If you drove like you studied, would you be arrested?

[Darron Steele]

Perhaps we are both reading more "tone" into each other's posts than we should. My apologies.

That said, I think you would be a difficult person to employ. If told to dig a hole, would you stand around doing nothing because your boss did not tell you to use a shovel or a post-hole digger?

No, I would not be. I do my job quite well, thank you very much.

However, if I was to have you as my employer, and have to treat your words as you wish to treat God's Word, I could not have you as a boss. You would insist that I do absolutely nothing besides what you tell me.

Paul commanded that "...men pray everywhere...", which means that men should lead prayer in the assembly of the church. They could do it while sitting, standing, at their pew, or from the front or rear of the assembly, so long as they do it. God has given us liberty in the details of how things get done.

Heb 10:25 commands us not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together. If no assemblies are authorized, what is the purpose for this admonition? The authority to assemble is implied in the command to not forsake the assembling.

I think you will notice if you read Hebrews 10:24-5 that there is a PURPOSE for meeting.

"and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, |not giving up| our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the day drawing near” (NASB|TNIV|NASB).​

You mention "liberty" and state that you believe we have it. Very well.

"Sing" does not always mean `only vocally.' The way the word is used in Revelation 5 tells us that the "elders" = church congregation leaders were “each holding a harp” (ESV) as they “sing” (ASV) to the Lord. It is unrealistic to think “sing” means the harps were not used for their purpose.

So, when the Bible tells us to "sing" it does not exclude musical instruments. We have liberty in that regard.

James 1:26-27 does not refer to things done in the assembly, I think. IMO it speaks more of conduct as individuals. There's more to religion than the worship assembly, after all. It'd be a bit unwieldy to visit the widows and orphans in the assembly.

I do not believe the Bible places a distinction between `time of assembly' and our overall lives.

Colossians 3:12-7 describes overall living, as does Ephesians 5:15-20, yet you seem to believe that parts of them are `how to' mandates on congregational assembly.

Church congregation buildings are not New Covenant temples. Christians are New Covenant temples per 1 Corinthians 3:16-7 and 6:19.

Our worship is our whole lives. Romans 12:1 has “I beg you brothers, in view of God’s mercies, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your reasonable| worship” (TNIV|ESV). Unlike Old Covenant offerings, New Covenant offerings are to be our own selves as living people. This offering is to be our worship. At Romans 6:13 we have “use your whole body as a tool to do what is |good” (NLT 1996|NCV).

Concerning whether all five acts of worship took place at each meeting, we can only know for sure that they took place steadfastly according to the apostles' doctrine (Acts 2:42).

The "apostles doctrine" is explained in Scripture. It is not this mysterious thing.

1 Timothy 1:3-10 “As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions. But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, | for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers| and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine” (NASB|TNIV|ESV).

1 Timothy 4:1-6 “Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed” (ESV).

Titus 2:1-8a “You, however, must teach what is appropriate to sound doctrine. Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance. Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God. Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned” (TNIV).​

Doctrine refers to doing what is good in overall life. This is what Christ's preaching emphasized, and it makes sense that His "disciples," also translated "followers" (ICB) would teach the same things He did.

I assume you agree that all the apostles were teaching the same as Paul. They had `bigger fish to fry' than arranging proper temple services of a few hours per week. In the New Testament, there is no temple building or distinct worship time.

As far as I can tell, the Lord's Supper is only mentioned as having been observed on the first day of the week. An offering was taken up also on the first day of the week (1 Cor 16:2), although other collections could take place as needed per Gal 6:10. Singing, praying, and teaching do not appear to have any limitations put on them.

I do not see limits put on any of these at all. The Corinthian special offering for famine relief was to be done on the first day of the week. Per Acts 2, the Lord's Supper was done every day in that congregation at that time.

God does not place limits on doing what is good. If His written Word records a detail, it does not necessarily mean that it is a `command by example.'

Though the Bible does give instructions as to how we are to behave ourselves in the house of God,

There is no "house of God" in the New Covenant era -- see above. However, I agree with you that Scripture teaches us how to behave at all times.

which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15), it is not limited to this use by any stretch.

The word "church" in modern English translations translates a Greek word that refers to a collective of people.

This is a case where English definitions of a word and the Greek word translated by that English word do not match.

Rev 5 is not a description of an assembly of Christians on earth. It is a description of what John saw in the Spirit as an observer of what was taking place in heaven (Rev 4:1). There is no more authority in this passage of Scripture for instrumental music in the worship of the church than there is for having a throne with a rainbow around it, with someone like a jasper and a sardine stone sitting on it, with 24 seats surrounding it, and 4 various beasts full of eyes before and behind.

I guess I will have to disagree with you that Revelation 5 has no relevance to the Christian, which seems to be what you said.

I believe that the events of Revelation 5 actually happened.

As for me, you are going to have a hard time convincing me that while God has always approved of musical instruments in worship in the past, and still does in Heaven, He suddenly stopped doing so on the earth -- and never bothered to tell us.

Concerning instruments being authorized under the OT, you made a good point earlier. The shophar (trumpets) seem to have been authorized by God, but I don't think David's additions were.

In 2 Chron 29:26-27 there seems to be a distinction made between the two. Take a look and tell me what you think.

2Ch 29:26 And the Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets.
2Ch 29:27 And Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt offering upon the altar. And when the burnt offering began, the song of the LORD began also with the trumpets, and with the instruments ordained by David king of Israel.

Well, I've gone all "wordy" again.

I see no distinction. Perhaps the latter refers to those of Psalm 150, which is Scripture and shows God's approval of musical instruments.

However, I thought the Old Testament had nothing to say to New Covenant Christians on the matter of musical instruments, in your view. If the Old Testament still has authority on this matter, then adding a ban on musical instruments is definitely unauthorized.

 

[Darron Steele]

The fact that instrumental music is not mentioned in the NT does, in fact, prohibit its' use. The kind of music has been specified (singing), therefore, to add another kind of music (instrumental) is to go beyond that which is written."

We ought not need to be told everything not to do. It should suffice to be told what to do.

As of Acts 15, the apostles had not told the Gentiles that they did not need to be circumcised. Judaizers were trying to convince them that they did, perhaps using similar logic to that which you are using in this case, "God never said not to..."

When the issue was discussed, and letters sent to the Gentile churches, the apostles still did not tell the Gentiles that they did not need to be circumcised. What they did say was this:

Acts 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

All that was necessary to prohibit the requiring of Gentiles to be circumcised was for the apostles to give no such commandment. They did not have to tell them not to.

So from this, you are going to allege that every time the Bible does not mention something, it is forbidden.

Very well. You would need to throw out your hymnals, your versified Bible, your English translations of the New Testament, remove your specially-trained song leader and his tools, get rid of your building, etc.. I am serious on that, but I do not believe these drastic courses of action are necessary.

Now, seriously, the only thing the Jerusalem church was doing on this was clarifying that they did not tell these teachers to teach the things they were doing. That is all I see in the text. I certainly do not make the moonwalking leap I believe you have.

However, I am going to agree with you on one thing. These men should not have been teaching as they did. Had they been more careful, they would not have done so. They went out and taught their opinions outside of the explicit statement of the apostles.

Banners of musical instruments do likewise -- and are equally wrong.

Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15). He didn't say, "If you love me, do anything I don't tell you not to do".

That is a bogus dichotomy.

Non-mention does not mandate `do.' No one suggests that, nor does it follow from `Non-mention does not always forbid.'

Non-mention does not always forbid, nor always permit. Non-mention sometimes points to something else, and sometimes it means nothing at all.

We are supposed to handle Scripture responsibly and know the difference. God did not see a need to list off every single action He still approves of when the Covenants changed.

As for the `jelly on the Lord's supper' example you used, a person responsibly handling Scripture would discern that this represents the Lord's body, per 1 Corinthians 11. S/he would recognize that it would be irreverent to put jelly on the Lord Jesus Christ.

There is no reason to add a ban musical instruments in worship of the Lord. Scripture shows that God has always approved the practice and continues to do so.

Paralleling the original topic, your approach would have you creating your own set of traffic rules beyond what exist, and impersonating a cop writing citations for these, leading to your arrest. Your approach would have us all
1) getting off the Interstate every time a town was mentioned in a road sign with an exit number,
2) refusing to turn right on red unless the sign told us to, which in one interchange near me, would create a dangerous road hazard,
3) using I-74 from Greensburg, Indiana to travel only to Indianapolis or Cincinnati as final destination -- after stopping at every town named on an exit sign.

 

[trustitl]

I started reading from the beginning and was starting to feel burdened by the desire to look at the scriptures as a constitution for a church or a list of approved things Christians can/cannot do. To do so is to misunderstand the role of scripture in a believers life. They are living as under law. Darron Steele has a good grasp of this topic.

The "law type" churches are plentiful and will remain nameless here. This is a topic that is so important but is sadly misunderstood by most. I only came to see it in my life about 4 years ago. It was very hard to let go of my "approved" activites and have to learn to walk in the spirit. However, it has finally helped me understand what being a shild of God is all about.

The book of Galations deals with this subject perfectly. Most people think Paul is talking about salvation in this letter. It has helped me see how God wants me to live out my salvation.

Gal. 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Very few believers are under the Law of Moses, rather they are in bondage to "christian" law but the effect is the same.

 

[Sopranette]

Can you elaborate on that subject for me, trustitl? I'm really very curious!
Thanks!

love,

Sopranette

 

[Darron Steele]

Trustitl: Thanks for the kind words.

The issue is not law, but a mistake in what law the Christian is under.

Some groups believe that the Old Covenant Law was replaced with something very similar to it. This `New Judaic Law' is a law centered around a new temple buildings similar to the old, with a new ceremonial worship code of the same nature as the old.

The only major difference is how it is given. The Old Covenant Law was spelled out by direct commands. For the assumed `New Judaic Law' like the old, its existence is not spelled out in Scripture, let alone its details. Those to be gleaned from behind what Scripture says in what Scripture does not state, because Scripture pays little attention to congregational matters.

However, I believe that assuming the `New Judaic Law' like the Old Judaic Law is a grievous error. The New Covenant is of an entirely different nature than the Old Covenant.

Christians are under law. Galatians 6:2 refers to “the law of Christ” (ASV), and to follow it here: “Help each other with your troubles” (ICB).

Per James 1:27 “Pure religion and undefiled |in the sight of| our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world” (ASV|NBV|ASV).

Romans 12:1 has “I beg you brothers, in view of God’s mercies, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your reasonable| worship” (TNIV|ESV). Unlike Old Covenant offerings, New Covenant offerings are to be our own selves as living people. This offering is to be our worship. At Romans 6:13 we have “use your whole body as a tool to do what is |good” (NLT 1996|NCV).

James 2:8 mentions “the royal law according to Scripture, `You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (ESV). These are exactly the things Jesus Christ taught.

Per Hebrews 10:24-5, congregations are to be means of supporting this: "stimulate one another to love and good deeds" and "encouraging one another" (NASB). That explains why the New Testament does not give great detail to the assembly proceedings of congregations.

Per 2 Timothy 3:16-7, Scripture is given "so that the| person who serves God| may be complete, | entirely instructed for all good work."* As long as the purpose of church congregations is met, how they are done is not important. Scripture is most concerned about what the people of those congregations do in their overall lives, per God's priorities.

Our New Covenant law is to live godly lives of good deeds and avoiding carnal sin exactly as Christ taught. As believers on Jesus Christ, we are to follow His teachings. That is our law, and it is spelled out explicitly for us.
____
* NBV|ICB|ASV|RVR 1909 “enteramente instruído para toda buena obra” translated.

 

[trustitl]

I guess I would say that the issue is law. Let me explain and see if you agree which I think you will since you mentioned the law of Christ.

Websters 1828
LAW, n. [L. lex; from the root of lay. See lay. A law is that which is laid, set or fixed, like statute, constitution, from L. statuo.]

16. That which governs or has a tendency to rule; that which has the power of controlling.

Consider the law of gravity. It is that which makes the apple fall or keeps an object from being moved.

What is it that moves you and me. What is it that keeps us from being moved?
What is it that produces fruit is us? It is the Spirit of God.

At the end of the fruit of the Spirit is a little phrase that used to confuse me: against such there is no law. Most commentaries say it means something likethis:
there is no law against doing these things. No that would be about the stragnest thing for Paul to say wouldn't it.

It is important to know that words change and can mean things we don't usually think of. Consider Websters again:

AGAINST, prep. agenst'.

8. In provision for; in preparation for.

In other words Paul is saying there is no law which can produce the fruit of the Spirit in you or me. We too often turn to rules or standard to help us "be Christian" or "do Christian things". It will never work.

For example a man struggling with lust and pronography will have people check his history. His law is: I will never delete my history so people can check on me. I don't want to do this disgusting thing and if people find out I would be looked down on. Therefore the power of embarressment will keep him from this activity. It actually works to stop people but it is not "fruit" from God. Any unbeliever can do it.

We need to believe God. He has said sin no longer has dominion over us. That pile of cookies, that magazine, that mean neighbor... None of them has any power over us.

" Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." Romans 6:6