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  
Anonymous
(no login)
66.19.66.114

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

December 31 2006, 9:22 PM 

Apparently all the Christian denominations "strive" to be like Christ but there are some things in their doctrine that clearly do not follow the New Testament guidelines; for example, the practice of sprinkling for baptism instead of immersion or the claim that baptism is not essential for salvation when Christ said that it is (Mark 16:16 KJV). When Christ abolished the Old Law, He did not give license for a do-as-I-please, undisciplined lifestyle, for His New Covenant is the law of Christ as laid out in the New Testament. There is still discipline, order, and certain commands to follow in Christianity. Therefore, the Christian is still obligated to follow the New Covenant and not go beyond what is written in Scripture (I Cor. 4:6 KJV).

 
 Respond to this message   
vinceyoung
(Login vinceyoung)
69.137.94.250

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

January 1 2007, 11:19 PM 

Anonymous, you are missing the point here... just like the people that created and maintain this website. Jesus states that one commandment is greater than all others and that is to love others as you love yourself... he says this himself in the New Testament over and over!

It is easy to get caught up in what we think is right and what we are comfortable with as far as how our congregation conducts it's worship service... CHRIST MAKES IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, OVER AND OVER AND OVER WHAT IS IMPORTANT AND WHAT IS NOT IMPORTANT!!! 90% that comes out of Christ's mouth in the bible is about serving other people and being a servant to other people that you come in contact with... he also makes it CLEAR that getting caught up in traditions and the law is what this whole thing called Christianity is not about.


 
 Respond to this message   
Kenneth Sublett
(no login)
66.82.9.59

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

January 2 2007, 9:10 AM 

I certainly agree with that: God commanded the synagogue or "church in the wilderness" to Rest, Read and Rehearse the Word. He outlawed "loud instruments and making a joyful noise before the Lord." Simple: you don't DO that in the presence of The spirit OF Christ who meets to be out ONLY teacher when the elders teach that which has been taught.

Jesus exampled standing up, reading the Word and then sitting down: the pulpit was to hold up the Text and not the preacher. This commande, example and inference was replaced with TRADITIONALISM 400 years too late.

God commanded for 'the church in the wilderness" that we Read the Word. Someone added the TRADITION of using secular text about 400 years too late.

The TRADITION of singing began about the same time. Calvin restored the direct command and common-sense practice. Alexander helped restore the trraditionalism about 1830 years too late.

The LAW, only examples and faithful practice continued for hundreds of hears: the traditionalism of THE LAW OF GIVING came too late.

So, to be an EKKLESIA we need to cast down the TRADITIONALISM and HIGHLY SECTERIANIZING:

Law of preaching,
Law of singing
Law of using non-Biblicall texts
The law of giving.

That leaves you with the direct commands and practices of meeting to read or recite the psalms or other text.
This was restored by the Campblells.

Destoring the law of giving except for the destitute (as in steet people). The Campbells repudiated any spiritual anxiety created by DEBT.

To that add the institution of the Lord's Supper by Jesus, the regulating of it by Paul and the historical practice before they became "cannabals" all over again "eating their gods."

So: anything beyond Bible Study (one another) including the Bible as song book and the Lord's Supper is traditionalism and if divisive is outlawed. Now, what traditionalism do you think we should CAST DOWN besides those for which we have commands, examples and inferences?

Isn't God good!

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.217.126.178

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

January 2 2007, 11:59 AM 

Jesus never said to downplay or shun His other commandments over the Great Commandment, and we have never said to uphold commandments over love. Those in the Change Movement apparently have a misunderstanding about what the Christian life is all about. For example, Change Movement guru Rick Warren in his PDL book asserted that it is our love--not our doctrinal beliefs--that is our greatest witness to the world. However, Jesus said that if you love Him, you will keep His commandments (John 14:15 KJV). John also wrote that the love of God is to keep His commandments, for those commandments are not grievous (1 John 5:1-3 KJV). Did you know that of the 50 parables of Jesus recorded in the four Gospels, one-third of them are devoted solely to the subject of obedience and the dire consequences of disobedience? Did you also know that only ONE of those 50 parables is devoted to "love," the parable of the two debtors (Luke 7:41-43 KJV)? Since Jesus taught primarily through parables, and since a third are devoted to obedience with only ONE to love, that shows that Jesus was most concerned that His followers diligently obey Him in all things. Love is necessary, but so must be obedience to Jesus' commandments.

Yet the Change Movement would uphold "love" over observing commandments, or at least the Change Movement seems to downplay obedience to Jesus' commandments in favor of doing good deeds and good works in the name of "love." This not only abuses "love," it is also is a misunderstanding of the Christian life. That life produces faithful, obedient servants to Christ who love and care for others. Just because we are "free in Christ" by no means grants us "freedom" to do as we please, for we are still in subjection to an infinitely higher Authority in Christ, Who has given certain commandments that must be obeyed in order to receive salvation. Those include hearing the Word, believing the Word, repenting of past sins, making a public confession before mankind that He is Lord, and being baptized for remission of sins. All of these commandments have been discussed abundantly on this site with the appropriate biblical references. Then once a person has obeyed the Gospel, s/he must continue to follow Christ according to His guidelines as stipulated in the New Testament. Thus, Jesus commanded that we observe all things whatsoever He commanded us (Matt. 28:20 KJV). No, we are not under anything like the Law of Moses with all its hundreds of rituals and statutes, but we still are under the discipline of the Christian life, the law of Christ, with Christ as sole Authority.

 
 Respond to this message   
vinceyoung
(Login vinceyoung)
69.137.94.250

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

January 2 2007, 11:39 PM 

I am not downplaying the importance of living a holy and obediant life before God... I am just simply saying that I believe that God makes it abundantly clear that none of us will be perfect in the end and that all will fall short of his Glory as far as sin is concerned. But, he does make it clear over and over again that we are to love each other as we love ourselves... and in addition we are to CONSTANTLY serve others and look for opportunities outside of ourselves to do this.

Of course I do not agree with you that usage of musical instruments in a church service is direct disobedience of what God wants for us... not do I agree that because my brother is a God loving and fearing member of a Presbyterian church that he is "living in sin" nor is he "lost"... but I guess we will have to agree to disagree on these things. We are basically talking ourselves in circles and I am not sure that we will ever agree on these issues. I hope that ultimately God shows each of us what is important and what is not important to him.

Take care,

Vince Young (Rookie of the Year)

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.19.69.81

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

January 3 2007, 1:36 AM 

As I said earlier, "So whether one calls himself a 'Church of Christ' or 'Presbyterian,' if one does not follow Christ's Way, the one-and-only Way, then all is indeed lost."

A person can be God-fearing and do good deeds and belong to a Presbyterian church. Did I say that if one belongs to a Presbyterian church then one is automatically lost? No. I said that if one does not follow Christ's Way, then one is lost. As I also said earlier, unfortunately too many denominations are not faithful in following the instructions that Christ laid out in the New Testament; that is, His commandments, HIS WAY. They are twisted or ignored or otherwise altered to suit the preferences of the carnally minded. Christians and atheists alike can be as nice and as good and as sweet and as philanthropic as Rockefeller. But all that superficial "goodness" avails them nothing unless they are attuned to following the commandments of Christ; that is, Christ's Way.

Too often when we mention "commandments," people of the denominations automatically assume that we are referring to obeying blindly a bunch of rules that keep us in "bondage" and leave out compassion and love. That's because those people don't realize that the love of God IS obedience and obedience IS love, as 1 John 5:1-3 (KJV) explains. Love and obedience go hand in hand. Those verses also tell us that obeying God's commandments is not grievous. That is, to obey Christ in all that He has commanded, which includes love, should be a joy to all Christians. Yet too many Christians shun obedience in preference for love, good works, kind thoughts, etc. And when they get to that point, all those "kind" folks with good intentions no longer follow Christ's Way; they follow their way. It's sadly ironic.

 
 Respond to this message   
TMP
(no login)
66.199.28.132

So are you saying...

January 3 2007, 7:23 PM 

So are you saying that if someone who professes Christ, is baptized, and lives a life that tries to follow Christ will not be saved if they do not believe that salvation was given to them at the point of baptism? Or are you saying that if someone who professes Christ, is baptized for the remission of there sins and lives a life that tries to follow Christ, but goes to a church that has instrumental music they will not be saved? Don't get me wrong, I believe that the church of Christ doctrine is sound as far as the meaning of baptism and playing it safe as far as instrumental music is concerned...but I really think you are speaking way too definitive...and leaving no room for grace.

It isn't that others have read the same scriptures as you, came to the same conclusion as you, and then defiantly rejected those conclusions. I have had conversations with those trying to follow Christ, have read the same scriptures, and have come to different conclusions. Do I think they are wrong? Yes, and it is my duty to try to convince them otherwise. But I pray that my God is graceful enough that just in case I am the one who came to the wrong conclusion, that he will forgive those who don't get everything just exactly right. Why do we have no problems with God forgiving the sins we struggle with every day, but not doctrinal mistakes?

Reading the scriptures, there are a whole host of sins that I struggle with that are much more at odds with the Christian walk (not loving my neighbor, thinking of myself as better than others, lust, pride, greed, etc.) than whether or not I get the recipe for salvation exactly correct. But I trust that the scripture is true that says "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." Yes, we must obey him, and we must confess and repent of sin. But if we are trying to follow his will, I trust that he will forgive if I make a mistake in interpretation. I have learned much about the Christian walk since the 24 years ago I was immersed into His death. But does it mean that if I would have died before now, I would be lost to hell? I pray not!

Should we try to study with others to make sure we all are doing God's will to the best of our ability? Of course! But thankfully, Dr. Bill nor myself are in the judgement seat, and we do not know the hearts of those who have come to different conclusions.

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.217.161.126

Re: So are you saying...

January 3 2007, 10:11 PM 

It is not I but Christ Who said that he that believes and is baptized will be saved (Mark 16:16). It is not I but Christ Who commanded that we observe all things whatsoever He commanded us (Matt. 28:20). The simplest thing is not to get bogged down in the doubts, skepticism, and man-contrived doctrines and preferences of denominationalism, but simply and faithfully follow the Words of Christ and His Words as imparted to the apostles that are written in the New Testament. Do not deviate from them, do not add to them, do not take away from them, do not alter them, and do not second-guess them. It's really not that difficult a concept to understand as people seem to make it, unless they really don't want to follow Christ faithfully and are looking for every kind of loophole to skirt the Scriptures.

 
 Respond to this message   
TMP
(no login)
66.199.28.132

Re: So are you saying...

January 4 2007, 12:54 PM 

Dr. Bill,

I agree completely that "we are to follow the Words of Christ and His Words as imparted to the apostles that are written in the New Testament. Do not deviate from them, do not add to them, do not take away from them, do not alter them, and do not second-guess them."

But where we disagree is that somethings are not as obvious as you would like them to be...and what we should do with those who have come to different conclusions. Instrumental music for one. Again, I think the church of Christ makes a strong argument against their use: History shows that they were not used in the early church, therefore we choose not to use them either. However, that is as strong an argument we can make. There are all sorts of arguments that have been made ad-nauseum on this website as to the pros and cons of IM, but I can understand how someone who did not grow up CoC to come to a different conclusion than we have.

The bigger problem I see is that we even make things that are even less clear than IM, black or white. I noticed in a different thread how an elder was heralded as being in the right when he stopped a Philipine missionary in mid-sentence when he said that they do not use "Church of Christ" but "The Way" as the name they use. The problem is that both terms are used in the New Testament to describe the church (Act 9:2). Maybe using "The Way" makes more sense in the Philipine culture. This is just a recent example, I could list many others.

Dr. Bill, don't you see how you put yourself in the judgement seat when you say "It's really not that difficult a concept to understand as people seem to make it, unless they really don't want to follow Christ faithfully and are looking for every kind of loophole to skirt the Scriptures." If someone doesn't agree with you on all issues concerning the church, then they really don't want to follow Christ faithfully? Are you really that arrogant?

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.19.70.166

Re: So are you saying...

January 4 2007, 6:41 PM 

It's not at all arrogant to believe that if one follows the New Testament Scriptures faithfully, then one is therefore right. Just like it's not at all “legalistic” to believe that we should faithfully obey the commands of Christ in the New Testament. Too many Christians undermine their beliefs by saying that they don't have the answers or that they don't have “it” all figured out. Of course, as far as the universe goes, for example, only God has the complete answers there. But concerning salvation and the Gospel, all the answers are wrapped up neatly for the Christian in the New Testament IF s/he will just take it, study it diligently, and accept it at face value completely.

Christians manifest arrogance when they become too “sophisticated” to trust the simple message of the Gospel and begin to search for something more “scholarly” to sustain their “faith”; i.e., the “learned” opinions of mortal men: for example, liberal religious professors, shamans, and gurus, none of whom can hold a spiritual candle to the Gospel of Christ.

Christians also manifest arrogance when they second-guess the New Testament and try to adjust, rearrange, or delete words or passages to suit their preferences, thus in essence saying that their wisdom is greater than that of Christ: “Christ didn't really mean for us to get dunked in water to be saved, now did He? We really don’t have to go to all that mess and be baptized to be saved, now do we? All we need is FAITH and nothing more!” If one truly has that faith in God and Christ, there will be no doubts about what to do, and there will be joy in obeying the Gospel, whatever it requires of us.

I noticed that TMP made several references to IM. We've been all through that many times, what with the TONS of historical evidence (which Servant desperately denies) showing that the early Christians did not use IM in worship. Christ never mentioned it in the Gospels, but He did authorize only vocal music--singing and making melody in the heart--through the apostle Paul in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16. Since musical instruments are not authorized specifically, who are we to go over Christ’s head and implement them anyway? Since the New Testament admonishes us not to go beyond the bounds of Scripture (1 Cor. 4:6), that should be sufficient to the faithful Christian; that is, since only vocal music is authorized, the faithful Christian would not ever consider adding to, deleting from, or in any way altering what Christ has already stipulated in matters of worship and doctrine.

So it’s not at all about whether someone “agrees” with me or not; it’s whether they diligently follow Christ in all things whatsoever He has commanded us (Matt. 28:20). All I can do is advise and encourage people to do just that--follow Christ in all things. After all, people must work out their own salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12). But people do have a choice: they may choose to accept Christ and follow His New Testament Word faithfully, having the promise of salvation. Or people may choose to gamble with their souls by trusting in the ecumenical denominations, many of which really do not follow the New Testament faithfully, no matter how good their “intentions” (and that’s not being “judgmental,” it’s just being factual from observation). Or, lastly, people may choose to reject Christ openly.

The choice is yours.


 
 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(no login)
69.19.14.39

Sorry you missed OT 101 along with the preachers!

January 4 2007, 8:25 PM 

Firstly, the Bible even when poems were EPIC which, like the Psalms, is repeating a part of Israelite History and were NOT to be changed into meter. That didn't happen until the Reformation when they tried to marry SPEAKING the Psalms with simple tunes. Lyric poetry was composed for a Lyre but long before the time of Christ the lyre or "guitar" was ommitted. MUSIC is not a Biblical concept except, for instance, the party of the prodigal son where the MUSIC word (sumphonia) is used. However, the Columbia Encyclopedia notes that:

The music of ancient Greece was inseparable from poetry and dancing. It was entirely monodic, there being no harmony as the term is commonly understood.

Scholars note that when the EPIC or MANLY telling of heroic accounts as the ONLY WAY to praise someone turn to LYRIC or tunefulness it is both a MARK and a CAUSE of the effeminacy you see in MOST thingies called "worship services."

The Bible is NOT metrical in the modern "singing" sense and therefore could not be performed with simultaneous instruments.

DICKINSON "While the Greek and Roman songs were metrical, the Christian psalms were anitphons, prayers, responses, etc., were unmetrical; and while the pagan melodies were always sung to an instrumental accompaniment, the church chant was exclusively vocal" (Edward Dickinson, History of Music, p. 54)

You will notice that the TUNES to which a POEM was recited were not part of the original poem. The accent marks did not define a musical sequence but were, like prose, for noting accent or emphasis.

"The chant of ancient Hebrews was rhythmical, but probably free of fixed meter. Perhaps the only exceptions were the dancing songs of women, usually accompanied by percussion instruments." (Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, p. 466)

"All the music employed in their early services was vocal, and the rhythmic element and all gesticulation were forbidden" (Frank L. Humphreys, The Evolution of Church Music, p. 42).


The classical writers long before Jesus associated the lyric poems sung or chanted to the limited notes of a harp were women or if male were drunk or perverted or just "having fun."

"The fact that instruments were not used, however, is related to the positive Christian attitude toward music which was characterized by an enthusiastic fostering of psalmody, a type of music performed unmetrically and without instrument." (McKinnon, quoted by Bales, p. 260).

You will find NO church father or founder of denominations who did not take the same view as churches of Christ. For instance, The Methodist:

Of Amos 6, Adam Clark Notes that:

"There must have been a great deal of luxury and effeminacy among the Israelites at this time; and, consequently, abundance of riches. This was in the time of Jeroboam the second, when the kingdom had enjoyed a long peace. The description in the fourth, fifth, and sixth verses, is that of an Asiatic court even in the present day.

This explains why instrumental music is an "urban" and not a "rural" problem. Country folk are usually not basking in luxury nor are they effeminate--that kind go to town.

Verse 5. And invent to themselves instruments of music, like David] See the note on 1 Chron. xxiii. 5; and see especially the note on 2 Chron. xxix. 25.
I believe that David was not authorized by the Lord to introduce that multitude of musical instruments into the Divine worship of which we read,
and I am satisfied that his conduct in this respect is most solemnly reprehended by this prophet;
and I farther believe that the use of such instruments of music, in the Christian Church,

is without the sanction and against the will of God;
that they are subversive of the spirit of true devotion, and that they are sinful.

If there was a woe to them who invented instruments of music, as did David under the law, is there no wo, no curse to them who invent them, and introduce them into the worship of God in the Christian Church?


Preachers tend to read and preach isolated proof text and follow the herd about Amos. However, saying that Amos was not connecting Music to his awareness that first in Israel and then Judah they were CARRYING OUT the conditional death sentence imposed at Mount Sinai. If you missed Sinai 101 they you can give the musicators AID AND COMFORT by teaching, as a rectent paper hit the mailbox, that God COMMANDED "worship with instruments" under the LAW. The music passages such as Amos and Isaiah are thereby fulfilled: people HUNGER and THIRST for the Word of God but preachers are NOT going to let them know more than they do. That is why Isaiah 30 says that HELL was prepared for the king of Babylon with his harps and buried-alive harpists would be BEATEN into Hell with the wind, string and percussion instruments Lucifer brought with him / her into the garden of Eden as the "singing and harp playing prostitute." Why would you need a LAW which saith: "Thou shalt NOT make thyself look like a singing and harp-playing prostitute?" Isn't THAT the meaning of LEGALISM?

Only latter day APOLOGISTS for instrumental music while getting PAID by non-instrumental churches of Christ push the MANTRA that Amos was just condemning a bad mental attitude. Musicators take over because I know of few preachers who are Old Testament literate.

You should read up on Acts 7 and look where Stephen pointed: to the musical idolatry at Mount Sinai where God "turned them over to worship the starry host." That MEANS that as a CIVIL-MILITARY-PRIESTLY COMPLEX they were quite identical to the NATIONS because that is what God THREATENED them with. How could any preacher us the WITHOUT REDEMPTION CURSE as a legalistic patternism for modern "churchianity?" I can tell you why: They are fulfilling the Mother of Harlots type of Revelation 17 where John in chapter 18 identifies the rhetoricians, singers and musicians as SORCERERS who HAD deceived the whole world. If John all all definitions of singing in a LYRICAL sense as enchantment or Sorcery, why would anyone be so legalistic as to need a direct statement: "Thou SHALT NOT let Sorcerers perform in Thy church?" Performance preaching of the rhetoricians is the FIRST ORDER definition of a hypocrite and singers and musicians are included as Jesus POINTED you to Isaiah and Ezekiel to define WHAT ARE HYPOCRITES. If speakers, singers and musicians are Jesus' example of HYPOCRITES then why do you need a law which saith: "Thou shalt not spend they children's food money on Hypocrites."

 
 Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(Login vinceyoung)
69.137.94.250

Re: So are you saying...

January 5 2007, 12:14 AM 

Great points TMP... the Church of Christ seems to make things black and white when it is convenient for them to do so... such as IM, praise teams and things of that nature. Praise teams and insturmental worship make some people uncomfortable and therefore we choose to pull out some vague reference in scripture that seems to fall in line with our personal preference (make melody in your heart.. yada yada yada!) and then make it sound like absolute law. Not only that, but we take it to the next level and tell other churches and denominations that they are playing with fire and walking a thin line with God by choosing to have these things in worship.

It just seems funny to me because that we take certain scriptures and make them absolute law... and then we just ignore others and pass them off as just being "cultural and prevalent" only to the culture that existed during biblical times.

If you are going to take everything in the bible literally and at face value, then take all of the bible that way and not just some of it. Why are we not annointing each other with oil... why don't women wear head coverings during service????? You get the point.

Again, this is why we end up looking judgemental to the rest of the world and to other Christians. It is almost like the Church of Christ has become World Police and only exists to enforce law and bring judgement on others. I can see why we constantly turn other people off. We have totally lost our focus as far as making mission all about Christ and being Christ to the world.

 
 Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(Login vinceyoung)
69.137.94.250

One more thing...

January 5 2007, 12:23 AM 

Every time I go to a "conservative" Church of Christ... the message and theme is the exact same. The sermon generally does not revolve around how we can serve God and be like Jesus in our lives on a daily basis...

Mainly the message revolves around promoting the doctrine of the Chruch of Christ and how all other denominations are "lost" and doing everything wrong and are flawed in their thinking. Most of the messages mention little about Christ (which should be the theme) and instead have an elitist and superior tone about how we are doing everything right and how everyone else is doing worship and church and Christianity all wrong!

 
 Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)
66.199.28.132

Re: So are you saying...

January 5 2007, 4:40 PM 

Dr. Bill,

But what do you do when someone comes to a different conclusion that you about an issue? Do you think that you have every correct answer for every theological question that may arise? Do you think that if two people sit down and study an issue, that eventually they both will come to the same conclusion? If not, then how do you treat them? Can you name one theological issue that we could disagree on and you still consider me your brother?

I agree that the church is in trouble, but I really feel that the focus of this website is WAY too myopic. There are a host of problems I feel are much more important than IM or PD issues. Among them are the fact that nearly half the marriages in the church end in divorce, that somewhere between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 of the men in the church are addicted to pornography, that half our young people leave the church, that we have no concept of what it means to take up our cross and follow Him on a daily basis, that confession is only done if the sin has made the local paper’s headline, that we spend so much of our time arguing whose doctrine is more correct and neglect the thousands around us completely lost in sin. It is so much easier to look down upon the downtrodden, than to get our feet muddy in the hell-hole that are people’s lives without God. When I try to imagine what Jesus would say in revelations about one of our present day churches, it seems to me to be much more along these lines, than any purpose driven rampage. But maybe it’s just me.

Bill, do you love me as a brother? Or is this just an intellectual exercise for you? If you truly loved me as a brother, wouldn’t you do your best to convince me of my error, to beg and plead with me that I’m in sin, instead of simply leaving the choice up to me? Is Ken writing his posts to try to bring the sinner away from the pit of hell, or is he trying to impress himself or you or another conservative. (Because if he is trying to write a persuasive argument, he needs to find another talent to use.)

For some reason when I was reading your more recent posts, it reminded me of a friend of mine who is a missionary in a third-world country. He spent two years in a village without electricity training the locals to be preachers and building up the small church there. I was ready to come home after about a week! While there, he endured malaria for the Cause. Being a doctor you know how horrible a disease malaria is. He has now been in country for nearly a decade and is working for about 1/3 of the salary he could get here so he could help in the ministry. But lately, he started going to a church that uses instrumental music. According to your posts, it is him who doesn’t really want to follow Christ faithfully and is looking for every kind of loophole to skirt the scriptures. Somehow, I’m not sure God sees it that way.

Bill, I don’t know if you’ve ever been on the mission field, but I do know the need for medical expertise is dire. I’m neither a missionary nor an M.D. (or a preacher for that matter), but I’ve spent enough time in developing countries to know how many die from just dehydration and other simple problems you could resolve in a couple of minutes. I may be wrong, but I think if you have spent time on the mission field, your eyes would be open to the real battle field and would find yourself not spending as much time here in word battles with liberals like me and more time where your talents could make a huge difference in the fight for this world.

 
 Respond to this message   
Tony Romo
(no login)
199.227.205.202

Beginning of Christ's church

December 30 2006, 5:20 PM 

Vince, when I seek to know things of a Spiritual nature I turn to the Bible. I firmly believe that the Bible has all of the answers. Christ establihed the only church that I read about in the New Testament. Paul didn't start a new church! Peter didn't began his own church. John the baptizer didn't began a church. In fact I only read of one person who made the statement "I will build my church!"

Do you read of anyone else in the New Testament who makes the promise to build a church?

Sorry vince. It's back to qb school for you.

In Christ,
Tony Romo

 
 Respond to this message   
Brent
(no login)
68.215.173.154

look out 2007

January 4 2007, 3:54 PM 

Guys I'm on your page 100%. But I'm in business and read trends and when the largest church in our fellowship, Richland Hills, adds music I predict we're in for a long year of what I hope is civil discussion and patience with members. Frankly, I think most of our leaders throughout the body are lacking in being able to having these conversations. We've counted on so many members doing it as we believed only to see many not be persuaded by our teaching and style (leaving the cofc) and the Richland Hills story turns it all upside down. The announcement came the same week that a formerly influential church, Charlotte Ave in Nashville shut it doors. I fear, no I promise, this will open the door for more people to discuss this.
For me I'm praying for wisdom and rereading the book of James. This is bigger than any NIV / Rick Warren / Rubel Shelly drama or controversy.

I hope it doesn't turn out to be a loud Us Vs Them because the world gets a big kick out of seeing the church bicker and argue. Thank you

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.217.162.59

RE: So You Are Saying...(Vince Young)

January 5 2007, 2:27 PM 

After reading some of Vince Young's posts, it seems that he embraces the church of Christ but is a malcontent in that he wishes to change the Church and make it like the denominations. Or at least that's the impression he's leaving. I regret that he is under the impression that the church of Christ allegedly makes certain New Testament passages "law" and conveniently overlooks others. For example, he complained about women allegedly not having their heads covered during worship and our not anointing each other with oil. Perhaps Young needs a few lessons in the Bible and history:

Malcontents often quote 1 Cor. 11:5-6 (KJV), "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoreth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered." There they stop and say, "Church of Christ women are not following the Bible, because they do not wear some sort of hat or cloth on their heads in worship." Talk about overlooking Scripture, these malcontents evidently conveniently overlook verses further down in the same chapter: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering" (1 Cor. 11:14-15 KJV).

These Scriptures tell us that women already have a natural head covering, their long hair, which is given to them for a covering. What the malcontents should ask is, "Why do some women of all Christian faiths deliberately crop their hair and shear it off to look like men, when it should remain long and hence be the biblical head covering? It is the short-hairs who should be wearing a hat or scarf."

Regarding anointing with oil, I cut-and-paste a portion of an essay I previously wrote in 2005 that originally dealt with James 5:14 and the law of exclusion, but the principles involved apply here as well. In essence, the oil of the first century was a medicinal agent; the Christians back then did not have the sophisticated treatments available today:

********
Certain biblical passages may initially prove troublesome and cause some to misapply the law of exclusion. One such passage is James 5:14, which reads in the KJV, “Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.” Reading only the words without having full understanding, we may infer that, since only prayer and anointing with oil are mentioned as cures for the sick, then all medical treatment and those who administer it (physicians) are excluded. Is James 5:14 really telling us not to seek medical attention when we are sick? Does this passage really exclude all medical treatment?

With no understanding of the Greek, we would understandably arrive at this conclusion, but we would form the wrong conclusion. The word “anointing” translated in this passage derives from the Greek aleipho, which was commonly used in Greek literature to describe a medicinal anointing. A most common medicinal agent at the time was olive oil, which was smeared over the entire body if needed, or applied locally to affected regions as indicated. It could also be taken internally. Had this passage intended a ceremonial anointing instead, then the Greek word chrio would have been more appropriate. Instead of excluding medical treatment, James condones the use of prayer AND medicine. Since physicians as such at the time would likely not have contributed any better treatment, and since olive oil was a medicinal, James cut to the chase and simply had the church elders bring the oil and apply it while praying over the sick. The law of exclusion does not even come into question here, because medical treatment as such is not excluded.

When Jesus commanded His disciples to go out and preach with power to heal the sick, He authorized the aleipho medicinal anointing of oil in Mark 6:13 (KJV); again, a medicinal anointing, not ceremonial.
******

And as far as IM is concerned, Vince should know that Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 are hardly "vague references," for they authorize only vocal music in singing and making melody in the heart. Or perhaps Vince thinks that Paul just wrote that off the top of his head as an idle opinion, yadda yadda yadda, when Paul actually received what he preached from Christ (Gal. 1:10-12 KJV). Shall we ignore the New Testament and go beyond what is written in Scripture (1 Cor. 4:6 KJV) by adding IM WHEN IT IS NOT AUTHORIZED?

So instead of trying to find false loopholes to debunk the church of Christ, Vince Young should trust that we follow the New Testament as best as is humanly possible. But if he has become so disenchanted with the c of C, then instead of sowing discord among the faithful brethren and making shipwreck of the faith, perhaps he would find peace of mind in the denominations while gambling with the security of his soul.




 
 Respond to this message   
vince young
(Login vinceyoung)
69.137.94.250

Re: RE: So You Are Saying...(Vince Young)

January 6 2007, 2:25 AM 

Dr Bill...

Thanks for the historical background on these texts. I appreciate the info that you provide.

But, I am not even trying to argue that women should wear head garments, nor am I hoping that I can go to the Elders at my church and be annointed with oil! I really don't care about these things and I think you missed my point.

My point was solely that I don't understand why some a lot of conservative C of C ers take some commandments from the bible and make them black and white laws... and just seem to pass over others without much thought.

For the record, I am not a "change agent" nor am I anti "Church of Christ". I have attended churches of christ for my entire life and continue to do so presently. I am just tired (as are most people that I know) of watching the Church of Christ have it's head buried in the sand and refuse to see that maybe we are not the only ones that have this thing called Christianity figured out. I do not go to a church that uses IM and honestly I think I prefer it that way... to go to a church that doesn't use it in worship... butI I realize that this is an issue of personal preference and not a salvation issue. I just am ready to see the Church of Christ wake up a little bit and realize that we have been fighting the wrong battles for a long time now and that we cannot bring people to Christ by focusing on issues that really don't matter at the end of the day. I don't think that if Jesus were on Earth here today that he'd spend much time (if any) preaching on the dangers of IM or praise teams or how our church is playing with fire by having an Easter of Christmas drama play during worship service! Instead I think he'd preach about loving others and offering our lives up in service to all.


 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.217.161.73

Re: RE: So You Are Saying...(Vince Young)

January 6 2007, 9:00 AM 

Someone mentioned "arrogance" in connection with strictly following the New Testament. It is arrogance for Christians to say that some New Testament commandments or "issues" don't really matter "at the end of the day" while others are of extreme importance. The fact of the matter is that every issue mentioned in the New Testament is of equal importance and should be faithfully followed, no matter how trivial it appears to us. Jesus did mention the greatest commandment, to love one another, yet He did not grant permission for us to ignore those other commandments or "issues" that we think are trivial. For example, some feel that baptism and IM are of no real concern, so they make up their own doctrines about them and go over Christ's head, thus going beyond what is written in NT Scripture. The NT cautions against this (1 Cor. 4:6 KJV).

Many denominations criticize the c of C, saying that we think we have everything all figured out, thus they see us as "arrogant." The implication apparently is that the denoms must think they don't have everything all figured out, and they are jealous or sore at us for having confidence in our faith. The apostle Paul followed Christ and the Scriptures faithfully, and he was quite confident of going to an eternal reward with Christ (2 Tim. 4:7-8 KJV). Was this "arrogance"? Anyone, even those in the denominations, can have the same confidence, if they follow Christ and the New Testament Scriptures faithfully, adding nothing to Christ's and the apostles' words, taking nothing from them.

We can't waste time worrying about what the denominations and the rest of the world think of us; we can't waste time comparing ourselves to the denominations and the world, like we're trying to "keep up with the Joneses." The NT even cautions us not to love the world as such (1 John 2:15-17 KJV). We've got to use our time convincing people to abandon the Change Movement with its heresies and man-contrived theologies, and follow Christ and the NT Scriptures faithfully. We strive to do just that on this site. And if people follow Christ and the New Testament Scriptures faithfully, they, too, can have everything "all figured out," have confidence in their faith, and feel just as secure as Paul did in the promise of salvation.

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.19.69.188

Re: RE: So You Are Saying...(Vince Young)

January 6 2007, 11:30 AM 

I noticed that Vince said on January 5, "If you are going to take everything in the bible literally and at face value, then take all of the bible that way and not just some of it. Why are we not annointing each other with oil... why don't women wear head coverings during service????? You get the point."

Then after I explained to him why his complaints had no substance (women with long hair already have their covering according to the NT, which also authorizes the use of available medicine and prayer), he responded on January 6 with, "But, I am not even trying to argue that women should wear head garments, nor am I hoping that I can go to the Elders at my church and be annointed with oil! I really don't care about these things."

Sounds like Vince contradicted himself, because at first it surely sounded like he wanted women to wear hats and scarfs and have 21st-century elders pour oil on patients. Now he "doesn't care" about them! Sounds like Vince is a bit confused.

BTW, elders performing a medicinal anointing with the available medicine of olive oil in the first century is the same as having your elders today pray with you while you are in the hospital receiving 21st-century medicines. Christ through the apostle James authorized prayer and available medicine in the first century. Back then, an available medicine was olive oil. The available medicines of the 21st century have come a long way from olive oil, but when they are combined with prayer, the principle is the same. And if Vince still hasn't gotten the point, there is no need today for elders to play doctor and pour olive oil on patients.

Vince also mentioned that Jesus wouldn't condemn Christmas and Easter dramas that replaced worship services. Vince speaks out of preference and speculation. Note that Jesus utilized neither popular music of the day, nor show-biz performers, nor stage dramas to draw crowds when He preached, although popular entertainment was readily available for hire in His day, just like it is today. The Power of the Gospel that flowed from Jesus was the drawing card, and that Power of the Gospel should still be the drawing card today. Alas, denominations are all too eager to jazz up services with all sorts of dramas and pop music, all to entertain carnally minded congregations who labor under the false impression that wild, raw emotions and adrenaline highs are accurate indicators of "faith." Seeing the penchant for denominations and even some churches of Christ to bestow upon their churches the look and feel of performing arts centers, thus making them more like the world, Jesus would much more likely say of those churches, "In vain they do worship me" (Matt. 15:9 KJV).


 
 Respond to this message   
 
  << 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