “and” is interpreted consistently, we see that the second “and” separates “wash away thy sinnes” from “be baptized.” The phrase “wash away thy sinnes” points forwards, not backwards; this should be even more apparent because the command to "be baptized" expects a passive subject, while the commands "wash" and "calling" expect an active subject. The grammatical structure of translation is important; observe clearer translations in:
1. A modern literal Spanish translation: “Y ahora, ¿por qué te deteines? Levánte y sé bautizado, y lava tus pecados invocando su nombre” (LBLA) = “And now, for what you(self) you-detain? Let-you-rise and you-be baptized, and wash your sins invoking His name.”
2. The old 1560 English Geneva Bible (GenB): "Now therefore why tariest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sinnes, in calling on the Name of the Lord."
3. Tyndale's early English New Testament: "And nowe, why tariest thou? Aryse and be baptised, and wesshe away thy synnes, in callyng on the name of the lorde" (1526).
Hence, Paul arises, submits to baptism, and gets his sins taken away as he calls on the Lord to save Him.
Again, this gets ignored. Consistently interpret "and": submitting to baptism washes away sin no more than arising did.

As I have shown repeatedly, the ancient and medieval evidence shows anything after Mark 16:8 to be a forgery. "Mark 16:9-20" and any part therein is no more relevant to the Christian Scripturally than any other ancient forgery. Baptists who accept the forgery understand "Mark 16:16-7," but I do not consider any part of the forgery to be relevant to the Christian as anything besides early church evidence -- not as Scripture.

Romans 4:5 and Ephesians 2:8-10 are nullified by absolutely no conversion story in Acts and elsewhere, whether they be the favorites Acts 2 and Acts 22 or those which are typically ignored: Luke 23, Acts 3, Acts 10, Acts 16, 1 Corinthians 1.

I consider a slew of Scripture passages and other ancient information in a 45-page paper at www.geocities.com/steeledl/ . In this, a system where Scriptures explain other Scriptures is fully brought out that considers
1) passages made central by the Churches of Christ,
2) passages we tend to trivialize, as well as
3) passages we do not typically even mention or think about.
This is a fruit of deep and enduring study -- and listening. In the matter of baptism and salvation, Baptists and Church of Christ people seem to want to do little more than argue with each other, so I took the trouble to study for myself how the commonly cited verses on each side are consistent. The Scriptures are consistent with no need to put one biblical author/speaker above another or experience over teaching. We just have to take the trouble to find out how.

 

[Eric B]

Most things in the book of Revelation are symbolic, not literal.

If you want to take the referenced harps literally, then don't you need to take other things literally also? Just because something is practiced in Heaven is not authority for us to practice the same.

Examples:

Matthew 22:30 - In heaven there is no marriage.
1) A lamb (5:6; 14:1,4) - a literal, woolly animal in our worship? They had them in Old Testament worship, as well as in heaven.

2) Golden bowls of incense (5:8). They had this in the Old Testament too.

3) Mt. Zion (14:1) - a literal, physical mountain in Jerusalem has some significance in our worship? It did in the Old Testament.

4) Four living creatures (5:6,8,11; 14:3; 15:7)


Should we take all these literally and put them in our worship services? If not, then why do so with the harps? Furthermore, this logic would only allow for the use of harps.

We have no more right to use the rules of heaven as authority for our practice today than we have to use the Old Testament rules.

As in the Old Testament, when God wanted to talk about instruments in Revelation, He plainly did so. Have you ever wondered why are there no such passages referring to instruments in our worship in the church?

Why is it when people want to justify instruments in the worship of the New Testament church, why must they go everywhere except to the instructions given to the New Testament church? The answer is simple.

They go to the Old Testament to try to show what we should do in the New Testament. They go to heaven to try to show what we should do on earth. Why don't they just find instruments in the passages talking about worship in the New Testament church? Because they are not there!

The fact instruments are so conspicuously mentioned in the Old Testament and in heaven simply makes all the more obvious the fact that they are not mentioned regarding the New Testament church. The only sensible, honest explanation is that God did not mention them because He did not want them.

While the OT and Heaven may be different from this particular period of time, the fact that they are nevertheless used there does disprove another one of your arguments, and that is that they distract from worship, or add "another music". This is the basis of the reasoning you use against them, but apparently, they were not too distractive either in the OT, or in Heaven (whatever they are supposed to symbolize, if they erally are symbolic anyway). If God didn't mind them then, why would he forbid them now? If they are so strictly forbidden now, and this is SO IMPORTANT to Him; why would He convey this forbiddance through silence and not have someone teach this principle in the NT?
It is you who has to go everywhere else but clear NT teaching to try to scrap up "principles" to support your ban (Noah and the wood, etc).

Instruments were divisive when they were introduced

So you use the ancient catholic Church(ECF's) and its issues to prove your point? There were many things they taught that you do not agree with.

and they continue to be so today. Those of us who CANNOT worship with them are divided with those who CHOOSE to use them. While the one who chooses to use them can in good conscience worship without them, the converse is not true.

The argument that nobody can defeat concerning the use of mechanical instruments of music is that many CANNOT use them in worship without it being a sin, because they think it is wrong, therefore it is wrong. However, those who choose to use them can worship without them and not violate their conscience. The person who CANNOT use them has NOWHERE to retreat, however, those that choose to use them does.

What pervails? Love for the weaker brother or a desire to please yourself?

Along these same lines, I don't think there is anyone who would argue that singing without the use of mechanical instuments of music is sinful. That is the safest, surest ground. Why would anyone want to test the limits of God rather than be firmly planted on safe ground?

Not so fast! The scriptures also tell us to avoid senseless strifes and disputes, brought in by people Paul describes as false. We are not to just heed to anybody who walks into the Church. They cannot simply plead "weakness", and thus force their position on everybody else. They themselves have to be in the truth, and not error of their own making.
As it is, I do not see how you can even make that claim when you are not apart of the same "church" as us. You are on the outside rejecting us as true Christians not just because of this issue, but for every other issue which you all rose up and caused division over, including baptism, Church name and structure. We surely are not to listen to your issues, any more then we should heed the JW's, Mormons, Catholics, sabbathkeepers, Islam, etc. (All of whom claim to be following the Bible properly while we are in error)
It is not any "safe side" at all, because then the Gospel becomes buried beneath a bunch of manmade rules and interpretations, and there will always be some others who rise up and take it further.

Instruments were added to please man, i.e., because man likes it. Since when is that valid justification with God. God must be worshipped in TRUTH (Jn 4:24) and the only source of truth is His word (Jn 17:17), not man's likes.

Instruments were added because there was no scriptural reason not to, despite what the Platonized early Church thought. It all the more pleases man to raise a silly issue like this just to have something to criticize others over, and claim to be a more obedient Christian. (As we see in the arguments of the ECF's, and also their contempt for the Jews). That certainly isn't brotherly love!

General command - Wood
Specific command - Gopher wood

General command - Music
Specific command - Singing

You see, when God commanded the use of Gopher wood, that excluded all other types of wood.

When God commanded singing, that excluded all other types of music.

If one adds an instrument, they now have two types of music.

What was the wood authorized by God?
What is the music authorized by God?

Once again, you compare an act with a physical substance. Now, you plug in your own definitions of "general" and "specific" commands. But it's not the same as with a physical substance, and while "gopher-wood" and "unleavened bread" are specified in the text, it doesn't say "singing-music" (i.e. "Vocal" music).
So it would be more accurate to say:

General command - Sing
Specific command - psalms, hymns, spiritual songs

Instruments do not interfere with that at all.

 

[Darron Steele]

With regard to musical instruments and those who are weak in faith and in knowledge, I wish to point out something.

If you read some post-apostolic literature, one notices that many were uncomfortable with marriage. They felt that a certain adult activity was always wrong -- even in marriage!

Does that mean that we should have stopped marrying, lest we confound the conscience of someone? I would posit "no."

The Bible informs us that marriage is good. The Bible condemns those who forbid marriage at 1 Timothy 4:3. If `faith is weak' in some regarding the matter of marriage, we are still not to bind on this matter.

Likewise, the Bible encourages the use of musical instruments by anyone Jew or Gentile in worship at Psalm 150. The New Testament nowhere nullifies that -- rather, telling us to use Psalms to exhibit the following positive emotions at Colossians 3:16-7: "admonishing" (ASV) = encouragement, "grace" (ASV), and "giving thanks" = thankfulness. Psalm 150 is perfect for that and it is fitting that the Book of Psalms closes with it. We should be firm in educating if the elders of a church decide to use musical instruments.

 

[mman]

I believe I wrote also the following at 07-08-2006, 07:44 PM about Acts 2:38 on this thread. I will repost it with some modifications:

At Acts 2:38, because of difference in Greek verb tenses, the KJV “be baptized”
does not have the same force as “repent” (in Zodhiates, 397). Hence, "what must we do" is "Repent."

Acts 2:38 is more clear in foreign language translations. Spanish and Portuguese have more nuanced verb tenses than ours. At Acts 2:38, the equivalent to KJV "repent" is imperative, but the equivalent to KJV "be baptized" is subjunctive, making it an obligation. The obligation was from the commanded repentance. Hence, the command is to repent for the remission of sins, and the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ was how to obey the command to repent. Whether or not the penitent Jews would have been saved without baptism being completed is another matter because Peter obviously expected all of them to live that day, but the passage in Spanish and Portuguese suggests that repentance itself was what was for Spanish "perdón" = pardon of sins, but that submission to baptism was obligated from that repentance.

For an example of this, I posted this link to a reproduction of the relevant page of an old Portuguese D'Almeida New Testament:
http://www.sbb.org.br/images/originais_nt2/0130.tif .
Although I have repeatedly referenced the original languages on this part of the verse and how it is reflected in foreign language translations, no one seems to want to do anything besides insist upon English translations here and regurgitate what I contend has to be better supported.

07-07-2006, 01:35 PM I wrote
Recalling his own conversion, at Acts 22:16 Paul remembers Ananias saying to him “‘And now, why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sinnes, calling on the name of the Lord’” (KJV 1611). Some interpreters who do not understand Ephesians 2:8-10 believe the phrase “wash away thy sinnes” points backwards to “be baptized”; they believe this passage means that baptism washes away sins. First, regardless of Paul’s baptismal situation, at Acts 26:18 Paul explains that the Lord told him that his mission was to the Gentiles “para que reciban, por la fe que es en mí, remisión de pecados y suerte entre los santificados” (RVR 1909) = “in-order that they-might-receive, by the faith that is in me, remission of sins and lot among the sanctified.” For Gentiles, salvation was to be by faith. Second, the Greek and probably the KJV translators meant the phrase “calling...Lord” as an appositive to describe “wash...sins”; another appositive: “get some rest, go to sleep.” The phrase “wash away thy sinnes” points forward. Third, the word “and” separates “be baptized” from “Arise.” When “and” is interpreted consistently, we see that the second “and” separates “wash away thy sinnes” from “be baptized.” The phrase “wash away thy sinnes” points forwards, not backwards; this should be even more apparent because the command to "be baptized" expects a passive subject, while the commands "wash" and "calling" expect an active subject. The grammatical structure of translation is important; observe clearer translations in:
1. A modern literal Spanish translation: “Y ahora, ¿por qué te deteines? Levánte y sé bautizado, y lava tus pecados invocando su nombre” (LBLA) = “And now, for what you(self) you-detain? Let-you-rise and you-be baptized, and wash your sins invoking His name.”
2. The old 1560 English Geneva Bible (GenB): "Now therefore why tariest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sinnes, in calling on the Name of the Lord."
3. Tyndale's early English New Testament: "And nowe, why tariest thou? Aryse and be baptised, and wesshe away thy synnes, in callyng on the name of the lorde" (1526).
Hence, Paul arises, submits to baptism, and gets his sins taken away as he calls on the Lord to save Him.
Again, this gets ignored. Consistently interpret "and": submitting to baptism washes away sin no more than arising did.

As I have shown repeatedly, the ancient and medieval evidence shows anything after Mark 16:8 to be a forgery. "Mark 16:9-20" and any part therein is no more relevant to the Christian Scripturally than any other ancient forgery. Baptists who accept the forgery understand "Mark 16:16-7," but I do not consider any part of the forgery to be relevant to the Christian as anything besides early church evidence -- not as Scripture.

Romans 4:5 and Ephesians 2:8-10 are nullified by absolutely no conversion story in Acts and elsewhere, whether they be the favorites Acts 2 and Acts 22 or those which are typically ignored: Luke 23, Acts 3, Acts 10, Acts 16, 1 Corinthians 1.

I consider a slew of Scripture passages and other ancient information in a 45-page paper at www.geocities.com/steeledl/ . In this, a system where Scriptures explain other Scriptures is fully brought out that considers
1) passages made central by the Churches of Christ,
2) passages we tend to trivialize, as well as
3) passages we do not typically even mention or think about.
This is a fruit of deep and enduring study -- and listening. In the matter of baptism and salvation, Baptists and Church of Christ people seem to want to do little more than argue with each other, so I took the trouble to study for myself how the commonly cited verses on each side are consistent. The Scriptures are consistent with no need to put one biblical author/speaker above another or experience over teaching. We just have to take the trouble to find out how.

Is this really the mental gymnastics that you go through?

 

[mman]

While the OT and Heaven may be different from this particular period of time, the fact that they are nevertheless used there does disprove another one of your arguments, and that is that they distract from worship, or add "another music". This is the basis of the reasoning you use against them, but apparently, they were not too distractive either in the OT, or in Heaven (whatever they are supposed to symbolize, if they erally are symbolic anyway). If God didn't mind them then, why would he forbid them now? If they are so strictly forbidden now, and this is SO IMPORTANT to Him; why would He convey this forbiddance through silence and not have someone teach this principle in the NT?
It is you who has to go everywhere else but clear NT teaching to try to scrap up "principles" to support your ban (Noah and the wood, etc).

So you use the ancient catholic Church(ECF's) and its issues to prove your point? There were many things they taught that you do not agree with.
Not so fast! The scriptures also tell us to avoid senseless strifes and disputes, brought in by people Paul describes as false. We are not to just heed to anybody who walks into the Church. They cannot simply plead "weakness", and thus force their position on everybody else. They themselves have to be in the truth, and not error of their own making.
As it is, I do not see how you can even make that claim when you are not apart of the same "church" as us. You are on the outside rejecting us as true Christians not just because of this issue, but for every other issue which you all rose up and caused division over, including baptism, Church name and structure. We surely are not to listen to your issues, any more then we should heed the JW's, Mormons, Catholics, sabbathkeepers, Islam, etc. (All of whom claim to be following the Bible properly while we are in error)
It is not any "safe side" at all, because then the Gospel becomes buried beneath a bunch of manmade rules and interpretations, and there will always be some others who rise up and take it further.
Instruments were added because there was no scriptural reason not to, despite what the Platonized early Church thought. It all the more pleases man to raise a silly issue like this just to have something to criticize others over, and claim to be a more obedient Christian. (As we see in the arguments of the ECF's, and also their contempt for the Jews). That certainly isn't brotherly love! Once again, you compare an act with a physical substance. Now, you plug in your own definitions of "general" and "specific" commands. But it's not the same as with a physical substance, and while "gopher-wood" and "unleavened bread" are specified in the text, it doesn't say "singing-music" (i.e. "Vocal" music).
So it would be more accurate to say:

General command - Sing
Specific command - psalms, hymns, spiritual songs

Instruments do not interfere with that at all.

There is so much wrong with your logic, I don't know where to begin. Bottom line, in obeying a direct instruction from God to sing, I am not burying the gospel beneath a bunch of manmade rules and interpretations, I am simply carrying out that command.

When man chooses to add another type of music, I cannot worship with that group, therefore division arises. I have no where to retreat.

You cannot use instrumental music in worship by faith because faith comes from God's word (Rom 10:17).

I can sing by faith (Eph 5:19, Col 3:16-17).

Notice Col 3:16-17, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him."

The "name of Jesus", or by his authority. People are baptized in the name of Jesus or by his authority. You cannot use instrumental music in worship in by the authority of Jesus, by I can sing by that authority.

You see, I refuse to perform all the required mental gymnastics and rationalization necessary to use instruments of music in worship without biblical authority. Your mental gymnastics will be different that other peoples. Only when we go back to the word and do all things in word or deed in the name of Jesus, or by biblical authority, can we be united.

 

[mactx]

There is so much wrong with your logic, I don't know where to begin. Bottom line, in obeying a direct instruction from God to sing, I am not burying the gospel beneath a bunch of manmade rules and interpretations, I am simply carrying out that command.

When man chooses to add another type of music, I cannot worship with that group, therefore division arises. I have no where to retreat.

You cannot use instrumental music in worship by faith because faith comes from God's word (Rom 10:17).

I can sing by faith (Eph 5:19, Col 3:16-17).

Notice Col 3:16-17, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him."

The "name of Jesus", or by his authority. People are baptized in the name of Jesus or by his authority. You cannot use instrumental music in worship in by the authority of Jesus, by I can sing by that authority.

You see, I refuse to perform all the required mental gymnastics and rationalization necessary to use instruments of music in worship without biblical authority. Your mental gymnastics will be different that other peoples. Only when we go back to the word and do all things in word or deed in the name of Jesus, or by biblical authority, can we be united.

mman is sounds too easy for some I guess.
Do what the Bible (and there by God) says to do. Do not do what it does not say you can not do.
(If a double negative equals a positive, what does a triple negative do...)

 

[Darron Steele]

Is this really the mental gymnastics that you go through?

Funny you would criticize this.

To answer your question: not at all -- it is the result of following 2 Timothy 2:15
"Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth" (ASV).

It is the result of what happens when one takes the trouble = "give diligence" to allow the Scriptures to work WITH each other rather than against = "handling aright the word of truth."

 

[Eric B]

There is so much wrong with your logic, I don't know where to begin.

That sounds like a cop-out to me.

Bottom line, in obeying a direct instruction from God to sing, I am not burying the gospel beneath a bunch of manmade rules and interpretations, I am simply carrying out that command.

My point there was based on your argument of us yielding to everyone who raises an objection just to be on "the safe ground". If we listened to your argument on instruments, then there are hundreds of other people and movements out there also raising objections and telling us what to do. If we listened to them all, the Gospel would be buried beneath a bunch of manmade rules and interpretations. Yours is just one more out of all the others.

When man chooses to add another type of music, I cannot worship with that group, therefore division arises. I have no where to retreat.

You cannot use instrumental music in worship by faith because faith comes from God's word (Rom 10:17).

I can sing by faith (Eph 5:19, Col 3:16-17).

Notice Col 3:16-17, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him."

The "name of Jesus", or by his authority. People are baptized in the name of Jesus or by his authority. You cannot use instrumental music in worship in by the authority of Jesus, by I can sing by that authority.

You see, I refuse to perform all the required mental gymnastics and rationalization necessary to use instruments of music in worship without biblical authority. Your mental gymnastics will be different that other peoples. Only when we go back to the word and do all things in word or deed in the name of Jesus, or by biblical authority, can we be united.

I'm the one just reading the Word, and seeing no principle against instruments. You're the one doing mental gymnastics (including bypassing the arguments altogether and just reiterating your disproven assertions) in order to create a definite "ban" where there is none. It's not that you "cannot", it's that you choose not to, because your movement needs some issue by which you can claim you're more biblical and obedient than other Christians. Again, you're not the only one doing this, so you have to get in line behind all the other detractors.
The prime example of your error is that the Bible does not speak of "kinds of music", with only one "kind" approved. You add that concept, and then judge the issue based on it. That is adding to the scripture, and is NOT "by faith", but rather "out of envy and strife"! (Phil.1:15ff)

 

[mman]

That sounds like a cop-out to me.
My point there was based on your argument of us yielding to everyone who raises an objection just to be on "the safe ground". If we listened to your argument on instruments, then there are hundreds of other people and movements out there also raising objections and telling us what to do. If we listened to them all, the Gospel would be buried beneath a bunch of manmade rules and interpretations. Yours is just one more out of all the others.
I'm the one just reading the Word, and seeing no principle against instruments. You're the one doing mental gymnastics (including bypassing the arguments altogether and just reiterating your disproven assertions) in order to create a definite "ban" where there is none. It's not that you "cannot", it's that you choose not to, because your movement needs some issue by which you can claim you're more biblical and obedient than other Christians. Again, you're not the only one doing this, so you have to get in line behind all the other detractors.
The prime example of your error is that the Bible does not speak of "kinds of music", with only one "kind" approved. You add that concept, and then judge the issue based on it. That is adding to the scripture, and is NOT "by faith", but rather "out of envy and strife"! (Phil.1:15ff)

So, when I follow God's word, I am adding to God's word and when you add to God's word, you are actually following it??????

You made the statement, "If we listened to your argument on instruments, then there are hundreds of other people and movements out there also raising objections and telling us what to do."

Name one! If we all can read a direct command in scripture, and all of us carry out that command, that will bring unity not division. Unity comes not from doing what we want to do, but doing what is authorized.

 

[mman]

Funny you would criticize this.

To answer your question: not at all -- it is the result of following 2 Timothy 2:15
"Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth" (ASV).

It is the result of what happens when one takes the trouble = "give diligence" to allow the Scriptures to work WITH each other rather than against = "handling aright the word of truth."

So, when I find scholars in direct opposition to some of your claims, I too am following II Tim 2:15.

No, if you really follow II Tim 2:15, the scriptures thoroughly furnish us, not commentators. Yes, that can at times be beneficial in a deeper understanding, but certainly not necessary.

Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned" - What is the obvious conclusion to this passage? You might think it is a forgery based on 2 manuscripts. Did you know that 99% of the available manuscripts include it. Did you know that the two manuscripts that exclude it don't even agree with each other on many other passages.

What is the obvious conclusion of Acts 2:38? That repentance and baptism are necessary for the remission of sins. You don't have to be a Greek scholar to understand that. Matt 26:28 uses the same phrase "for the remission of sins" and ties it to the blood of Jesus.

Several years ago a letter was written to F.W. Gingrich, co-translator, along with William Arndt, of the highly-respected Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957). This is the most authoritative Greek lexicon extant in the English language. The letter, dated February 12, 1968, inquired as follows:

“Dear Professor Gingrich: Is it grammatically possible that the phrase ‘for the remission of sins,’ in Acts 2:38, expresses the force of both verbs, ‘repent ye’ and ‘be baptized each one of you,’ even though these verbs differ in both person and number?”
​

From Albright College, Reading, Pennsylvania (February 21, 1968), Gingrich replied:

“Yes. The difference between metanoesate [repent] and baptistheto [be baptized] is simply that in the first instance, the people are viewed together in the plural, while in the second the emphasis is on each individual.”
​

Therefore, no credence can be given to the sort of argument made you made earlier.

You see, many scholars have an agenda. Many want scriptures to fit their theology and will go to great lengths to "prove" their point.

If we use the scripture, as you suggested in II Tim 2:15 here's what you will know about baptism:

*Prerequisite for salvation (Mark 16:16)
*Prerequisite for remission of sins (Acts 2:38)
*Part of "washing away of sins" (Acts 22:16)
*How one gets INTO Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27)
*Is a burial (Col 2:12)
*God is the one working (Col 2:12)
*It is how one comes in contact with the death of Christ (Rom 6:3-4)
*New life begins after baptism (Rom 6:4)
*Is in water (Acts 8, I Pet 3:20-21)
*There is only one (Eph 4:5)
*Is part of the saving process (I Pet 3:20-21)

When we look at scripture, this is what we find. I agree that the scriptures are ALL SUFFICIENT!!!

 

[Eric B]

So, when I follow God's word, I am adding to God's word and when you add to God's word, you are actually following it??????

The problem is youir definition of "following" and "adding to" God's Word.
I read the Bible command to sing, and I saing. There may be someone playing an instrument, but that in no way affected the command, and neither do I have to add to, "interpret", "reiterate" or "clarify what it really implies" etc. the text.
You read the same command, and come up with "...and this rules out instruments" (almost as if it were in the text). Now who REALLY "added to" and "simply followed" the text? You have it all backwards.

You made the statement, "If we listened to your argument on instruments, then there are hundreds of other people and movements out there also raising objections and telling us what to do."

Name one!

Are you kidding?
Traditional hymns only, KJV Only, NO MUSIC AT ALL (piney.com), no therapy or counseling allowed, sabbathkeepers, Jewish annual holy days, Hebrew names only, no birthdays/holidays, antitrinitarians, Catholicism as original Church with "apostolic tradition", "full Gospel"=signs and gifts, Calvinism is the true Gospel etc.

If we all can read a direct command in scripture, and all of us carry out that command, that will bring unity not division. Unity comes not from doing what we want to do, but doing what is authorized.

the problem is, as you can see in this list, is that everyone has their own idea of what is "authorized", with everything else charged as "what man wants to do". Like I said, you are another one out of all of those groups, and none of them claim "this is what WE want"; they all claim that it is what the Bible teaches, and they have their ways of reading it into there. You can say, "well, yeah, of course all those groups are wrong, but we are the ones teaching the real truth", but then that's what they're saying also.

 

[Eric B]

It was only this morning I found
dozens of "true churches" around
One on each corner; on the next street there's four o' them;
and more on each corner of town;

I stop at the website of one and pause
Then move to the next one because
I got so confused; "which one shall I choose?"
I wanted the REAL true Church of God!

dadadada da dadadada da dadadada da dadadada
da dadadada da dadadada dada da da

There's a true church in the basement of the house next door,
there's a true church that moved into the old vacant store
there's another in the YMCA on the second floor
Which one is the true Church of God?

There's a true Church with a service, but it is too dead
and another with the members standing on their heads
There's another that believes the Old Covenant is still in effect
Which one is the true church of God?

Which One? This one!
They shun instruments because they're not in the text
"Just look; we follow the Book"
Here's another that believes some styles are altogether hexed

[chorus]
I have seen so many churches whether big or small,
and about that many more I can't describe them all
but just to play it safe I'm going to join them all
Cause one is the true Church of God

Here one! It's done!
That's the somberest service I have seen around
How sad! Too bad!
All works, and there's just no assurance to be found

[chorus]
I have seen so many churches whether big or small,
and about that many more I can't describe them all
but just to play it safe I'm going to join them all
Cause one is the true Church of God
Yes one has got to be,
the really true to me Church of God!
:tongue3: :laugh:

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

quite an enjoyable ryhm; so dad; for nevertheless I still believe the ailing "Body of Christ's Own" - NOT "growing with the growth of God" - ?
I still believe despite ailing, yet growing, until that day when - like us - it will be perfected, the resurrection day! So come Lord Jesus!