Place your banner ad here.          See all banner ads

|| ConcernedMembers.com || About || Links Library || Help Warn Others ||
|| Madison Church of Christ || Richland Hills Church of Christ || Hillcrest Church of Christ || More Churches || Sunday School in Exile ||

Where is my NewThisWeek Email subscription?Click Here

Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

Reply to Servant's Post on the Jeff Walling and Instrumental Music Thread

December 4 2006 at 11:47 PM
Jimmy Wren  (no login)
from IP address 66.169.186.184

Servant writes: "God commands us to sing. Does He tell us how to sing? NO!"

Jimmy replies: Servant this is one reason that I hope you did not succeed in you run for elder at your church. Not only does God tell us how to sing in the New Testament but God also tells us what to sing!

Read the Scriptures again. Paul writes: "...I will sing with the Spirit and I will sing with the understanding." (1 Cor. 14:15) Paul writes of our singing as being "teaching and admonishing" to one another. Paul said that the lyrics we speak are to be from God, Himself, when he writes that psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are to be our only teaching and admonishing tools durning this time of praise.

There is no entertaintment mentioned; There are no chosen voices; all are to speak/sing/teach/admonish one another with the Word of God.

Of all the Churches of Christ mentioned in the Bible, none are mentioned in regard to having "great singing." Churches are mentioned for their elders, their deacons, their works, their members but not for their great singing. Great singing, as used by some modern churches, is of recent orgin, i.e. within the last several hundred years.

The Scripture that makes mentions of Paul and Silas sanging praises at midnight and the prisoners heard them has great meaning to it. The meaning being that the prisoners were taught of God! The prisoners were admonished of God! In fact when the gates were opened the prisoners did not even try to leave the unattended prison! Why do you suppose that none of the prisoners left? "All of the doors were opened! Everyone's bands was loosed!"(Acts 16:26) Yet no one left! No, not one! This may be attributed to the teachings of Paul and Silas in the songs they sang. The Bible says that every one heard Paul and Silas.

Servant, if you would do a study of "singing schools" in American towns, you will find they originated in dance halls and beer joints, not in churches. Yet it is churches that promote them today!

In Christ,
Jimmy


    
This message has been edited by Donnie.Cruz from IP address 72.150.119.22 on Dec 12, 2006 9:58 PM


 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply
Servant
(no login)
69.59.78.95

Re: Reply to Servant's Post on the Jeff W. Thread

December 6 2006, 6:09 PM 

Jimmy:
You aren't very welcome at FaithSite.com and as you can see with this type of negativity with your post here, there is a reason why.

Jimmy, the scripture you quoted from Paul....""...I will sing with the Spirit and I will sing with the understanding." (1 Cor. 14:15) does NOT address HOW to sing, hence the word "WITH." THat word (with) tells you WHAT (not how) to use to fulfill the singing. Jimmy, perhaps a bit of fundamental grammar verbage and language training could help you out here, and keep you from embarrassing yourself again.
It does point to a fundamental flaw of someone grasping at ANYTHING to prove a point which is unprovable. You prefer acapella, so to preserve that sanctity and tradition you will try anything that sounds even close to fact which might lead one into concluding a true premise for your deduction.
It still comes down to God NEVER ever condeming instrumental music. Bill Crump used the analogy of God's silence not being adequate for using drugs. God didn't say not to use them, so is it ok?
Do you see what I mean Jimmy? This is desperation for you and many others to save a tradition. It is pure desperation. This whole website is desperation in motion. Trying to make preferrences binding when there are only just that....PREFERRENCES.
As for your singing schools, I am guessing that the part about them originating in dance halls and beer joints would date back to the Psalms in the OT also? When King David pleased the Lord, you do notice that he used everything within his power to do so???
I know Jimmy....that isn't the NT, and we do not adhere to sacrifices and burnt offerings, so we should just cut the OT out of our Bibles, right?
Jimmy, you guys really really make it easy!

Galations 5: 19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Jimmy, where do you see ANYWHERE in those sins listed about instrumental music? You also notice that Paul is speaking of these sins as being OBVIOUS??? Bill Crump's drugs would come under OBVIOUS....it could be under either impurity or debauchery, and drunkeness since drugs were not a big part of Paul's society, but still bringing on a similiar "under the influence" feeling.
LIFE IS GOOD!!!
PRAISE GOD!!!

Thank you!!!

 
 Respond to this message   
Mark Waggoner
(no login)
192.31.106.35

Proving that which is Unprovable

December 7 2006, 9:07 AM 

I find it interesting that those on one side of an issue often accuse those who oppose their views of something that they are guilty of themselves! Instead of personal attacks, would any advocate of using instrumental music in Christian worship please PROVE that this practice is sanctioned by scripture? As far as the sins listed in Galatians 5:19ff goes, the use of instrumental music in worship falls into more than one of these "obvious" sins. 1) Since instrumental music in worship is without any NT authority, man is substituting his own authority over God's - this is idolatry. 2) In I Corinthians 4:6, Paul says that those who go beyond (progress) what is written are arrogant - this is selfish ambition. 3) Those who began and perpetuate the use of musical instruments in worship cause dissention in the brotherhood - these are dissentions. 4) The result of these three sins was the creation of factions - at least two distinct denominations that were born out of instrumental music in worship (the Christian Church denomination and the Disciples of Christ denomination). It should be noted that Paul concluded "the list" with the words, "and the like" or "things similar to these" to indicate that "the list" was not limited to the sins specifically mentioned. I close my response as Paul closed the Galatian letter, "If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, boastful, provoking one another, envying one another."

Mark Waggoner

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.217.126.194

Re: Proving that which is Unprovable

December 7 2006, 11:54 AM 

Mark,

Thanks for your excellent post. Since advocates of instrumental music (IM) obviously cannot PROVE that the New Testament Scriptures sanction (authorize) instruments in Christian worship (because such an authorization does not exist in the NT), they take a "back door" approach, similar to that which Martin Luther advocated. In the Jeff Walling thread, John Waddey's essay made reference to Luther's comment that, "I can do anything the Bible does not condemn." This is true, but only if it does not contradict or override those practices that God has already stipulated and authorized in matters pertaining to worship and doctrine. God does not condemn instruments as such because He doesn't need to. Since God has specifically stipulated and authorized that vocal music in singing is the type of music that we are to use in Christian worship, the use of IM goes beyond what God has authorized and hence is an act of rebellion. Yet advocates of IM and other unauthorized worship/doctrinal practices would burden God with the task of making a list of every conceivable "Thou shalt" and "Thou shalt not" to cover every possible situation known to man. Such advocates might as well say, "We're not content to abide by God's specific directives and stop there; we want Him to list for us everything on earth He sanctions or doesn't sanction. If not, we will take matters into our own hands and do as we please." That indeed is rebellion of the highest order.

 
 Respond to this message   
Servant
(no login)
69.59.78.95

Re: Proving that which is Unprovable

December 7 2006, 6:11 PM 

Mark:
It goes back to having God's authority for everything during the "sacred" hour. I saracstically say this because we hold everything "sacred" in that one hour, where there is no example of such, but is something that we have created on our own. We dress up, and make those who feel less unfortunate to have a tie and coat not wanting to come to such a service. I heard Bill Crump speaking of this "giving of the best of ourselves" and thinking that it meant dress and appearance, when Bill knows himself that the ONLY thing that God looks at is the heart. Perhaps the church that Bill Crump attends (or anyone else for that matter goes) doesn't have anyone below the middle class social status that attends and therefore can make such an inappropriate statement and feel good about it.
Also Mark, you can say that about the lack of authority for instumental music, but let someone say something about these and YOUR nice church buildings, and all the lavishness inside of the buildings, and then it's a different issue, isn't it???
Instead of using our money to feed the poor, and taking care of those less unfortuntat than us, we build and amplify and furnish, etc. these buildings.
And no Mark, using instrumental music in the worship service would not be substituting man's authority over God. Therefore it cannot be idolatry or any other sin. If you need further explanation, please see the referrence about PREFERRENCE.
Please also refer back to where I spoke on the great commission and how WE CHOOSE the method of going out to spread the Gospel. God said GO.....He did not tell us how.
God tells us to sing, so for someone to say that using an instrument to accompany that singing is sinful in itself. It is like man taking on what God would do Himself. IF GOD DID NOT WANT INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC IN THE WORSHIP HOUR, then HE WOULD HAVE SAID SO. He didn't say so, as He didn't tell us HOW to go and spread the Gospel.
As for I Corinthians 4:6, does that have any relevance here??? Thank you.
How could Paul be talking of something that had NOT even been written yet, especially since he said that he was applying it to himself. Who could be writing for him Mark??? Paul was the writer, remember?
ALso, since history can not show accurate proof that instruments were not with the first century church, how do you know that it did not BEGIN with them? If the first century church did use them, then you would be actually condeming all of the first century church.
The NT left out a lot of information, as their would never be enough pages to tell everything. It did not give us very much information on worship, daily living, or even personal information about the apostles. It did however show that we should love our God with everything, love each other and NOT judge each other as I Corinthians chapter 4 verse 5 speaks about.
Hey Mark.... let me slide this in here and tell Bill Crump that we DO have examples of David in the Old Testament about David pleasing God with the instrument. We do NOT, however, have any examples of using ketchup and cola as substitutes for the emblems of the blood and the bread.
Yes Bill and you can tell J Waddey for me....that analogy is really AWFUL.
Oh, that analogy of making a melody in your heart being accurate accompanement to singing is also awful.
Common senese tells you that if you don't make a melody in your heart when you sing to God, then you ARE NOT Praising Him.
David praised God with an instument and made a meldody in his heart to God also. Wow!!!! Does that sound too hard to do??? No, if you really love God.
I guess some people want to continue to take the common sense factor out of the Bible. Remember again the parable of the talents.
Tell me again about the relevance of David not being sufficient because he was connected with sacrifices, and burnt offerings and I will tell you that you DO NOT in ANY way know the Love of God.

 
 Respond to this message   
Mark Waggoner
(no login)
192.31.106.35

Re: Proving that which is Unprovable

December 8 2006, 9:39 AM 

I won't spend much time responding to the attempts to deflect the discussion into other areas. Whether I wear a suit to worship (I typically do not) or worship in a "lavish" building (I do not) is irrelevant. You are correct in that God looks at our hearts; however, our obedience reveals what is in our hearts.

Regarding your comment on history; history is the study of WHAT HAPPENED and not of what did NOT happen. History shows that instrumental music in worship did not become an issue until the 5th century and it was quickly rejected as sin. Even the founders of the major protestant denominations all opposed the practice. It is a relatively recent deviation from God's word.

If instrumental music in worship is truly a "preference" and not sin, then neither is infant baptism. I could list other endless deviations but let's stick with this one. How could we argue against pedobaptism when it is not mentioned in scripture? According to your logic, we cannot. You stated, "IF GOD DID NOT WANT INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC IN THE WORSHIP HOUR, then HE WOULD HAVE SAID SO. He didn't say so, as He didn't tell us HOW to go and spread the Gospel." Substitute ANYTHING not explicity forbidden in scripture for "instrumental music" in your words and you can't object to it!

I Corinthians 4:6 most definately has significance. It is true that the entire NT had not yet been written but that does not change what Christ, through Paul, commanded. Later in this letter, chapter 13 to be exact, Paul tells us that "the perfect" will come and to state that this verse would not apply to that is ridiculous. I do not presume to speak for God because He has spoken. You correctly pointed out that there was too much to record in the NT; however, if He had to explictly tell us everything NOT to do - what chance would we have of even being able to read it? How much more would there have been to record?

It is tragic that people are wagering their eternal home on what the Bible does NOT say. I can picture people standing before God whining; "You didn't say not to...". How do you think that He will respond?

Mark Waggoner


 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.217.162.41

Making Things Simple

December 8 2006, 12:18 PM 

Mark: "It is tragic that people are wagering their eternal home on what the Bible does NOT say."

It's also tragic that people waste so much of their lives perpetually agonizing over what the New Testament does NOT say and endlessly searching day and night for loopholes to insert and supplement that which the New Testament does not address. Such practice stems from the man-contrived doctrines, prejudices, and preferences of denominationalism; in short, from a spirit of rebellion.

How much simpler it would be for all Christians to trust what is written exactly in the NT at face value, nothing more, nothing less, and apply it to their lives. If all Christians did this, there would indeed be true spiritual unity.

 
 Respond to this message   
Servant
(no login)
69.59.78.95

Re: Proving that which is Unprovable

December 9 2006, 2:32 AM 

Mark:
On one thing you can be sure and are EXACTLY right about. It was about the 5th century that someone spoke up and said that they didn't like instrumental music and thereby began to tab it as sin, which is sin itself. You and others, past and present, take it upon yourself to add to God's Word by listing a sin that was not there before. You nor anyone has a right to do that!!! God will preserve His Word and will not allow that to happen. As I stated before, in the parable of the talents God isn't going to accept anything less than the best. I would hate to see someone come to God on judgement day, and say "Lord, even though I know that I have this talent and I could use it for your Glory but I will "play it safe" and not use it because I don't have a command for it. I know Lord that it is sinful to do such even though you did not say it to be sinful. Lord, yes I know that David, your beloved servant, did give me proper example of loving you and praising you with everything, but he is in the Old Testament.
Mark, in your heart instuments may be UNCLEAN, but to someone else it is not. You condemn someone else for a non-salvation issue. You stand condmened on your own retort.
Also, the issue about the "sacred hour" is legit. We deviate from one cup to many now because of health concerns. Will God punish us Mark because we did??? We have made this hour what we THINK it should be, with our preferrences.
Mark, did God tell you what pants to put on this morning to go to work? Did he tell your congregation what time to worship and have Bible study on Sundays? Did God tell you whom to marry? Did God tell you where to work? Did God tell you how many songs to sing this past Sunday? Did God tell you how many children to have? Did God tell you to have two cars, or perhaps three? Does God instruct your congregation to have one or two services on Sunday?
But somehow, when God tells you to sing you can expand that to mean without instruments. How convenient.
The part also about not having infant baptism is not humorous, and definitely irrelevant. An infant doesn't know sin yet. Why would he need remission of sins?
That goes back to our talk of COMMON SENSE. You could list others??? If baptism is the best one you could come up, then please don't waste yours or my time by listing any others.
Mark, it all goes back to PLAYING IT SAFE, and not using our talents for God, because you think that you KNOW the aboslute truth. Bury that talent because you think that God will be upset with you because that talent surely could be used for something better, right? What would be better than using a God given talent to give it back to Him and praise Him with it?
And it is NOT going past what is written. If you are singing with an instrument, you are doing what God has asked.

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.19.71.160

Getting It Straight

December 9 2006, 12:45 PM 

History shows that the early Christians did not use instruments in their worship at all. The Church in the first four centuries initially and correctly had always rejected instruments as sinful until the fifth century, when what is now known as the Roman Catholic Church first decided to implement instrumental music in worship.

Yet Servant's argument implies that the Church had merrily used instruments all along until the fifth century, when a disgruntled "someone" suddenly decided that such practice was sinful and thus started a centuries-old battle. That is clearly not the case. Somehow, I believe that Servant knows that but deliberately wishes to be argumentative for the sake of sport. It's not the first time that liberal detractors have pulled that kind of stunt.


 
 Respond to this message   
Servant
(no login)
69.59.78.95

Re: Getting It Straight

December 9 2006, 4:19 PM 

Hey Bill:
You said...."History shows that the early Christians did not use instruments in their worship at all. The Church in the first four centuries initially and correctly had always rejected instruments as sinful until the fifth century, when what is now known as the Roman Catholic Church first decided to implement instrumental music in worship."

Bill, Prove it.
Any proof that what you said is true, and you have facts to back it, let everyone see them.
I don't need to know about when the Catholic church first used them, but show the proof that the first century church did not use them.
This should be good....maybe like sidestepping the truth or using a tangent to go off on another subject.

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.217.166.108

The Evidence

December 9 2006, 8:39 PM 

Premise: “The early Christians did not use instrumental music in their worship at all.” Surely Servant is not gullible enough to believe that any of us here at CM would make such a statement and NOT be able to present authoritative evidence for it. To give due credit, we must first consider the New Testament itself, which does not authorize the use of mechanical instruments in worship. Rather, Christ through the apostle Paul authorized only vocal music through singing (Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16). With such a directive from Christ, the NT had no further need to address instruments. About now, I can imagine Servant scoffing and snickering at such a notion. Well, for those who refuse to abide by the fact that the New Testament does not authorize instrumental music in worship, we can turn to early Church fathers and Church historians who do confirm that early Christians did not utilize instrumental music in their worship. I’ll give just a couple of examples and let discerning, interested readers conduct their own further research. But if these initial examples are not sufficiently convincing of themselves, then presenting 10, 20, 100, or 1,000 additional examples would be a waste of time to those who have long set their hearts against obeying the New Testament.

“The one instrument of peace, the Word alone by which we honour God, is what we employ. We no longer employ the ancient psaltery, and trumpet, and timbrel, and flute.” (Clement of Alexandria, Church father, A.D. 153-217).

“The Early church did not use instrumental music in its worship.... They considered the practice as pagan or Jewish rather than Christian. Dr. Hughes Oliphant Old, in his work The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship says: ‘As is well known, the ancient church did not admit the use of instrumental music in worship. It was looked upon as a form of worship which like the sacrifices of the Jerusalem temple prefigured the worship in spirit and truth.…’ This concern for the distinctiveness of New Testament worship, and for spirituality as its central feature, was typical of the early Church fathers. In harmony with this, the situation in early Church worship was one of ‘plain’ or unaccompanied singing of psalms.... The use of musical instruments was rejected as contrary to the tradition of the Apostles--a feature of sensuous pagan or Old Testament Jewish worship, but not of the spiritual Christian worship.” (Source: N.R. Needham. “Musical Instruments in Worship: Historical Survey.” In The Presbyterian, issue 32, May 1990, pp. 25, 26.)


Now it's Servant's turn. Let him provide incontrovertible proof that the early Christians DID universally use musical instruments in their worship.


 
 Respond to this message   
Servant
(no login)
69.59.78.95

Re: The Evidence

December 11 2006, 10:50 AM 

No No Bill...you are painting yourself in a corner. I asked you to give evidence that musical instruments were NOT used....which you didn't, because I have never seen legitimate proof that there were not used. I don't have to prove that they were used and I did not say they were. I have no evidence that they were or were not used. You still haven't shown proper evidence that they were not used, which is your contention.

By the way, I thought that you were going to mention Clemente....you do notice that his earliest time frame mentioned there was 153 AD, which means that he wasn't living during the time of the apostles.

If Clemente had ANY wrtitings from the apostles that showed that they did not use instruments (which he never has) I am sure he would have listed them. Again, and sadly used.... preferrence during his time does not make predated history. Clemente must have avoided them personally, but he does not have any writing to conclude that they were not used in the first century churches.
Hey Bill, Dr. Hughes said that the first century church did not use instruments. Just because a man issues such statement, he would be thought a fool if he did not show proof or support to back such a statement.
You can show me evidence where Dr. Hughes has this proof, right Bill?
I will await your reply.


 
 Respond to this message   
A Watcher
(Login rbstirman)
70.242.160.37

Re: Proving that which is Unprovable

January 4 2007, 10:57 PM 

I think He might say something like, "My grace is sufficient for you..." or something like that.

Oh wait, he already did.

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.217.163.156

Re: Reply to Servant's Post on the Jeff W. Thread

December 7 2006, 9:11 AM 

Jimmy,

Notice in the other thread, Servant implied that, since God did not tell us "how to sing," we can add what we wish to supplement the singing, such as mechanical instruments. Actually, Servant confused the "mechanics of singing" with "supplementation to singing."

God didn't need to tell us "how to sing," because for many eons of time, human beings have known "how to sing" or the mechanics of singing. It simply involves forcing air from the lungs up through the larynx (voice box or "Adam's apple") with synchronized movements of the lips, jaw, and tongue, along with holding certain sounds for precise periods of time, which creates "singing." That is "how we sing" or the mechanics of singing.

But Christ through the apostle Paul did authorize us to supplement our singing with a form of "accompaniment": making melody in the heart. Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 make metaphorical references to the "heart" or the soul, whence all our true, spiritual melodies come. We are to engage in physical singing with our voices, but the spiritual melodies are generated in the heart or soul, not with mechanical instruments.

Christ through the apostle Paul authorized singing, accompanied by making melody in the heart. Therefore, the latter is the only form of supplementation or accompaniment to singing that Christians are to use in worship.

(BTW, any time people sing and make melody in the heart and direct that specifically to God, they worship Him.)

 
 Respond to this message   
Jimmy Joe
(no login)
68.53.116.59

A little more in depth please.

December 8 2006, 12:43 AM 

Gentlemen,
I would like to get a little more technical. If one cannot carry a tune in a bucket (and I know a few people in that catagory) and attempts to sing, is that really considered singing or just making noise. Also, if one voluntarily remains silent during the song service would that be considered as not worshiping. This is an open question as it applies to either with or without instruments.

 
 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(no login)
66.82.9.86

Jimmy Joe

December 8 2006, 6:24 PM 

Jimmy Joe: Let me repeat, repeat, repeat, the SYNAGOGUE was a school of the Bible. There was no preaching other than what Paul ocmmanded Timothy. There was no praise service. The Psalms were used as part of the TEXTPOOK and history notes that the 'Psalms were sung as a schoolboy READS the hallel" (those hallel psalms were the ONLY hymns).

Paul used the word SPEAK and put both the singing AND melody in the place of the HEART or mind: they plucked heart strings all the time in the literature. Singing in an exciting sense was intended to PSALLO the literal heart meaning to BREAK it to induce fear. Paul outlawed that as SELF-PLEASING in Romans 15 where he gives the TOTAL DEFINITION of the assembly or synagogue.

"Singing" as a RITUAL of the public assembly arrived close to the year 400 AFTER they introduced preaching and self-composed songs. This was a product of pagan priests who shifted over to the church long after Constantine first paid preachers. The Catholic Encyclopedia says that they brought MUSIC because it was "common to all pagan cults."

The word SPEAK as in the LOGOS or word EXCLUDES music of any form. This was to outlaw singing which made LEARNING impossible and the mental affliciton of the infirm (Romans 14). Speak is what you do when you TEACH and ADMONISH "one another" using "that which is written" or scripture. There is no role for the IDOLATRY OF TALENT and the church Jesus founded and defined perfectly has NO ROLE for human skill: that would be LEGALISTIC, you know.

All history knows that when you shift from SPEAK or SAY to sing (even the non musical form) it is both a MARK and a CAUSE of growing effeminancy. I have posted some research notes on the Richland forum and have no intention of responding. Under Farmer's Branch Running Dry I will prove to those with ears and eyes that the PUSH for music is a gender problem or ALL known history is wrong:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/177121/

Under Farmer's Branch Runs Dry.

 
 Respond to this message   
Servant
(no login)
69.59.78.95

Re: Jimmy Joe

December 11 2006, 3:37 PM 

Yet, there are some who reject both the seventh and tenth century dates and place the introduction of the instrument as far back as the third, fourth, or fifth century. Though this would be too early a date for the organ, it is argued that the lute and/or lyre were used in the worship.

To support this claim an appeal is made to Clement of Alexander. He wrote around 200 A.D. He said, "And even if you wish to sing and play to the harp or lyre, there is no blame."


When Was The Instrument Of Music First Introduced Into Christian Worship?

Brooks Cochran
Memphis, Tennessee

you know the crazy thing about it is....there are those who want to say, to this day, that Clemente wasn't speaking of the worship service, but probably a feast or festival.

NO BLAME gents....NONE
straight from the mouth of Clemente himself.


 
 Respond to this message   
Servant
(no login)
69.59.78.95

Re: Jimmy Joe

December 22 2006, 12:44 PM 

This is a repost....since Donnie and others love to use Clement, and SINCE you didn't give a response to this. I didn't think you would, because it negates MOST of your unhistorical claims that instruments were not used in the first century church. I see many many claims from those that did not PREFER it, but not one shred of evidence that instrumental music did/did not exist.

Thank you guys, and I mean it...from the bottom of my heart.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet, there are some who reject both the seventh and tenth century dates and place the introduction of the instrument as far back as the third, fourth, or fifth century. Though this would be too early a date for the organ, it is argued that the lute and/or lyre were used in the worship.

To support this claim an appeal is made to Clement of Alexander. He wrote around 200 A.D. He said, "And even if you wish to sing and play to the harp or lyre, there is no blame."


When Was The Instrument Of Music First Introduced Into Christian Worship?

Brooks Cochran
Memphis, Tennessee

you know the crazy thing about it is....there are those who want to say, to this day, that Clemente wasn't speaking of the worship service, but probably a feast or festival.

NO BLAME gents....NONE
straight from the mouth of Clemente himself.

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.19.66.87

Re: Jimmy Joe

December 22 2006, 5:41 PM 

Servant's one quote from Clement hardly proves that early Christians actually used IM. Is Servant still denying all the mountains of evidence to the contrary? Clement implied that he wouldn't have blamed Christians if they had used instruments. He didn't say that they actually used them . Still, the overwhelming evidence shows that the early Christians chose NOT to use IM for the reasons previously stated, the most important being that they knew not to go beyond what was written in Scripture (Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16).

 
 Respond to this message   
Servant
(no login)
69.59.78.95

Re: Jimmy Joe

December 24 2006, 1:52 AM 

Bill:
I like where you said...."Still, the overwhelming evidence shows that the early Christians chose NOT to use IM for the reasons previously stated"

Overwhelming, meaning that perhaps you are doubting yourself a bit here??? The only thing that I have seen from any of the historians that any of you have quoted is that they do not PREFER it.....preferrences again gentleman, nothing more.

I have to point this out to you again Bill since you like parables so much....First, the written Word is all we need to settle this, and I definttely don't need so called historians to give me what they prefer the Word to be. The Bible SAYS in the NT "to sing" and you say not to go beyond what is written.
Now go back to the parable of the talents. Was Jesus happy with the man who dug a hole and buried his talent and didn't make the best of this talent???
THANK YOU BILL!!!

Matthew 25
18But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.
24"Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.'

Use common sense Bill. You go ahead, and be afraid of not doing the best for our Lord.....NOT ME! Not King David.....He used it all......So will I!!!

Another thing Bill and Donnie and Jimmy....we all know that you are battling a losing situation here, but at least you guys sound at least sly enough to listen to. When you bring someone aboard like Ken Sublett who doesn't make any sense whatsoever then this site will continue to be a laughing stock!!!


 
 Respond to this message   
 
< Previous Page 1 2 3 4 Next >
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

This web site is not part of or approved by any Church!

...........................THE BOOK

What Happened at the Madison Church of Christ?


There are thousands of churches being taken over across America.

This book is only about one of those churches. It's about the Madison Church Of Christ. By studying the methods used here along with the resource references you might be able to inoculate your church. At the very least you will recognize the signs early on.

Many of the current members of the Madison Church of Christ still don't know what happened.
Some never will know! This book is for them as well.

Madison Church of Christ was a 60 year old church. At one time it was one of the largest churches in the US, and the largest Church of Christ.

It thrived for many years on the vision of it's elders and those of it's ministers. Those visions undoubtably came from the the inspired word of Jesus Christ.

At sometime in the last 10 years there was a deliberate plan by a majority of the elders to take the Madison Church of Christ into a more worldly realm.

They used secrecy, covert planning, and outside sources to scheme and to change the format and direction of the Madison Church of Christ.

The Elders knew that the membership would never approve such a plan. Using the tools of the "Community Church Movement"(consultants, books, seminars, meetings,planters,seeders) they slowly started initiating change so it was never noticed by the members until it was too late.....

At the heart of the plan was the fact that old members were going to be driven off so new techniques could be used to go out and reach the unchurched through new "Contemporary Holy Entertainment" methods developed by the "Community Church Movement"

Old members had to be kept on board long enough to get their plans ready, or the funds would not be there to pay for the new building. So by the plans very nature, it had to be secret.

The church had no plan in effect to renew or approve elders. There was never any need. The elders had always been "as approved by God". 10 of the last 15 elders would begin to shed some doubt on that.

The Elders did not even need a majority at first, because some of the elders went along unwittingly.

This edition starts shortly after some of the members begin to smell something strange in January 2001. Later editions may go back and fill in some of the timeline.

To even start to understand whats happening here, you must read the background materials in the first of the book.

This is only the first edition, and not the end. New editions will be printed as needed. To keep abreast of current changes, please visit our web site; http://www.concernedmembers.com/madison

Here is the list of players;

5 Godly Elders
10 Not so Godly Elders
120 "Deacons" (allegiance unknown)
2,800 - 4,000 church "members"
2 "teners" (people who have publicly confessed to have broken all ten commandments)
Unknown number of "sinners" (This is what the 10 elders call us.)
Unknown number of "demons" (Flying everywhere, to many to count)
 

Click Here......The Book is Available Now FREE

Place your banner ad here.           See all banner ads

...ConcernedMembers.com ...About ...Links Library ...Sunday School in Exile ...Help Warn Others


FastCounter by bCentral

CM Visit Counter as of 6/25/2015
2,101,394

Site Visits Since 6/30/2015
page counter