Why Have Denominations?

[bmerr]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Instrumental music is clearly not prohibited by the NT. In fact the word used for sing in Ephesians generally meant (in Classical Greek) to pluck a stringed instrument or to sing with an instrument.

Charles,

bmerr here. It's true that the NT does not specifically prohibit the use of musical instruments. That being said, I would also say that it would be quite a different thing from NT Christianity if we were to base our religion on what the Bible does not prohibit.

The far safer and surer path would be to simply do those things which the Bible does authorize, and not add anything to it. In this way we can be sure that we are doing the will of the Father.

Regarding the Greek word "psallo", let me say up front that I am a long way from being a novice when it comes to the Greek, let alone a scholar! I've got a Strong's concordance and a Berry's Interlinear Text, but that's about all I have to work with. This is what I've found in Strong's.

"psallo" (#5567) does indicate the plucking or twanging of a stringed instrument. This word is translated as "sing" in Rom 15:9, 1 Cor 14:15, and James 5:13.

The word translated "singing" in Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16 is "aido" (#103), and it is simply a verb which means "to sing".

"humneo" (#5214) is translated "sing" in Heb 2:12, and means, to sing a religious ode, or to celebrate in song.

In both Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16, the idea of congregational singing is indicated by words like "yourselves", "one another", and "hearts", all of which are plural.

In a recent sermon on this very topic, I learned that the commands in these verses are called "reflexive reciprocal" commands, meaning that all the members of the group are singing to one another, teaching and admonishing each other.

It kind of rules out concepts like soloists, or choirs, who sing while the rest listen. It describes the whole congregation being invoved in the same thing. No one is left out.

Now, if you want to hold on to the idea that some of these words might authorize an instrument, that's fine, provided everyone in the congregation is playing one.

As a final thought on this topic, would you agree that one can worship acceptably without the instrument? Is acapella (which means "as in the church") music pleasing to God? or is the instrument required? If it's not, then why risk adding something that God may not desire?

Being a member of a "baptist" church does not preclude salvation. Lack of water baptism does not preclude salvation.

Being a member of any church other than the one found in the pages of the New Testament will be really disappointing at the last day. Christ said He would build only one church. It behooves each one of us to investigate the New Testament to find the identifying marks of the Lord's church, and make sure we're a part of it.

As far as baptism is concerned, there's a whole other thread devoted to that, so I'll forego comment here, except to say that we need to find out what the Bible says about it.

If you are suggesting that we all try to realize that our different denominations can get in the way from time to time - that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and should treat one another accordingly - then I'll agree heartily with you.

The temptation to change my stance for the benefit of having someone agree with me is real. Alas, I cannot put my name to your suggested statement, except that we should all treat each other with respect and dignity which all who are created in the image of the Almighty are due. Too often, I find myself at fault in this regard.

If you are going to explain to us that being a member of a denomination is not compatible with being a Christian or that having instrumental worship music is sin or that believing in salvation by faith alone is damnable doctrine then you're going to get nowehere here.

Well, I've been nowhere before, and I can't say that I liked it much, but that is my position, I'm afraid.

Again, let me say that my desire is to join in a search of the Scriptures to find what is written about such things as denominations, instrumental music in worship, and salvation.

If we can all look objectively to the word, and discover all the evidence linked to the things we study, we are bound to at the least grow in our knowledge of God's word, if not come to agreement on everything.

Whatever the outcome, the goal of returning to the Scriptures is a noble one, and one that has been sought after by better men than I. Certainly we all could profit from following their example.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Eric B]

bmerr here. It's true that the NT does not specifically prohibit the use of musical instruments. That being said, I would also say that it would be quite a different thing from NT Christianity if we were to base our religion on what the Bible does not prohibit.
The far safer and surer path would be to simply do those things which the Bible does authorize, and not add anything to it. In this way we can be sure that we are doing the will of the Father.

As a final thought on this topic, would you agree that one can worship acceptably without the instrument? Is acapella (which means "as in the church") music pleasing to God? or is the instrument required? If it's not, then why risk adding something that God may not desire?

We don't base it on what is not prohibited, but then we cannot base our Christianity on what the Bible doesn't mention either. For hymn books, church boards and all that other stuff aren;t mentioned either; but the CofC sees no problem with that. It is just a matter of choosing something to make a pet issue over.

Being a member of any church other than the one found in the pages of the New Testament will be really disappointing at the last day. Christ said He would build only one church. It behooves each one of us to investigate the New Testament to find the identifying marks of the Lord's church, and make sure we're a part of it.

So who was saved before the modern Church of Christ came to be? (whether it started with Campbell/Stone or not). The Waldensians, Albigenses, Catharii, and anabaptists? Those were supposed to represent the "true NT Church" (by all groups who claim this). But they were far different from the groups claiming this (including the CofC), and from each other, AND from the NT! So for anymodern group to place salvation in their Church body is ridiculous. The RCC and EOC have a stronger case than that!

To answer the original question of the thread, denominations are corporate bodies formed around doctrinal and often cultural differences within the Christian Church. If we had one corporate body over all (as some have been suggesting), then it would be too much power in a few hands. Plus, people just cannot get over their culture and traditions, so it would never work anyway. I would say if we just went back to an unorganized series of home fellowships, then we would all be one (spiritual) body of fellowship and people could keep their opinions and traditions to themselves without splintering over them. But who wants to give up all this structure and the money and power that comes with it?

 

[chadman]

It is crazy listining to all of this, from all sides. Lets tell it like it is. Bmmer you are right to some degree.

But the objective truth I think, is that everyone of us, thinks we are right. Of course our intrepretation is better, we have the Holy Spirit. How hilarious this must certainly appear to the non Christians and even our Catholic friends here. And we puff up and pride ourselves on who has the least error.

Example, Bob mentioned the Orthodox Christians leaving the RCC (the umltimate show of faith?) and the Anglicans, etc. I mean give me a break seriously. Orthodox are catholic, pray to Mary, pray to icons, but they left their errors...sure. I met Anglicans that pray the Rosary, they can't even agree on sacraments. Oh, but they are somehow one level or two better because they are not RCC? Does anyone see the humor in this type of thing? Objectively speaking? Of course...we Babtists look just as absolutely crazy to the other side.

And of course of we Baptists, in all our infinite wisdom, have a gospel the style of which no ealry Christian would recognise. Unless we use the Bible, which has no alter calls or sinners prayers as a means of conversion. We would have probably had a chapter written about us in Irenaus' 'Against Heresies'. You know we would have.

Hey, we all pick what we think is right, even if it is different from history, as long as we can contrive some seed of it in the NT. As that any different than what the RCC does? And the Holy Spirit is NOT in charge of spreading all of these divisions. So who is teaching the faithful? We all to some degree, base our understanding of Scripture on what WE percieve that Holy Spirit has told US. Bottom Line. We are in effect mini-popes if you will, just to ourselves. We are the final word in interpretation in the end. We all hope we are right.

Hard for us to look in the mirror?

 

[tamborine lady]

Chadman said:How hilarious this must certainly appear to the non Christians and even our Catholic friends here. And we puff up and pride ourselves on who has the least error.

God probably has a good laugh at us sometimes when He hears all of our arguments,(I'm right, no I am, etc). That is when He's not crying because we don't get what HE is saying.

selah,

Tam

 

[Charles Meadows]

Bmerr,

Whatever the outcome, the goal of returning to the Scriptures is a noble one...

I'll agree with that.

But my experience with most COC members is that they wind up with something far less than scriptural.

Sola fide is damnable doctrine?

Not by scripture.

Instrumental musci sinful?

Not according to scripture.

Denominations evil?

What are denominations? They are not even mentioned in scripture - so you cannot say that belonging to one is evil.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Sorry - didn't get to finish the thought...

The best explanation of the denominational phenmenon would be the fact that humans (being imperfect) cannot completely grasp all of God's revelation. To permit denominations among Christians is to admit that though we are not all in agreement on all points of faith we are attempting to know Him more fully and serve Him more correctly. Since we are human none of us will get it completely right.

For a COC member to say that the denominational organization of Prostetant Christianity is suboptimal is reasonable.

For a COC member to state that a believer who has put his trust in Christ with a pure heart has not salvation because he/she attends a baptist or methodist church is to do no less than deny that Christ's blood is efficacious to save men.

 

[Eric B]

Certainly true.
And the Church of Christ and all other Campbellistic groups are just as much apart of this "denominationalism", even though they speak against it. Just more groups coming up with some doctrine, and claiming all others are wrong! And as I said above, you don't even have the history to prove it. You use the same groups that Baptists, JW's and all others use to try to trace back to the NT, but it falls apart at closer examination. At least most of the other groups (Baptist, Methodist) accept each other in Christ.

 

[bmerr]

Eric B,

bmerr here. Not true, sir. The church of Christ in America does not attempt to trace a lineage back to apostolic times. It has been proven too many times, that such an endeavor is an exercise in frustration and failure.

Tolerate an illustration.

Imagine the game of baseball degenerated to the point that it bore only a token resemblance to the original game. Those of the "old days" would all be gone, and the original game would be lost. Nobody living would have any remembrance of it, and there would be no interest in it.

But suppose someone found the rule book put out by Abner Doubleday. If a group of people took that book, and started playing baseball by the original rules, their game would be quite different from what others who claimed to be playing baseball would be playing.

Question: Would this group using the original rule book be playing a "new game"? Would this group have an need to trace their game back through history to Abner Doubleday?

No. They would simply be playing by the original rules. The goal of the churches of Christ, and of many others throughout history has been the same thing; to go back to the Bible for authority. Some have had more success than others, to be sure.

Eric, if you can find something in the Scriptures that I'm leaving out, please tell me. Or, if there's something I'm teaching that cannot be found in the NT, tell me about that, too.

If I'm in error, I don't mind changing. That's why I left the Baptists.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Deepertruth]

The reason we have denominations is because the flesh alters God's Word.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Bmerr,

I read your post to EricB.

Regarding the analogy... We have the rulebook. It was never lost.

And while I agree that the goal of the Stone-Campbell movement was noble the results have not always been so.

I agree that baptists have gotten in wrong in many places - and they could in many ways stand to be reproved. But when I look at the COC I see alot more problems. The motives were good but the outcome was less so.

How do I mean that?

How do COC members choose to differ from baptists?

1. No salvation by faith alone. It's pretty clear in the Bible that faith ( and not the WORK of baptism) saves. Jesus said that whoever seeks Him will not be cast away - the sinner is not required to belong to a body whose building says "COC".

2. Instrumental muscis evil? Of all things to nitpick at... There is no prohibition of instrumental music. Issue done. Even if they did not use it in NT times (they probably didn't have alot of instruments or people who could play anyway) the issue obviously was not important enough to warrant a biblical command.

3. Denominations. As we've said denominations are NOT ideal - but they do represent the fact that imperfect humans cannot get everything right. It's impossible. Some denominations have bad doctrine - in some cases bad enough that they teach a NONCHRISTIAN message. Reprove them!!

But the assertion that being in a denomination means one is not a Christian is totally without support in the Bible. I'm a baptist because I like many things about baptist worship and baptist respect for the Bible. I realize "baptist-ism" is an ism - and that the denominational "distinctives" are subordinate to biblical truth.

But you cannot assert (without denying tha ability of faith to save) that belonging to a group of Christians (who label themselves) means that one cannot be a Christian.

Like I said I appreciate your point about returning to NT ways - I just think the COC has done a largely poor job at truly emulating a true NT church.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by bmerr:
[QB] Bob,

bmerr here. Steady big fella! I think you're taking what I said way beyond what I was saying. The OT is Scripture, no question about it. I don't disregard the OT, I just don't look to it for autority in religion.

Ok so you admit that you do not accept scripture as having authority in religion (at least not scripture that you choose to ignore).

So is that ALL scripture or just pre-cross scripture?

The Gospels were written POST Cross - but are primarily filled with pre-cross teachings - do you toss them out as well (in terms of scripture that you will freely ignore when it comes to teaching authority)??

What about when Paul quotes the OT -- does that go too??

What about when Paul AFFIRMS the CONTINUED teaching authority of the OT text - should we take scissors to him there as well??

How big is "your bible" anyway. (The Bible you use for "teaching authority")

2 Tim 3
14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

From Childhood Timothy was reading the OT text. How "interesting" - I wonder if that "Scripture" is STILL "to be used for doctrine, correction, instruction"???

Or is it just "SOME scripture" that is to be used for that today??

2 Tim 3
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work

oops! That would be "ALL scripture" and you already admitted that the Bible is ALL scripture! (Not just the NT).

Well I guess we have a new text to start reading "authorotatively" now - eh?

Welcome to the group. We can now search ALL SCRIPTURE to discover what God's WORD is teaching. No need to continue turning a blind eye to most of it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bmerr

There are truths about God and His dealing with man that can only be learned in the OT.

For example the "details" on creation week. "Details" that are not "repeated in the NT post-Gospel text.

bmerr
Also, 1 Cor 10:11 tells us, "...all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."

You are correct in citing the many examples of NT authors referenceing and quoting OT passages. However, they did not do so to get authority for practice in Christianity.

Oh "really"!!??

So when they SAY they used it for "Doctrine and correction and instruction" they don't actually mean it??

Where did you get that idea from?

How about when they use it in ACts 17 for the doctrines on Christ - the Messiah - the Savior of the World. Is that DOCTRINE not found right where they said it would be found??

How about in Heb 8 where they use it for the DOCTRINE on the New Covenant - is THAT doctrine NOT found right where they said it would be found.

How about in James 2 where they use it for the DOCTRINE on the LAW -- the LAw of liberty AND the Royal Law - is that also NOT found in the OT right where they claim it is to be found?

How about in Eph 6 where Paul argues that we ARE to obey and honor parents BECAUSE "The is the FIRST commandment with a promise" in that set of 10. Is that gigantic "BECAUSE" really just a mistake on Paul's part??

In almost every case of the OT quoted by NT authors it is ALWAYS quoted authorotatively to MAKE a point stick and to give force to doctrine (just as we would use ANY scripture today).

Notice that in 1Tim 2 Paul makes an argument about church order and then PROVES that it has binding authority from scripture by quoting Genesis.

In Acts 17 they read the OT text to "SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO" -- this is EXACTLY how we use scripture today to see IF someone has correct doctrine.

How can this be missed?

I think if we were to follow OT references out, the majority of them would be in reference to Jesus being the Christ

Is it your position that the teaching about God the Son being the Messiah (the Christ) the Savior of the World -- is NOT a doctrine taught in your church???

I don't mean this in anything like a meanspirited way - I am just surprised at the kind of logic you are using to turn from the bulk of scripture when it comes to teaching authority.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ed notes that 27% of the existing denominations
in the USofA were started in an attempt to
unify Christianity

God is Good -- All the time;
All the time -- God is Good!

God is using the current diversity of
denominations to magnify the number of
Christians in the world. Note that today
some 33% of the people in the world are
called 'Christian'. This is the largest
percentage (and, of course, the largest number)
ever since Christ asscended. Jesus is coming
back, are you ready?

 

[Frank]

Eric:
You said,
" We don't base it on what is not prohibited, but then we cannot base our Christianity on what the Bible doesn't mention either. For hymn books, church boards and all that other stuff aren;t mentioned either; but the CofC sees no problem with that. It is just a matter of choosing something to make a pet issue over."

Song books, lights, pues, buildings, microphones, boats, airplanes are expedients. I Cor. 6:12. Expedients carry out lawful commands. Things that violate specific commands are unlawful. For example, fruit of the vine for the Lord's supper eliminates coke or milk because fruit of the vine is specifically commanded. Your logic would allow coke and milk.

By your reasoning, it would be wrong to fly in an airplane to teach the gospel. Why? because it is not expressly stated. By your logic, one could not ride a horse to another town to preach because the bible does not make a declarative statement to do so. Language teaches three ways: declaratively, by example, and necessary inference. By the way, I do not know of a church of Christ that endorses a " church board." This is news to me.

 

[Frank]

Charles:

Jesus said faith itself is a work. John 6:27-29.

For over five hiundred years, instrumental music was non-existent in new testament worship. Who authorized it's use?

Jesus said we can know the truth. John 8:32. The new testament declares we must know it. Eph. 5:17. Our eternal destination depends upon it. John 12:48.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:

1. No salvation by faith alone. It's pretty clear in the Bible that faith ( and not the WORK of baptism) saves. Jesus said that whoever seeks Him will not be cast away - the sinner is not required to belong to a body whose building says "COC".

The N.T. nowhere teaches faith alone. It does teach salvation by faith. Heb 11:6 says without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God. In that chapter it tells us that by faith we accept things we cannot prove, such as the creation of the heavens and the earth. It also gives examples of faith that is necessary to please God. Notice, Heb 11:30 states that by faith, the walls of Jericho fell. I'm sure you are familiar with the story. Look at all that was required of the children of Israel. None of their actions caused or "earned" the destruction of the walls, but the power was with God. This is a N.T. example of faith that is pleasing to God. By many peoples definiton of faith (belief only), the walls would still be standing, but using God's definition of faith (believing and obeying his instructions), the walls fell.

Baptism is not a work. The bible does not call it a work, but an act of faith (Gal 3:26-27). It is faith on man's part, work on God's part (Col 2:12).

What is your definiton of work? Something man does? I cannot think of a definition of work that would exclude confession or repentance and include baptism. Confession is something man does. It requires effort. It has to be done in front of others. Many of the rulers believed but would not confess (John 12:42), so it is certainly possible for this to occur.

2. Instrumental muscis evil? Of all things to nitpick at... There is no prohibition of instrumental music. Issue done. Even if they did not use it in NT times (they probably didn't have alot of instruments or people who could play anyway) the issue obviously was not important enough to warrant a biblical command.

The had all kinds of instrumental music, even back in David's day (Ps 98:5-6 and many other places). Instruments had been present in O.T. worship and were no doubt present in that day. Don't you think it strange he ommited this from his commands. Why do you meet for worship? God said to (Heb 10:25). Why do you partake of the Lord's supper? God said to, (Acts 20:7). Why do you give of your means? God said to (I Cor 16:2). Why do you sing? God said to (Eph 5:19, Col 3:17). Why do you worship with instruments???

The commmand is to meet. We carry out that command, we do not add to it or take away. If we meet in a building, we are carrying out that command. If we sit on a pew or the floor, while we are meeting, it is still carrying out that command to meet. When we partake of the Lords supper, we use unleavend bread and fruit of the vine. If it is passed around in trays or some other method, the command is being carried out, not added to or taken away. If we add a sacrafice of a lamb to the ceremony, that would be wrong. God has not ordained it, even though they sacrificed animals in the O.T. Nowhere in the New Testament is if forbidden to sacrafice an animal during the Lord's supper. But someone might say, I like it when animals are sacrificed.

The bottom line is, "How do we know what God wants?" He has told us. It doesn't matter what I want or like. You cannot use instruments of music by faith, because faith comes from hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rom 10:17).

If song books are used, it is carrying out the command to sing. No other music is added. God's authorized music is singing.

3. Denominations. As we've said denominations are NOT ideal - but they do represent the fact that imperfect humans cannot get everything right. It's impossible. Some denominations have bad doctrine - in some cases bad enough that they teach a NONCHRISTIAN message. Reprove them!!

Nowhere is division accepted or even tolerated in the New Testament. How can we be of the same mind and same judgment? (I Cor 1:10) We have to go back to the bible. Speak where the bible speaks and be silent where the bible is silent. When we introduce things such as instrumental music because someone likes it, it causes division. It caused division in the denominations when it was first introduced, dividing them ever further. Again, how do we know what God wants and is acceptable? He has told us. He has given us ALL things that pertain to life and godliness (II Pet 1:3) and nowhere does it include instrumental music, therefore it is not required for godliness. II Tim 3:16-17 says we are thoroughly furnished and it does not include instrumental music. It is accepted, with very little to no opposition, that the early church did not use instrumental music.

But the assertion that being in a denomination means one is not a Christian is totally without support in the Bible. I'm a baptist because I like many things about baptist worship and baptist respect for the Bible. I realize "baptist-ism" is an ism - and that the denominational "distinctives" are subordinate to biblical truth.

To my knowledge there is not one approved example of any type of division or any statement condoning it. It was wrong in the first century and I can not find where it would be acceptable today. Can you?

But you cannot assert (without denying tha ability of faith to save) that belonging to a group of Christians (who label themselves) means that one cannot be a Christian.

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say. The Lord adds the saved to THE church (Acts 2:47). Outside the church, there are no christains, since the Lord has added them to the church. Chirst is savior of the Body (Eph 5:23) and the body is the church (Eph 1:22-23, Col 1:18). I cannot find where Christ will save anyone outside of His Church, and I can only find one way INTO the chruch.

Like I said I appreciate your point about returning to NT ways - I just think the COC has done a largely poor job at truly emulating a true NT church.

I am curious as to why you think this? I am convinced that when we go back to the bible and truly try to emulate the N.T. church, that is the only possible way to be of the same mind and judgment, with no divisions. As long as people base their religion on feelings, what they like or don't like, and on what God didn't say, we can never have unity. We are not governed by what God didn't say, but what he said. I can only know what he wants by what he has said.

 

[Eric B]

bmerr here. Not true, sir. The church of Christ in America does not attempt to trace a lineage back to apostolic times. It has been proven too many times, that such an endeavor is an exercise in frustration and failure.

Not the ones I've seen have. The very first CofC tract I was given, down south listed all of the denomination, with starting dates and founders--many wrong (RCC--Boniface IV, 325AD), and only the C of C going back to the NT, and "mentioned" in Rom. 16:16--which is the only use of "churches of Christ". IT is called "church[es] of God) 12 times, however) That's the whole basis of "nobody can be saved outside of the Church Christ founded". There has to be proven to have been a "true Church" all those centuries, else no one was saved.

Imagine the game of baseball degenerated to the point that it bore only a token resemblance to the original game. Those of the "old days" would all be gone, and the original game would be lost. Nobody living would have any remembrance of it, and there would be no interest in it.

But suppose someone found the rule book put out by Abner Doubleday. If a group of people took that book, and started playing baseball by the original rules, their game would be quite different from what others who claimed to be playing baseball would be playing.

Question: Would this group using the original rule book be playing a "new game"? Would this group have an need to trace their game back through history to Abner Doubleday?

No. They would simply be playing by the original rules. The goal of the churches of Christ, and of many others throughout history has been the same thing; to go back to the Bible for authority. Some have had more success than others, to be sure.

So if you admit that you are freshly picking up the book, then you place yourself in the same boat as everyone else attempting to do this today. You then have to say you have gotten it right, while everyone else is wrong. Hypothetically possible, granted; but unlikely. So then it will be an ongoing debate. Hence all the denominations and division. and as I said, the C of C is just another part of it, even though they try to exalt themselves above it.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Mman,

Why do I say that the COC is not an ideal NT church?

Several reasons.

As it pertains to the instrumental music thing..

It's pretty likely that music was NOT used in NT times. Several reasons likely account for this. The first of these is that most musicians played at pagan worship ceremonies. The NT church did not want to bear any resemblance to these. The other is that they didn't have lots of instruments or people who could play - or any instruments which (like a piano) would be suitable for song accompaniment.

Today's churches (OK, most of today's churches) use music that is reverent and appropriate, bearing no resemblance to pagan music. Music is a major means of ministry actually!

The fact that some COC churches make SUCH a big deal about music shows a fundamental WRONGHEADEDNESS. If you don't like music in church - fine. If musicless services were deemed important I think that the Bible would have said something about it. And besides that the words used for sing actually means to pluck an instrument.

Regarding salvation by faith...

I've always had great disdain for the practice of "prooftexting" to support doctrines. Jesus' views on salvation are pretty clear in scripture (as are Paul's). And one must read and digest all of scripture - not just quote a verse.

One must truly believe that Jesus is the Christ. Salvation is unmerited and is something that God gives to us. There is no particular act (such as RCC sacraments) which magically confers salvation. Even baptism itself is something that believers do as a symbol of faith and obedience. But physically getting dunked does not save anyone any more than the rituals of the Torah could actually SAVE anyone.

Once again - it is fundamental WRONGHEADED to believe that faith cannot save. It shows a complete misunderstanding of the scriptures.

I have plenty of theological disagreements with other Christians, many of them fellow baptists. But they are still my brothers in an UNDIVIDED body of Christ.

I respect the theological positions of others as long as they realize that Jesus is the Christ, who came born of a virgin, died for sins, rose bodily, and will return again.

But the COC insists to me that belief in Jesus' sacrifice is insufficient, that a man must perform these things - and must NOT do those things in order to be saved. That reduces makes Jesus a legalist. That reduces Christianity to an OLD TESTAMENT CHURCH!!!!!!!

To me this represents serious misunderstandings of the very message of the Bible.

 

[Eric B]

Song books, lights, pues, buildings, microphones, boats, airplanes are expedients. I Cor. 6:12. Expedients carry out lawful commands. Things that violate specific commands are unlawful. For example, fruit of the vine for the Lord's supper eliminates coke or milk because fruit of the vine is specifically commanded. Your logic would allow coke and milk.

By your reasoning, it would be wrong to fly in an airplane to teach the gospel. Why? because it is not expressly stated. By your logic, one could not ride a horse to another town to preach because the bible does not make a declarative statement to do so. Language teaches three ways: declaratively, by example, and necessary inference.

The had all kinds of instrumental music, even back in David's day (Ps 98:5-6 and many other places). Instruments had been present in O.T. worship and were no doubt present in that day. Don't you think it strange he ommited this from his commands. Why do you meet for worship? God said to (Heb 10:25). Why do you partake of the Lord's supper? God said to, (Acts 20:7). Why do you give of your means? God said to (I Cor 16:2). Why do you sing? God said to (Eph 5:19, Col 3:17). Why do you worship with instruments???

The commmand is to meet. We carry out that command, we do not add to it or take away. If we meet in a building, we are carrying out that command. If we sit on a pew or the floor, while we are meeting, it is still carrying out that command to meet. When we partake of the Lords supper, we use unleavend bread and fruit of the vine. If it is passed around in trays or some other method, the command is being carried out, not added to or taken away. If we add a sacrafice of a lamb to the ceremony, that would be wrong. God has not ordained it, even though they sacrificed animals in the O.T. Nowhere in the New Testament is if forbidden to sacrafice an animal during the Lord's supper. But someone might say, I like it when animals are sacrificed.

The bottom line is, "How do we know what God wants?" He has told us. It doesn't matter what I want or like. You cannot use instruments of music by faith, because faith comes from hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rom 10:17).

If song books are used, it is carrying out the command to sing. No other music is added. God's authorized music is singing.

Speak where the bible speaks and be silent where the bible is silent. When we introduce things such as instrumental music because someone likes it, it causes division. It caused division in the denominations when it was first introduced, dividing them ever further. Again, how do we know what God wants and is acceptable? He has told us. He has given us ALL things that pertain to life and godliness (II Pet 1:3) and nowhere does it include instrumental music, therefore it is not required for godliness. II Tim 3:16-17 says we are thoroughly furnished and it does not include instrumental music. It is accepted, with very little to no opposition, that the early church did not use instrumental music.

The problem here is that both of your definition of "adding to" and "expedient--carrying out lawful commands" shift from issue to issue. YOU decide what is expedient, and when it violates a command! If you were consistant, then if playing an instrument violates the command to sing, then so does using a song book (which has "another form" of music in it--sheelt music--written music). So does using an amplification device (microphone) for the voice. (Most of the sound is coming from an electrical impulse affecting a vibrating speaker, rather than from vocal chords).

It's not MY logic that would lead one to shun airplanes or horses. You guys are the ones saying "such-and such was NOT MENTIONED, so it's FORBIDDEN!", so don't try to shuck that off on me now. That is what I am arguing against!
Continuing from your logic; So why do you use Song books? Dod God say to? Why do you use lights, did God say to? Why do you use pews? Did God say to? Why do you use specific buildings? Did God say to? (No, the biblical evidence shows it was in the homes!), Why do you use microphones? Did God say to? Why do you use boats, or airplanes? Did God say to?
Why do you separate these things as "Expedient", but make such an issue of instruments?
The command is to sing. Instruments do not add to it (any more than a song book or microphone) or take away from it. The people are still singing. They help carry out a command to make music, just as much as a song book or a microphone! IF you say because it was to be "in your hearts", then that would make song books unnecessary too. You should be singing them from memory, not reading and reciting something from a page. (Which can be very distracting).
And issues and divisions have been raised over some of those other items. Look at the Amish. They shun everything electric. They can claim that that was the way things were in the NT, and God never authorized modern inventions!
God has given us ALL things that pertain to life and godliness (II Pet 1:3) and nowhere does it include Song books, lights, pews, buildings, microphones, boats, airplanes, therefore they are not REQUIRED for godliness. II Tim 3:16-17 says we are thoroughly furnished and it does not include Song books, lights, pews, buildings, microphones, boats, airplanes. It is accepted, with very little to no opposition, that the early church did not use Song books, lights, pews, buildings, microphones, boats, airplanes". (Isn't all of this true? They are not "required"; not "mentioned", and not originally "used"? But then does that, mean we go and make a prohibition out of these facts? If so, then all of these other things are likewise forbidden!

On the other hand, once again, milk or Coke is clearly different from fruit of the vine. That is a SPECIFIC; not something done in addition to. How is an instrument done in addition to singing the same as that? Animal sacrifices were shadows of Christ's death. To continue to perform them is to negate Christ. You try to extend this "principle" to why intruments were "allowed" in the OT, but the arguments are so weak it isn't even funny. Then, you make up your own suppositions as to why they weren't "mentioned" in the NT! Probably the same reason why written music, buildings, seating and other such things weren't mentioned. With all the pressing issues of the day, their use or lack of use was unimportant. Use whatever you can. Point is, just get the Gospel out.

So we see you cannot even keep the analogies straight. But you continue to seize on instruments to one-up the rest of Christendom over a completely ridiculous issue. This is carnal.

I am convinced that when we go back to the bible and truly try to emulate the N.T. church, that is the only possible way to be of the same mind and judgment, with no divisions. As long as people base their religion on feelings, what they like or don't like, and on what God didn't say, we can never have unity. We are not governed by what God didn't say, but what he said. I can only know what he wants by what he has said.

You say "speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where it is silent". But you are NOT being "silent" where it is silent. You are addressing an issue not even raised in it! The person who introduces intruments is not "SPEAKing" where it has not spoken, but then for you to come and make an issue of it where there is none in the Bible, YOU are the one guilty of speaking where it has not spoken!

By the way, I do not know of a church of Christ that endorses a " church board." This is news to me.

How do they run the church, then? (I was referring to local congragation, not some para-church organization). Isn't that required in non-profit law? Who "hires" (ugh!) new pastors, and makes the decisions?

 

[Frank]

Eric:

Expedients must carry out a lawful command. Note: changing the command is not lawful or expedient. The use of an instrument CHANGES the command. Singing and playing are not the same, if they were, we would not be having this discussion.
Moreover, using milk and steak instead of bread and fruit of the vine, CHANGES the command to eat bread and drink the fruit of the vine for the Lord's supper. The use of a microphone or a song book in worship does NOT change the command to sing, plucking the strings of the heart. Therefore, they are lawful to use. I Cor. 6:12.

David commited adultery, violated God's law by taking an illegal census, and was an accessory to murder, but I would not endorse or do these things just because David did them. The prophet Amos teaches us David invented music to God. I do not wish to follow this example any more than the other things David did. Would you? if so, why?

I preach at a local church of Christ. I am under the oversight of the elders of the congregation. I Tim. 3. There is no board. As per the new testament, the elders shepherd the flock. I Pet. 5. They feed the flock. Acts 20:27,28. The word pastor means elder and may or may not be a preacher. The preacher may be a single or married man. He does not have to have children. However, the pastor, bishop, shepherd, oversseer, episkopos must be a married man with one wife. He must also have believing children. I Tim. 3.

Furthermore, pastor is never singular in referring to the office. God ordained a plurality for this purpose. Titus 1. This term is also synonymous with bishop, elder, shepherd, overseer episkopos.

I have no contract. I am paid by a gift. This is in accordance with tax laws for non-propfit religious organizations. This does not preclude contracts. It is simply a preference on my part and the elders, as the money provided is not adequate to support all the needs of my family.

The elders are given the task by God to ensure the flock is fed. They are responsible for all the souls under their oversight, including myself as the preacher. This is in accordance with the new testament and civil law which God requires all to obey. Romans 13:1-5.

Do you have a problem with the church obeying civil and spiritual law?