MMF - biblical principle

[DHK]

"To ignore Psalms talking about using instruments and dance in worship is simply to be ignorant."
(Sue)
"I love Calvin but Calvin and most of early Purtans, Baptists were quiete frankly wrong on worship and ignored Psalms 150 and Rev. 5 where the 24 elders are praising the Lamb with harps." (Kiffin)

--Once again I defer to Peter Masters exposition on Psalm 149 (Psalm 150 is given in another thread). Consider how a proper exegesis of the Psalm shows that "dance" as used in this Psalm, and in Psalm 150, in no way justifies the modern dance or the so-called CCM dances found in some churches today. It just doesn't work.

The two final psalms are constantly quoted by the promoters of new-style worship as a justification for the uninhibited use of instruments (with dancing) in direct worship.
Psalm 149 includes the verse, ?Let them praise his name in the dance: let them sing praises unto him with the timbrel and harp' (verse 3).
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the Hebrew word translated ?dance' really does mean this. (Many authorities believe that the original word, which means ?twisting', could equally well refer to a twisting, curling type of horn or trumpet, rather than a dance.)
The question is?Does the psalmist refer to direct worship, or to the national festivities of the Jews, including the victory festivals with all their outdoor rejoicing? As we read through the psalm the answer becomes obvious. Psalm 149 is not specifically about direct worship, for it ranges widely over every aspect of national and private life. The psalmist encourages the people of God to be a rejoicing people in every department of life?worship, civic, business and pleasure. The ?dancing' clearly refers to the cultural, recreational life of the nation. Scholars tell us that the swirling or twisting dance of the Hebrews was a popular activity in the villages, especially among the teenagers and children. It was far removed from the sex-based, physical-contact dancing of today, and had a place in the great civic festivals.
The fifth verse of the psalm, curiously, encourages the people to sing aloud upon their beds, while the sixth verse desires that they should praise God with a two-edged sword in their hands. Were they literally to take beds and swords into the Temple, and somehow employ them in direct worship? Obviously not. These verses range from private worship in the night to military service for the Lord.
The seventh verse of the psalm calls for vengeance to be executed upon the heathen, and the eighth for their kings to be bound with chains. Because this psalm includes civic festivities and victory pageants, we should not be surprised to find tambourines and dancing referred to. The rules for the Temple (for direct-worship) are not contradicted. The Lord wants modesty and simplicity, not entertainment, show, noise, unnecessary diversity of instrument, and human ostentation.

If you want to know the truth about "dancing" from the Scriptures, you will spend time in the Scriptures "rightly dividing the Word of truth." The Holy Spirit never contradicts His Word. To say that I was led by the Spirit, or the Spirit gave me peace about the matter, a matter that is contrary to His Word, is only conceding that you were led by another spirit. God's Spirit never contradicts His Word. I once had a charismatic friend who told me that he was led by the Holy Spirit to take a job as a bartender! Was he following his emotions, his flesh, or the Holy Spirit, and the Word of God? You judge for yourself. I will only point out that the Holy Spirit never goes against His Word.
DHK

 

[myreflection26]

DHK,

Well first of all it doesn't shock me too much that you don't believe the Holy Spirit would never lead a christian into a dark place to be a light as a bartender but I do believe that because how are we to be a light to an already lit world of christians.

As for Mr. Masters, the best educated man has been proven wrong at one point or another so no I don't trust his theories on music because I believe what the bible says that if you ask you shall recieve. I have asked for God's leading and wisdom in music and I know its the Holy Spirit's leading in the music I listen to and plan to sing myself. The holy spirit does not contradict himself which means that the theories I'm hearing on here are man made ideas because the scriptures I'm hearing are not backing up a thing yet.

Sue

 

[Kiffin]

DHK,

Your point is well taken but both Psalms 149 and 150 describe the worship here as directed to God. I agree that the dancing was most definitely a Hebrew cultural dance.

That being said Psalms 149 and 150 describe musical instruments used to worship and praise God as does Revelation 5. I to am uncomfortable with Dancing in worship BUT I cannot find any scripture that forbids it but rather see scripture praising it in the Old Testament as a valid form of worship. I think we Baptists have a natural inclination to be anti something just because we are uncomfortable with it (Most notably the lifting of hands). My problem with dancing is how can it be done decently and it order in our society. I did witness a liturgical dance by a youth group at a African American Baptist church once that was reverant but most of what I see is chaotic.

I am not an espouser of the Modern Contempory form of worship but actually my Church is more of a Free style type Liturgical Church. The problem I see many times with Contemporary worship is not music, raising of hands or dancing but Man centered worship that is superficial, singing a one chorus Praise and Worship song 20 times like a mantra and a deemphasis on expository preaching.

Of course the traditional Baptist worship service developed in the 20th century that is primarily designed to be like a Billy Sunday type service is just as man centered.

Balance is the key. All worship must be directed to God and this focus on musical instruments is missing that point. Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty!

 

[Eric B]

Aaron:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The idea that silence equals full freedom or "not important to God" is condemned in the Scriptures as "lasciviousness/wantoness (KJV)," or "licentiousness [notice the root word 'license'] (RSV)." It describes excess permissivism, an "overdaring sort of liberty," the "absence of restraint." It is the heart cry of those who "take counsel against the LORD," Psalm 2:2-3. Those who invoke silence to justify the indulgence of their personal preferences do so against the clear Scriptural warnings against such things.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does this mean that because it was not addressed, we are to assume that it is automatically wrong, "to be safe". Before you accuse someone of "justifying indulgence", permissiveness, lack of restraint, etc. You have to prove from scripture that those things are wrong, .in themselves. But noone can do this; it's just these people used it for this evil purpose, and it affected that person that way, and this person associates it with this, and the other says that.
It is true that musical styles can carry over to an excess (like the mosh pits we were discussing recently), but what people are condemning is a very broad range of styles, based on a rhythm which does exist apart from the license or immorality people have used variations of it for, or associate it with.
Now this leads to: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Liberty only exists for the sake of one's conscience before God. It is a wanton abuse of liberty when used to justify the idulgence of one's personal preferences at the expense of the conscience of another. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree that people's consciences were often trampled when new styles were brought into the church. But then the people who were "offended" often were unreasonable (which led to all the confusion and removal of all standards), and then turned around and themselves tried to violate the other people's conscience by saying that only their musical choices were "right" or "pleasing to God", and that all others are "wicked rebels". This is what led us to this war of today, where all each side does is talk past one another.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But when permissiveness is granted in areas where the Scriptures seem to be silent, it must be done with the utmost caution <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So this I can agree with, but once again, people on the conservative side will have to be reasonable and honest and realize that anything man does is tainted with sin, so you cannot but so much point out the faults of the contemporary, as if the traditional was pure and perfect.
Kiffin:
Great post! By far the biggest thing we need is another voice of balance!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My problem with dancing is how can it be done decently and it order in our society. I did witness a liturgical dance by a youth group at a African American Baptist church once that was reverant but most of what I see is chaotic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Even though I have seemingly taken up the side of dancing, I do caution about it on my page, since people do use it wrong, and it is so tempting to cross a line. What I say when I point out dancing in Psalms is that people are trying to say that the contemporary styles and their "syncopation" are bad just for the simple fact that they "makes you want to move"-- even if it is just tapping your hands and feet! (If it makes you want to march, it is OK, though!). But since God did allow it back then, that shows He must not have hated lively movement it as much as some claim, despite the whole dispute over whether it was carried into the NT. Of course, I don't think anyone here is trying to justify the sensual dancing of unbelievers in the clubs, or saying that that is what the OT worship was like.

 

[Aaron]

Well, I'm back. I was under my 100-year-old farm house replacing a floor joist that turned to paper. TERMITES!!!! My wife and I have been saving for five years for a downpayment. I hope we can move soon.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Eric said:
You forget the scriptures and Apostolic fathers I cited which shed light on ("illuminated") what was happening in (the trends of) this period. I did NOT just "make up" anything. Is this claim just to discredit what conflicts with the "histories" I've been seeing here. Isn't this "ad-hominem?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The same documents to which you have access are accessible by the authorities you cite, and again, they all say, "We don't know what happened, we just think something changed." Now what you need to do is to quote what your authorities say changed. Your conclusions are founded upon a host of unsubstantiated assumptions about causes and effects, and in some places you contradict the New Testament itself.

But as I said, I am not willing to quibble over every little trifling error you commit. The fact of the matter is that you are simply erroneous in your reconstructions. Where there is total agreement among the ancient authorities as to the practice of the primitive church, especially within such a short time after the apostolic period, there can be no rational basis upon which to ascribe the agreement to anything other than the truth.

I am compelled, however, to defend the rapid departure of the church from Judaism. This indeed was a stunning shift in philosophy, but it was a miraculous shift quickened by God's Spirit as opposed to the naturalistic shifts you insist had to occur in only fifty years. Jesus said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," John 2:19. The temple is central to Judaism. Jesus here was plainly foreshadowing the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New, but more than that, by likening His body to the temple, He was taking all the rituals thereof to the grave with Him and raising them in "newness"--That is, not in the old carnal outward forms, "the oldness of the letter," but in the spiritual forms they foreshadowed, the "newness of the spirit," Rom. 7:6; Col. 2:14-3:10. He did not take simply the sacrifices to the grave with Him. He took the temple and all that went with it; the priesthood, the priestly garments, the artifacts, and even the instruments.

That is why you see no mention of worshipping with incense, or with harps and psalteries or any other kind of musical instrument in the New Testament. They were done away with, and their spiritual significance is what was emphasized. And that is why the Psalms cannot be invoked to support the use of musical instruments.

In fact, Eric, you have very little ground to build your case for free instrumental expression in Christian Worship. Your only ground is liberty, and even there the emphasis is upon the stronger Christians yielding their rights--not demanding them.

Note: This post is only to refute the idea that the early church took the exhortations in the Psalms to worship with harps and psalteries literally. This is not a concession that the issue of music is merely an issue of liberty or personal taste.

[ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

[Aaron]

I mentioned John 2:19 in my last post, but I think a quote from an internationally recognized rabbi would shed more light on just how significant a statement Christ made. Jacob Neusner is the world's preeminent authority on Judaism in the first centuries of the Christian Era. He is Distinguished Research Professor of Religious Studies at the University of South Florida in Tampa and Life Member of Clare Hall, Cambridge University, in England. He was ordained a rabbi by the Jewish Theological Seminary of America and has published nearly 500 books on Judaism. He holds over a dozen honorary degrees and academic medals.

I have two of his books, A Rabbi Talks with Jesus: An Intermillennial, Interfaith Exchange, and Children of the Flesh, Children of the Promise: A Rabbi Talks with Paul.

In A Rabbi Talks with Jesus, Neusner argues with Christ's premises as set forth in the book of Matthew, which was written specifically to the Jews. In his rebuttal to Christ's statements in Matthew 12:1-8, he rightly understands the narrative and Christ's words to mean that there has been a change in regard to the "Holy Place."
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...The Sabbath is when God's kingdom comes. Rightly, then, did Jesus link the two messages: take up my yoke, the son of man is lord of the Sabbath. He could not have made the matter clearer.

...

When Jesus further justifies his followers' actions by pointing out that, in the Temple, the priests perform the rites of the cult, so it is all right to do so here, he introduces a very profound argument, making a claim about himself that in its monumental quality parallels what he has said about abandoning father and mother and following him. To understand what he says--and to grasp how surprising I find it--you have to know that the Temple and the world beyond the Temple form mirror images of one another. What we do in the Temple is the opposite of what we do everywhere else.

The Torah is explicit that sacrifices are to be offered on that day.... So it was clear to everybody that what was not to be done outside the Temple, in secular space, was required to be done in holy space, in the Temple itself. When, therefore, Jesus says that something greater than the Temple is here, he can only mean that he and his disciples may do on the Sabbath what they do because they stand in the place of the priests in the Temple: the holy place has shifted, now being formed by the circle made up of the master and his disciples.

What troubles me, therefore, is not that the disciples do not obey one of the rules of the Sabbath. That is trivial and beside the point. What captures my attention is Jesus statement that at stake in their actions is not the Sabbath but the Temple, a truly fresh formulation of matters. His claim, then, concerns not whether or not the Sabbath is to be sanctified, but where and what is the Temple....

(Emphasis mine)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can easily see how significant a thing it is that Jesus likened His body to the temple, and why when false witnesses came forth at His trial it was this statement that was misrepresented.

 

[Eric B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The same documents to which you have access are accessible by the authorities you cite, and again, they all say, "We don't know what happened, we just think something changed." Now what you need to do is to quote what your authorities say changed. Your conclusions are founded upon a host of unsubstantiated assumptions about causes and effects <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My only point in those quotes was that you can't get a pure picture of the 1st Century New Testament Church from the 2nd century.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>and in some places you contradict the New Testament itself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Only if you insist New Testament Christianity was identical to 2nd Cenry Christianity.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The fact of the matter is that you are simply erroneous in your reconstructions. Where there is total agreement among the ancient authorities as to the practice of the primitive church, especially within such a short time after the apostolic period, there can be no rational basis upon which to ascribe the agreement to anything other than the truth.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Another big point I just remembered I didn't cover is this claim of "total agreement" or "consensus" of "ancient fathers" "so shortly after the apostoic period". The authorities I've seen quoted (by Theopolitan on other threads) were Justin, Chrysostom, Clement of Alexandria, Aquinas, Calvin, Spurgeon and a couple of others after that.
Only Justin was within 100 years of the apostolic Church. The rest were centuries later. This is hardly a "consensus" or "total agreement" of immediate post-apostolic authorities. This was really the opinions of select leaders spread out over the Church Age. This doe not prove the ENTIRE chrch held Justin'sposition even as lateas his age. Like I said, you did not hear of any Jewish or any other groups in the Church, just the Greek and Romans, and they had beliefs and philosophies they were bringing in with them. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am compelled, however, to defend the rapid departure of the church from Judaism. This indeed was a stunning shift in philosophy, but it was a miraculous shift quickened by God's Spirit as opposed to the naturalistic shifts you insist had to occur in only fifty years. Jesus said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," John 2:19. The temple is central to Judaism. Jesus here was plainly foreshadowing the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New, but more than that, by likening His body to the temple, He was taking all the rituals thereof to the grave with Him and raising them in "newness"--That is, not in the old carnal outward forms, "the oldness of the letter," but in the spiritual forms they foreshadowed, the "newness of the spirit," Rom. 7:6; Col. 2:14-3:10. He did not take simply the sacrifices to the grave with Him. He took the temple and all that went with it; the priesthood, the priestly garments, the artifacts, and even the instruments.

That is why you see no mention of worshipping with incense, or with harps and psalteries or any other kind of musical instrument in the New Testament. They were done away with, and their spiritual significance is what was emphasized. And that is why the Psalms cannot be invoked to support the use of musical instruments.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said before, it is quite a stretch to throw out all instruments with the Temple services. If anything, it would be the so called "restrictions" Masters speaks about (only 3 instuments mentioned, so the rest were banned")that would go out with the ritual worship. Your argument assumes The Church was new "temple", now with new rituals (but still, there are no scriptures teachig these rituals, oter than Baptism, Communion and a few others). Once again, it was the later gentile Church that built huge cathedrals, and then copied the ancient "temple" worship, but only throwing out the Jewishness of it (Sabbath, worship music, as well as sacrifices), substituting their own Greco-Roman styles. But Christ pictures the new "temple" as being both His and our bodies (includin his spiritual body, which is all of us together), not a building or the institutional ["body"] that operates out of it. The eary church met in the home, and there were no restrictions against instruments or lively festive worship. (It stil amazes me that a Platonic somber worship is what is bing pictured as our "newness of the Spirit" in Christ. Several scriptures relegate overly "conservative" restrictions as part of the same old "law of flesh", as well as "doctrines of devils" and "doctrine of Antichrist". And for the 5th time, if you're not advocating a-cappela worship,then this argument can be used against you as well).
So the only thing "done away with" was the strict use of instruments as prescribed in the Law. Nowhere can we draw a restriction of instruments altogeter from this. An also, once again, some of the ewish practices also were not "restricted", so long as they didn't directly contradict Christ's work (sacrifices, including incense), or were legalized. Nowhere wre tey forbidden, but Paul' teaching Liberty also protects them ("He who regards the day...") Thi further shows the later church was wrong to start restriing these things, and eventually stamp them out. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In fact, Eric, you have very little ground to build your case for free instrumental expression in Christian Worship. Your only ground is liberty, and even there the emphasis is upon the stronger Christians yielding their rights--not demanding them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is true, but the proble is, these "Weak" Christians won't allow anyone to listen to it even when the're not around to e "offended". They are intent on stamping a whole family of music out of existence (not just one style caled "rock" that has been taken to extremes). This is my concern, and the issue des ave some highly questionable roots (such a suspicion of anything African, an this does surface occasionally). If the only proof anyone has that NT music was to be somber or plain is what people said centuries later they have no right to be waging this holy war today.

 

[Eric B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Your argument assumes the Church was [the] new "temple" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just to reinforce that it is the organized institution I am referring to, not denying that we are His Body.
Also sorry for all the misspellings. I forget that I just switched to DSL, and don't have to rush and worry as much about getting knocked offline, and having to write it/quote all over again. I sure could use an alphabetical keyboard, though. (noone seems to be thinking of that). This standard arrangement is driving me crazy.

 

[Aaron]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Eric said:
Another big point I just remembered I didn't cover is this claim of "total agreement" or "consensus" of "ancient fathers" "so shortly after the apostoic period". The authorities I've seen quoted (by Theopolitan on other threads) were Justin, Chrysostom, Clement of Alexandria, Aquinas, Calvin, Spurgeon and a couple of others after that.
Only Justin was within 100 years of the apostolic Church. The rest were centuries later. This is hardly a "consensus" or "total agreement" of immediate post-apostolic authorities.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not going to do your homework for you. This is a public forum and the authorities quoted are enough to reasonably establish a matter. You can get the complete Early Church Fathers on CD ROM. You have a giant task ahead of you to establish outside influence as the basis for their thinking.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Eric said:
This doe not prove the ENTIRE chrch held Justin's position even as lateas his age.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you are hard pressed to present an ancient authority who didn't, and the consensus among modern authorities is that it was the mindset of the primitive church.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Eric said:
Like I said, you did not hear of any Jewish or any other groups in the Church, just the Greek and Romans, and they had beliefs and philosophies they were bringing in with them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, just as Christ said in Matthew 21:43, "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." What else would we expect to see? These men are not referred to as the Fathers for nothing. But far from bringing "their" philosophies into the church, you will find as you read their writings that they zealously refuted their former pagan ideas and fearlessly rebuked those who retained them. You're just wrong here.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Eric said:
As I said before, it is quite a stretch to throw out all instruments with the Temple services.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whether it is a stretcher or not in your opinion is immaterial. It's what happened.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Eric said:
Your argument assumes The Church was new "temple", now with new rituals . . .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stop right there! This is beautiful! You have jerked your own rug right out from under your feet and illuminated for all the readers your most basic and fundamental flaw. You read into the histories things that simply are not there. I certainly did say that Christ's body was the new temple (actually, He said it Himself), but nowhere in any of my posts will you find anything about any new rituals. I will quote word for word from my previous post. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Aaron actually said:
...by likening His body to the temple, He was taking all the rituals thereof to the grave with Him and raising them in "newness"--That is, not in the old carnal outward forms, "the oldness of the letter," but in the spiritual forms they foreshadowed, the "newness of the spirit," Rom. 7:6; Col. 2:14-3:10.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here "carnal outward" is clearly contrasted with "spiritual" which most folks would recognize as inward. No ritual here, just spirituality. We praise God on the harp (with its high "celestial" timbre) when we yield our minds to His Word. We praise Him on the psaltery (with its lower tones) when we yield our members in service to others. We offer a burnt offering when we fulfill our duty to God through Christ. We offer a meat offering when we fulfill our duty to our fellow man through Christ. Christ our passover is sacrificed for us. Etc., etc.

There is no substitution of rituals, but fulfillment, and the form of the fulfillment may resemble the shadow perhaps much as a rose bloom may resemble the seed from which it sprang.


You commit many other such hermeneutical offenses, the time and trouble to correct would make for an interminable post and be tantamount to reprinting the whole Bible. I have sufficiently debunked your reconstructions with solid Scriptural principles and the testimonies of reliable authorities. To the minds of reasonable men I have "proven" my point beyond a reasonable doubt, so I will here end my part in this thread.

BTW, I often save the BB webpages I want to respond to, then write my responses offline. That frees up the phone line and I don't have to worry about getting bumped off.

Until another thread,
Aaron

--------------------------------
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 8:32

[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

[Eric B]

[QUOTEOf course, just as Christ said in Matthew 21:43, "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." What else would we expect to see? These men are not referred to as the Fathers for nothing.] [/QUOTE]

If this were true, then all of the apostles would have been gentile, but Jews were still used by God in the early Church. Jesus was talking about the theocracy of Israle as a whole, not that Jews would by God's will be stripped of all influence in the Church. On one hand you deny that things could have changed so fast, but now you are trying to give some biblical authority for the total removal of all Jewish influences in favor of gentile. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But far from bringing "their" philosophies into the church, you will find as you read their writings that they zealously refuted their former pagan ideas and fearlessly rebuked those who retained them. You're just wrong here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They may have rebuked outright pagan ideas, such as bowing down to Zeus or something like that, but some ideas were so thoroughly ingrained in them they didn't realize it. Remember the quote I made earlier about contextualization. We can see it clearly today in Christian rock music, but not in our old traditions which develped slowly over centuries, and are now the "conservative" "standard". Pietistic ideas against all pleasure in worship sound "godly" "spiritual" and even "biblical", but they are clearly pagan in origin, and the mindset is recognized as such by scripture (which is very balanced). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Whether it is a stretcher or not in your opinion is immaterial. It's what happened <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Without any scriptural proof; only the theories of men, you make this grand pronouncement. You dispute my seeming lack of evidence on the influx of paganism in the church, which you see as a "stretch", but you make your own "reconstructions" of scriptural principle. It's basically my word against your word. In a situation like this, it proves my whole point that grace is needed in this music issue, not condemning brethren over a beat based on pure conjecture. As I said on my page, this is preceisely because none of us have the whole answer. We are looking back thousands of years, and history is easily distorted or misrepresented by man. We only have the Word of God as oure divinely preserved infallible source of spiritual and to a certain extent, historical knowledge.
I was just getting ready to call an truce in this historical debate. It has been quite insteresting, but it should show you how far we've gotten from any biblical issues. Nothing being argued here really stands or falls on whether the New Testament church used instruments, or how accurate the post-apostolic authorities were in their accounts.
It is completely ridiculous that I should listen only to music of a style hundreds of years old just because people make an argument that God hates all lively rhythms, and any scriptures that seem to disprove that are superseded by church loeaders' interpretations. So Christians who use contemporary styles are "Wicked rebels" and all the other things critics call them, not because God made a point to condemn certain musical arrangements, but because various authorities claim the New Testament chucrh used no instruments. Who are we really following then? The Bible, or Church tradition? THIS is the real issue!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Stop right there! This is beautiful! You have jerked your own rug right out from under your feet and illuminated for all the readers your most basic and fundamental flaw. You read into the histories things that simply are not there. I certainly did say that Christ's body was the new temple (actually, He said it Himself), but nowhere in any of my posts will you find anything about any new rituals. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For lack of better word at the time, I said "ritual". In a way, this restriction of music for only plain styles is sort of like a new ritual, albeit a negative one ("don't") rather than a positive one ("do"). Also there are other traditions that are not really commanded, such as Sunday and Easter, which eventually came to be seen as replacements for OT rituals, along with priests, new "sacrifices" of Christ, etc. You may not have said all that, but I was referring to church tradition as a whole.) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Here "carnal outward" is clearly contrasted with "spiritual" which most folks would recognize as inward. No ritual here, just spirituality. We praise God on the harp (with its high "celestial" timbre) when we yield our minds to His Word. We praise Him on the psaltery (with its lower tones) when we yield our members in service to others. There is no substitution of rituals, but fulfillment, and the form of the fulfillment may resemble the shadow perhaps much as a rose bloom may resemble the seed from which it sprang.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Where do you get all of this from? How can you possibly accuse me of "reading into [things] something that is not there", or "non-sequitur", as when I first came to the board? You take a scriptural verse, then take things that aren't even addressed in those scriptures, and just arbitrarily plug these meanings into them. And based on this al people who use a particular music style are sinning, right? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You commit many other such hermeneutical offenses, the time and trouble to correct would make for an interminable post and be tantamount to reprinting the whole Bible. I have sufficiently debunked your reconstructions with solid Scriptural principles and the testimonies of reliable authorities. To the minds of reasonable men I have "proven" my point beyond a reasonable doubt <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Boy, are you being triumphalistic! What you are calling "soli scriptural principles" are wild interpretations, based on the teachins and "testimonies" of fallible man, however "reliable" thjay may be in their own right. There are several points you still never even addressed, like for the 6th time, how you justify using instruments, when arguing that the NT forbid instruments, and also the fact that based on the older principles, even the "traditional" styles and instruments you love were once regarded as "worldly, sensual, devilish". You chose to remain focused on "history" because that is fuzzy and cannot be solidly proven outside of writings of people, which are hard for most to find and research (it's basically abstract) and then try to conclude that I don't know anything I am talking about, so there, traditional music is "proven" to be God's mandate for today, and all CCM people are just "rebelling". That proves just what I am saying-- the whole basis of this issue is pure conjecture (he says, she says), and based on this, we can voice our concerns about music, but not try to rule out lock, stock and barrel, whole other categories, and regard those who use them as "wicked", "aiding the devil", etc.
This is the issue at hand. We shall have to answer to Christ for our positions. How are we going to feel, when our answer to Him is "Well, the Church 100 years after the NT said this, and 'godly leaders later on said that the Bible meant that, and that's why I condemned my brother". Let us be able to see clearly the scriptural issues, and recognize when our own ideas and defenses get in the way.

 

[Aaron]

Well, I said I was done, but Eric's last tirade demands an answer not to quibble over our interpretations of Scripture, but merely to clarify what I actually said as opposed to Eric's readings.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Eric said:
On one hand you deny that things could have changed so fast, but now you are trying to give some biblical authority for the total removal of all Jewish influences in favor of gentile.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the reader has taken the time to read this exchange, he will see at once that Eric was describing what he believed to be changes in the philosophy of the church by naturalistic causes. I was describing a miraculous change. Indeed, no one can accept the Gospel but by the work of the Holy Spirit.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Eric said:
Without any scriptural proof; only the theories of men, you make this grand pronouncement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whereby he effectively negates every "trend" he described.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Eric said:
It is completely ridiculous that I should listen only to music of a style hundreds of years old just because people make an argument that God hates all lively rhythms, and any scriptures that seem to disprove that are superseded by church loeaders' interpretations. So Christians who use contemporary styles are "Wicked rebels" and all the other things critics call them, not because God made a point to condemn certain musical arrangements, but because various authorities claim the New Testament chucrh used no instruments. Who are we really following then? The Bible, or Church tradition? THIS is the real issue!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would challenge the reader to find any such argument posted by me in this thread (or any thread for that matter). The issue in this thread was whether the exhortation to praise God with harps and psalteries and dancing in the Psalms was a model for the New Testament church.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Eric said:
Where do you get all of this from? How can you possibly accuse me of "reading into [things] something that is not there", or "non-sequitur", as when I first came to the board? You take a scriptural verse, then take things that aren't even addressed in those scriptures, and just arbitrarily plug these meanings into them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did Paul get that Deutonomy 25:4 applied paying ministers? You see that from the beginning of the church the Old Testament was interpreted allegorically. "But he spake of the temple of his body," John 2:21.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Eric said:
There are several points you still never even addressed, like for the 6th time, how you justify using instruments, when arguing that the NT forbid instruments, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never argued that. Not once.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Eric said:
You chose to remain focused on "history" because that is fuzzy and cannot be solidly proven outside of writings of people, which are hard for most to find and research (it's basically abstract) and then try to conclude that I don't know anything I am talking about, so there, traditional music is "proven" to be God's mandate for today, and all CCM people are just "rebelling". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I remained focused on history to counter your interpretations which are the fruit of a hermeneutic heavily based on historical reconstructions. Not to argue for or against any style.

 

[Daniel]

Hey Eric and Aaron--ever heard of revisionist history? Would there be any possibility that this could be occurring in some of the works cited in your posts? Just a thought.....

 

[Eric B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If the reader has taken the time to read this exchange, he will see at once that Eric was describing what he believed to be changes in the philosophy of the church by naturalistic causes. I was describing a miraculous change. Indeed, no one can accept the Gospel but by the work of the Holy Spirit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This part of the debate is really going nowhere. I can just stress that the 2nd century church was not the same as the first century church. The miraculous change occurred in the 1st century as recordd by scripture. But several other scriptures also show a rapid apostasy that was already working even as they wrote.(2 Thess. 2:7)
Then look at Acts 20:29 "After my departure, savage wolves will come in among you...also from among you men will rise up speaking perverse things..." 1 Tim. 4:3 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but...be turned aside to fables". We apply verses like this to this century (society's rejection of the values of fundamental Christianity), but Paul was clearly warning a leader in his day what was going to happen right then. With all of this evidence, stright from scripture, I don't see how you can argue that I'm making up my own history, and that the 2nd century church gives us a pure picture of the first century Church. It was a mixture of divine change, and humn deviation. Remember, the doctrines of Rme were also developing at this same time. If there was no change in the 2nd or 3rd centuries, the did the Roman system just open up out of nowhere in the fourth century? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Eric said:
Without any scriptural proof; only the theories of men, you make this grand pronouncement.
Whereby he effectively negates every "trend" he described.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Like I said, it's gttendwn to athing of your word versus my word. We can accuse each other of distorting history forever, but it will not get us anywhere.
This response already went further than I planned, and being it is really a tangent (see below) so I'll separate this part from the rest.

 

[Eric B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would challenge the reader to find any such argument posted by me in this thread (or any thread for that matter). The issue in this thread was whether the exhortation to praise God with harps and psalteries and dancing in the Psalms was a model for the New Testament church. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The whole issue of the thread, along with severalothrs, is the value or evil of contemporary styles, as opposed to traditional. Music is condemned as "offensive to God" for having rhythm that makes you want to dance, and people advocating it were accused of going purely by feelings and opinions, thus violating Biblical principle and holiness. In resonse, we showed scriptures where God accepted lively rhythm and dancing (not today's hip grinding, of course, but it would violate the "principles" --rhythm accent, melody dominant, etc. advocated by most critics.)
So to refute this, a bunch of arguments came up, some of them conflicting, to say either it was all allegory, OR that perhaps it was allowed, (SOME instruments, that is), but then rescinded by the New Covenant, in which instruments were specifically avoided, in favor of plain chant. None of this is in scripture (but still, we are told, we are guilty of "license", if we go by silence of scripture.) The only authorities cited were church leaders ranging from the 2nd century to the present. If they all said it, it must truly be "the truth". So then began this argument on history, where I pointed out that the post-apostolic church was influenced by paganism (Platonic rejection of any liveliness or pleasure in worship), and Aaron just accused me of "reconstructing" history, even though I presented scripture and other writings that supported the trends I was describing. Now I realize this was a tangent that was interesting for a while, but is going around in circles. The original argument was whether God accepts music that does not fit into this "traditional" mold (whether fundamentalist "hymn", plain chant, or classical.) With all the evidence provided, we can conclude that there is no scriptural basis for the rejction of all contemporary styles of music. The presence or absence of instruments in the New Testament has no real bearing on this issue. Even if they weren't there, we can not deduce a scriptural ban from this. You say you didn't argue this, but if you claim they were associated with "the flesh", and were thus avoided like the old sacrifices; that is like a "ban", (but once again, perhaps it is not the best word.) If instruments were not mentioned because they were totally absent, it could have been because the church met in homes, and perhaps most people did not have instruments in their homes. We don't really know, so we're really arguing about nothing of any present relevance. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I remained focused on history to counter your interpretations which are the fruit of a hermeneutic heavily based on historical reconstructions. Not to argue for or against any style. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But it distracted us from the original issue, and it was easy to just accuse me of making up history, because neither of us could really prove or disprove what happened thousands of years ago. So if I'm wrong about history, then you must be right that the NT avoided instruments, so then those scriptures do not prove God accepted lively music; in fact, they prove it was part of the "flesh", that was done away with our "newness in the Spirit". So all the restrictions against contemporary music stand (i.e. are not satisfactorily answered by us). Isn't this the heart of the issue?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Where did Paul get that Deutonomy 25:4 applied paying ministers? You see that from the beginning of the church the Old Testament was interpreted allegorically. "But he spake of the temple of his body," John 2:21.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, we draw spiritual analogies for OT scriptures like that. But that doesn't mean we can now throw the original literal meanings out. (God never actully did forbid the muzzling of oxen. God never had a physical temple.) I don't dispute the worth of the analogies you, Masters and others draw, (we are free to do that as long as it doesn't conflict other scriptures). But to claim that is now the only meaning of those scriptures (i.e. we can't use them to prove God accepted lively rhythms or a diversity of intruments, because they mean something totally different), when no scripture even says this? This is what I mean by "where do you get this". Especially given this war on music styles at stake.
Daniel:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hey Eric and Aaron--ever heard of revisionist history? Would there be any possibility that this could be occurring in some of the works cited in your posts? Just a thought..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's why I want to move on from this history argument. As I said, it is easy for history to be gotten wrong, since we are so removed fom it. So sometimes we all wind up revising or filling in the spaces. As you emphasize, we should stick with the Bible.

 

[Daniel]

Now you're talking, Eric! There was NO problem in your "history joust" with Aaron. I found it to be very interesting; but, you guys were going no where fast. Glad you caught on.....

 

[Theopolitan]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daniel:
Now you're talking, Eric! There was NO problem in your "history joust" with Aaron. I found it to be very interesting; but, you guys were going no where fast. Glad you caught on.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I beg to differ! Now Aaron will get upset with me for saying this, but Eric came to a gunfight with a knife!!

Don't worry, Eric, I've seen Aaron limp a time or two. He got into a little tussle with Blade. Aaron blundered on a medical fact and had to admit defeat.

I'll tell you a story about Aaron, though. Our novice pastor tried to church him when he politely asked the VBS director to consider his convictions about rock music (he has two girls that go to VBS). It didn't work. He studied almost no other issue for an entire year. He wanted to know if this was a "hill worth dying on." He made some fundamental changes in his own views after learning some things.

I would not have swung over to his side if I did not see his meek and gentle responses to the wolf-like hostility he faced. I saw then that music had become an idol in church.

You are not dealing with someone who simply hard-heartedly clings to a pet doctrine when you deal with Aaron. You deal with someone who came through a baptism with fire.

 

[Daniel]

Theo: Thanks for your defense of Aaron. I was by no means casting any stones at either fellow. I was hoping for a simple realignment for the purpose of moving a thread titled BIBLICAL PRINCIPLE away from the history over-dose (which can always have a revisionist tendency) back to the Bible (which can have no revisionists in the purest translations). I have found both Eric and Aaron easy to deal with via e-mail. Both gentlemen are reasonable and approachable in that format. Don't let their "on board posts" make you think they are not decent fellows. Au contraire, they are quite amiable. Now, let's see if we can move this thread BACK TO THE BIBLE. A thread called CHURCH MUSIC HISTORY would be an awesome forum for Eric and Aaron to post to their heart's content. Thanks, again, Theo for your concern and post.

 

[Eric B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now Aaron will get upset with me for saying this, but Eric came to a gunfight with a knife!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not a knife; a Sword

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'll tell you a story about Aaron...He made some fundamental changes in his own views after learning some things.
I would not have swung over to his side if I did not see his meek and gentle responses to the wolf-like hostility he faced. I saw then that music had become an idol in church.

You are not dealing with someone who simply hard-heartedly clings to a pet doctrine when you deal with Aaron. You deal with someone who came through a baptism with fire. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't doubt what you say, and his convictions may be genuine, but that still doesn't mean that this whole condemnation of all contemporary or rock-related styles (including jazz and anyhing else wth the African rhythm and other elemens that suposly make music so bad) is right. You all may have some points in your observations about how the world uses music and rhythm for sin, and I agree that the modern church hs gotten too wrapped up in entertainment and pragmatism. But I think that people are taking something God has told them regarding their own personal lives, andtrying to force everyone else ino the same conviction. The loudest criics of rock are those who testify of being caught up into [the really bad stuff] in the hippie age (e.g. Cloud, Godwin, Watkins). People talk about the "hostility" of CCM defenders? They ar soft compared to what the latter two spew out (see quotes earlier in this thread). It's the ideology and misconceptions behind this angry war I am fighting. And though you accused me in the other thread of just seeking a "thrill", I too have made changes in my views, and had even given up alot of stuff, but still many of the "rules" people are making about music (accent of rhythm, etc) are not biblical, and those of us who do not agree with them need to stand up more and support our stance with Scripture.