Churches of Christ...Continued

[bmerr]

And as the others have said, the congregation is still singing. (Instruments can be useful in keeping the tempo and melody, especially for those who are not good singers).

Eric,

bmerr here. "Not good singers" according to whom? Who are we to please when we worship, God or man? To please God, we must do those things which He has commanded.

If the instrument is involved, someone is playing it. At the very least, that one is beyond the doctrine of Christ, and without God (2 John 9). Those who approve of the players, and those who participate in worship with them are also beyond the doctrine of Christ, and without God.

So basically, it's the normal congregational singing. You made it sound like you were talking about independant one on one singing, or something like that. So you do engage in regular congregational singing. So then instruments playing the same melody is not going to create any such problem, and it is nothing to raise a dispute about.

Didn't mean to give you the wrong impression. Soloists are also not authorized, since they perform while everyone else is the audience. There is only One in audience during true worship.

"degradation"? On what basis does he claim that? There may be an a-capella song that is nice and its sound would be changed by adding instruments; but we're talking about the idea of God banning instruments, not how 'nice" is sounds without them,

"Degradation" due to the fact that God's commandment is no longer what is being submitted to, but man's desire. We are to please God, not man.

They may not have been available to the Church, which was in constant persecution, and instruments may have costed money, and there may not have been many musicians around, and if there were, they may just not have had time to set up a musical performance. It seems to be out of necessity that they were left out (evidenced by them not being mentioned at all). There is no reason to think it was a "ban".

Pure speculation, sir. The fact of the matter is that God commanded Christians to "sing", and that is what Christians did in the NT, and now.

That passage doesn;t even refer to baptism. I'm not sayign they weren't baptized, but you can't just plug that in everytime you encounter such a statement. For one thing, yet again, "obey the gospel" means to believe it, not any work that you may do in response to belief.

What would you say Paul was refering to, then, their belief? Is belief a form of the doctrine of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

Then the words of Christ, as He taught his disciples to pray in the Lord's Prayer: "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" are completely irrelevant to you?
DHK

DHK,

bmerr here. It is certainly my desire that people would render obedience to God's word on earth, just as the angelic host renders obedience to God's commands to them. God's commands for the heavenly host do not apply to men on earth, though, just as OT commands to the Jews to offer animal sacrifices do not apply to us under the NT.

If God desires instruments of music in Heaven, it is a totally separate matter from what He has commanded for us on earth. If He had desired for us to use them here, could He not have told us to do so?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[DHK]

DHK,
If God desires instruments of music in Heaven, it is a totally separate matter from what He has commanded for us on earth. If He had desired for us to use them here, could He not have told us to do so?

In Christ,

bmerr

"Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."
They still don't have meaning for you, do they.
It is God's will that the angels play musical instruments in heaven as they sing praises to him. That is the pattern set for us in heaven.
Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
If God's will is to be carried out on earth as it is in heaven, we also ought to have our praises set to instruments as the angels in heaven do.
Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
How is it done in heaven--with instruments.
How should it be done on earth--with instruments.
Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Couldn't be any plainer could it?
DHK

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Like Calvin I sometimes think would it not be better if we had no music whatsoever in the Church during worship.

 

[bmerr]

DHK,

bmerr here. It could be alot clearer. God could have inspired Paul to write, "...singing and making melody on musical instruments to the Lord" in Eph 5:19. There would be no question as to whether or not God desired the playing of musical instruments in worship.

This is not what was written though. God commanded "...singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord."

To turn your logic around, one would command the Heavenly host to believe the gospel, repent of sins, confess Christ as Lord, and be baptized for the remission of sins.

Jesus taught that His disciples should pray that God's will would be done on earth, as it is done in Heaven. This does not mean that God's will for the Heavenly host is the same as God's will for man. God wants all men to be saved (2 Pet 3:9). Is the Heavenly host in need of redemption too?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[DHK]

DHK,
Jesus taught that His disciples should pray that God's will would be done on earth, as it is done in Heaven. This does not mean that God's will for the Heavenly host is the same as God's will for man. God wants all men to be saved (2 Pet 3:9). Is the Heavenly host in need of redemption too?

In Christ,

bmerr

Your legalism has you grasping at straws.
DHK

 

[Darron Steele]

Ephesians 5:19 is butchered on musical instruments. This is another abuse of the King James Version common in many Churches of Christ. An older translation of this verse is "speakynge unto youreselves in in psalmes, and ymmes, and spretuall songes, syngynge and playinge to the lorde in youre hertes" (W. Tyndale 1526).

If we were to use the same method in interpreting, we would say that we are not to sing to the Lord but sing only, or only that we would only sing and play music in our hearts but never out loud, or anything besides what the verse means: we need to be singing and playing music to the Lord all the time: 1) during song service we are to make it from the heart, and 2) out of meeting we are to be singing and making music to the Lord in our hearts.

Rather than teach something positive we should be doing all the time in and out of meeting time, many Churches of Christ manipulate the KJV of this verse to make it a negative prohibition and trivialize this verse to be relevant only during meeting times.

 

[Darron Steele]

I wish to point out that charging "legalism" does not phase hard-line Church of Christ people. They see `salvation by faith alone' as a license for sin. They seem to believe that the people who teach this just want to be able to sin in good conscience. They either claim that out of slander or because someone told them to believe that.

Possibly, the notion that anyone could want to live lives of obedience just because they should to please the Lord is not something they understand.

 

[Eric B]

Eric,

bmerr here. "Not good singers" according to whom? Who are we to please when we worship, God or man? To please God, we must do those things which He has commanded.

Regardless, wouldn't it still be chaotic if you had a whole bunch of people singing out of step, and off key? Yes, ultimately God is the one we are pleasing, but He is a little more orderly that that, and that an throww off even the good singers.

If the instrument is involved, someone is playing it. At the very least, that one is beyond the doctrine of Christ, and without God (2 John 9). Those who approve of the players, and those who participate in worship with them are also beyond the doctrine of Christ, and without God.

WHAT???
So now a person is outside of Christ/without God for adding an instrument, or even approving of it; when God has not even clearly forbidden it, but only because He simply didn't mention it? You've really outdone yourself now! I'm surprised everyone else let this one pass!
I'm sorry, but for anything that serious, you have to show that God specifically forbids and abhors it. Silence won't do for that, and neither will some OT example of God specifying a physical substance or a physical lineage out of all others.

DHK,

bmerr here. It could be alot clearer. God could have inspired Paul to write, "...singing and making melody on musical instruments to the Lord" in Eph 5:19. There would be no question as to whether or not God desired the playing of musical instruments in worship.

This is not what was written though. God commanded "...singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord."

But if it really doesn't matter, then the text is fine as it is. Just like all the other "means of carrying out" examples you give.
On the other hand, if people are actually lost (without God, outside of Christ) for using instruments, then not only it "could" be clearer; it MUST be, and it should have said "singing and making melody with your lips ONLY, else you have denied the gospel".

"Degradation" due to the fact that God's commandment is no longer what is being submitted to, but man's desire. We are to please God, not man.

God's commandment to sing is still being submitted to. Again, instruments do not cancel out singing. Instruments aren't necessarily pleasing man. Most today probably think nothing of it, and it is only groups such as yours that make such a "man vs. God" issue out of it. On the other hand, raising fruitless issues like this and avoiding instruments to prove one is the "true" Christian, and all others are outside of Christ certainly pleases man and not God.

Pure speculation, sir. The fact of the matter is that God commanded Christians to "sing", and that is what Christians did in the NT, and now.

And your "silence equals a ban, so instruments contradicts singing" logic is pure speculation as well. So Christians still do sing, even if they use instruments.

What would you say Paul was refering to, then, their belief? Is belief a form of the doctrine of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ?

In Christ,

bmerr

The belief is IN the doctrine of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, so yes, that is what it is about.

 

[bmerr]

Ephesians 5:19 is butchered on musical instruments. This is another abuse of the King James Version common in many Churches of Christ. An older translation of this verse is "speakynge unto youreselves in in psalmes, and ymmes, and spretuall songes, syngynge and playinge to the lorde in youre hertes" (W. Tyndale 1526).

If we were to use the same method in interpreting, we would say that we are not to sing to the Lord but sing only, or only that we would only sing and play music in our hearts but never out loud, or anything besides what the verse means: we need to be singing and playing music to the Lord all the time: 1) during song service we are to make it from the heart, and 2) out of meeting we are to be singing and making music to the Lord in our hearts.

Rather than teach something positive we should be doing all the time in and out of meeting time, many Churches of Christ manipulate the KJV of this verse to make it a negative prohibition and trivialize this verse to be relevant only during meeting times.

Darron,

bmerr here. It's just a matter of finding an instrument one can place inside his heart then, right?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

Eric,

bmerr here. If the silence of the Scriptures does not forbid, why is it that Christ could not be a priest under the Old Testament?

In Heb 7:14, we read, "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood".

Why could Jesus not be a priest under the Mosaic Law?

Why is it that priests could only come from the tribe of Levi?

Is this not an argument from silence? It is. At no time did God ever prohibit priests from coming from the other tribes. He simply commanded that the priests come from the tribe of Levi. In doing so, He excluded all men from other tribes from serving as priests.

Noah is another example. God did not forbid him from using other kinds of wood, or even metals. He simply commanded Noah to use gopher wood.

The walls of Jericho are yet another. God did not specifically prohibit the priests from blowing trumpets of bull's horns. He simply commanded them to blow trumpets of ram's horns.

Lastly, Naaman was not specifically prohibited from dipping himself in the rivers of Abana and Pharpar. God simply commanded him to dip himself in Jordan.

No doubt, you will understand all of this, yet I fear that somehow you will fail to connect this principle to singing in NT worship, where God has not specifically prohibited instruments, but has simply commanded us to sing.

God knows what He wants. He wants what He has commanded. For people to claim to love God, yet insist on adding to His commands is nothing but a contradiction.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

I wish to point out that charging "legalism" does not phase hard-line Church of Christ people. They see `salvation by faith alone' as a license for sin. They seem to believe that the people who teach this just want to be able to sin in good conscience. They either claim that out of slander or because someone told them to believe that.

Darro,

bmerr here. Actually, I see OSAS as more of a "license to sin" than salvation by "faith only".

Possibly, the notion that anyone could want to live lives of obedience just because they should to please the Lord is not something they understand.

A life of obedience would be characterized by obedience to the Scriptures. Things like obeying the command to be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Things like observing the Lord's Supper each Lord's day (Acts 20:7). Things like a capella singing in the worship. (Did you know that "a capella" means, "as the church"?)

Sadly, many would rather come up with excuses to avoid obeying God's commands, all the while claiming to love God. It's far from shocking. Mankind has done similarly throughout history.

Faithful men have stood up and proclaimed the word of God, and most have not wanted to hear it, preferring the traditions and doctrines of men.

You're right, I don't mind being called a "legalist". Moses would have been called a legalist by the standard you're using, since he did all that was commanded him.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Eric B]

Eric,

bmerr here. If the silence of the Scriptures does not forbid, why is it that Christ could not be a priest under the Old Testament?

In Heb 7:14, we read, "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood".

Why could Jesus not be a priest under the Mosaic Law?

Why is it that priests could only come from the tribe of Levi?

Is this not an argument from silence? It is. At no time did God ever prohibit priests from coming from the other tribes. He simply commanded that the priests come from the tribe of Levi. In doing so, He excluded all men from other tribes from serving as priests.

Noah is another example. God did not forbid him from using other kinds of wood, or even metals. He simply commanded Noah to use gopher wood.

The walls of Jericho are yet another. God did not specifically prohibit the priests from blowing trumpets of bull's horns. He simply commanded them to blow trumpets of ram's horns.

Lastly, Naaman was not specifically prohibited from dipping himself in the rivers of Abana and Pharpar. God simply commanded him to dip himself in Jordan.

No doubt, you will understand all of this, yet I fear that somehow you will fail to connect this principle to singing in NT worship, where God has not specifically prohibited instruments, but has simply commanded us to sing.

God knows what He wants. He wants what He has commanded. For people to claim to love God, yet insist on adding to His commands is nothing but a contradiction.

In Christ,

bmerr

All of this was answered already. Uusing someone of one tribe diminishes the other that was commanded. One animal bhorn excludes another. Adding one type of wood reduces the other. One river also excludes the other. Instruments do not cancel out singing.

And doesn't the word "capella" mean "head"?

 

[bmerr]

All of this was answered already. Uusing someone of one tribe diminishes the other that was commanded. One animal bhorn excludes another. Adding one type of wood reduces the other. One river also excludes the other. Instruments do not cancel out singing.

Eric,

bmerr here. I disagree. These have not been answered. Place the unauthorized example alongside what is authorized.

All but a few priests of Levi, with a few from Judah, or Benjamin.

Six of the priests using ram's horns, one using a bull's horn.

Most of the ark made of gopher wood, with just the trim in poplar.

Dip six times in Jordan, and once in Pharpar.

However you want to look at it, what God has commanded, God has commanded. More or less is not authorized.

And doesn't the word "capella" mean "head"?

It may. From what I understand, "capella" is where we get the word "chapel" from. I'm not a linguist. I'll see if I can find out for sure.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Darron Steele]

Eric,

bmerr here. If the silence of the Scriptures does not forbid, why is it that Christ could not be a priest under the Old Testament?

In Heb 7:14, we read, "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood".

Why could Jesus not be a priest under the Mosaic Law?

Why is it that priests could only come from the tribe of Levi?

Is this not an argument from silence? It is.

The author of Hebrews is using the silence of the Scriptures to teach something. True -- but where does this make a prohibition against the sovereign Lord Jesus Christ? I believe you are seeing what you want to see here.

As for Noah using wood different from what he was instructed to use, that would have been disobedience to a direct command.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Bmerr,

No doubt, you will understand all of this, yet I fear that somehow you will fail to connect this principle to singing in NT worship, where God has not specifically prohibited instruments, but has simply commanded us to sing.

In most churches the words "sing a hymn" would denote a song leader, a pianist and/or organist, and a congregation singing. In many cases in classical Greek the word "psallo" actually means to pluck a string. Hmmm... Perhaps it is the CoC who is violating God's commandments... :thumbs:


God knows what He wants. He wants what He has commanded. For people to claim to love God, yet insist on adding to His commands is nothing but a contradiction.

He wants real worship. True NT worship is not legalistic. Bmerr can you not see that many of these "CoCisms" are a hearkening back to the Mosaic law? If you think it is still necessary for us to have a ritualistic approach to things then why did Jesus come at all? In the CoC it seems that trusting Jesus' blood is not enough. One must still be careful not to violate an arbitrary group of rules. Forest for the trees my friend - forest for the trees!!

 

[Eric B]

Eric,

bmerr here. I disagree. These have not been answered. Place the unauthorized example alongside what is authorized.

All but a few priests of Levi, with a few from Judah, or Benjamin.

Six of the priests using ram's horns, one using a bull's horn.

Most of the ark made of gopher wood, with just the trim in poplar.

Dip six times in Jordan, and once in Pharpar.

However you want to look at it, what God has commanded, God has commanded. More or less is not authorized.

You still don't see the difference. By adding each of those physical substances, you have subtracted what God commanded. Where would one draw the line before it was no longer what God commanded? One piece, and the rest other kinds? Then God would have specified that. So here it is safe to assume that God only wanted that one kind.
But singing is not a physical substance diminished by playing an instrument. It is just not the same thing, and your own examples prove it.

It may. From what I understand, "capella" is where we get the word "chapel" from. I'm not a linguist. I'll see if I can find out for sure.

In Christ,

bmerr

Yes, those are connected. "chap..." would be the French form of "cap...". It still comes from the Latin word for "head". And "a-" is "without" (as "atheism", etc.), not "as". So it is literally "without head", and I believe that somehow "head" refers to instrumentation, just like in the case of "chapel" it means church; but I forgot exactly why. But it is not "as the Church".

 

[bmerr]

Darron,

bmerr here. At the bottom of each of your posts you have several verses of Scripture displayed. One of them is 1 Cor 4:6b, which is translated, "Do not go beyond what is written", and "Follow only what is written in the Scriptures".

Yet, you still insist on the use of the instrument in worship, though the NT speaks nothing of a mechanical instrument in worship.

Why the apparent contradiction?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

Bmerr,
In most churches the words "sing a hymn" would denote a song leader, a pianist and/or organist, and a congregation singing. In many cases in classical Greek the word "psallo" actually means to pluck a string. Hmmm... Perhaps it is the CoC who is violating God's commandments... :thumbs:

It is certainly possible for us to do so. We're human, too.

But in this case, the Bible specifies the instrument that is to be plucked in accompaniment with our singing. It is the instrument of the heart (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16). If we are worshipping in spirit and in truth, then our minds will be engaged as we sing together, and we will be thinking about the words which we are singing.

All too often, I'm afraid our minds may be occupied with things of the world, as our lips and lungs "go through the motions", singing a song with which we have become too familiar. This would reflect our attitude toward the God of Heaven, for Whom we have less than due reverence.

He wants real worship. True NT worship is not legalistic. Bmerr can you not see that many of these "CoCisms" are a hearkening back to the Mosaic law? If you think it is still necessary for us to have a ritualistic approach to things then why did Jesus come at all? In the CoC it seems that trusting Jesus' blood is not enough. One must still be careful not to violate an arbitrary group of rules. Forest for the trees my friend - forest for the trees!!

You are correct, true worship is not simply "doing the right things". The Israelites were a prime example, for a large portion of their history, of a people "punching their tickets" at all the right stations, but failing to have proper reverence for the God they claimed to be serving. If anything can be learned from the Jews, it's that God doesn't just want the form. The proper attitude is also required if our worship is to be accepted by Him with Whom we have to deal.

But we must not go too far, and think that the form does not matter. Jesus said that those who worship God must worship Him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24).

The right attitude by itself is not enough. The right actions by themselves are not enough, either. Please don't misunderstand me when I plead for doing only what the NT authorizes in worship. I'm not just pleading for the right form of worship, so we can be cold and ritualistic. I'm pleading for the proper form of worship out of a love for God, and a desire to please Him as my faith works through love. Love for God, and love for man as well.

It's because Jesus died for me that I want to serve Him. To serve Him, I must obey Him (Rom 6:16). Having become His servant, I desire to be a faithful servant. The only way I can be faithful is to continue to obey Christ.

So what does it say about one's attitude toward the One he claims to serve, if that one chooses which commands he will keep or not keep, based on whether the commands please him, or whether he considers doing something else to be adding or subtracting from the command? Why not, out of love for God, just do what we're told, according to what is written? At least then we know for sure that we are correct in our doing. We can then be sure that we are approaching the Throne of grace in "full assurance of faith" (Heb 10:22).

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

You still don't see the difference. By adding each of those physical substances, you have subtracted what God commanded. Where would one draw the line before it was no longer what God commanded?

Eric,

bmerr here. That's what I've been trying to get at. How many instruments can we add before we are no longer teaching and admonishing one another, because we can no longer hear each other?

We need to understand that when we sing in worship, we are making an offering to God. Heb 13:15 reads, "By him [Christ] therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name."

God has specified here what He desires for us to offer to Him. No mechanical musical instrument can be the "fruit of our lips". Not even a harmonica.

But singing is not a physical substance diminished by playing an instrument. It is just not the same thing, and your own examples prove it.

No, but singing is what God has commanded us to offer him. Do we dare add to the sacrifice He has commanded?

Yes, those are connected. "chap..." would be the French form of "cap...". It still comes from the Latin word for "head". And "a-" is "without" (as "atheism", etc.), not "as". So it is literally "without head", and I believe that somehow "head" refers to instrumentation, just like in the case of "chapel" it means church; but I forgot exactly why. But it is not "as the Church".

It may be that I was told wrong. You seem to have the advantage with regard to linguistics, or at least you're faking it well :tongue3: .

I understood "a" to change the meaning of a word to negative only when it is part of the word, like "atheism". The phrase, "a capella" has it separate. Does it not matter if it's separate or part of the word?

In Christ,

bmerr