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 >>  
Sonny
(no login)
99.186.93.107

Re: Point Taken, But

October 18 2010, 2:00 PM 

Brother Cruz,

I submit the following with a respectful spirit, and have appreciated yours concerning this religious discussion, as this is often a rare experience on forums like this. You will likely disagree with the following, and that's o.k.

Saying Brother Waddey has the N.T. to support him but the change agents do not could be argued for a decade (like it has on this site), since the N.T. is silent.

Some intrepret silence to always be prohibitive, others that it is always permissive, and still others that there is no "interpretive rule" either way. In fact, there are some things permitted in Scripture we do not do today, and rightfully so, such as following the rules for benevolence in 1 Timothy 5 about only helping widows over 60 that meet several criteria (greeting with a holy kiss, women wearing head coverings, etc.).

I used to believe that silence was always prohibitive (since this is what I was taught), until studying matters such as Jesus and the Passover, and how there is never the explicit command to take wine with the meal in the Old Testament, yet Jesus, like Jews for centuries, took wine with the Passover. Based on examples like this, if silence is always prohibitive, Jesus sinned (which I obviously do not believe).

As far as [other matters are concerned] (and speaking in general terms), I think defending [them] is one's prerogative, and might even be expected for the sake of loyalty. Brother Tom Brite [and others on another thread/post made a statement of defending that which] is "indefensible". Brother Dave, and an anonymous or two also made statements about a double standard. I would think that most Christians have always considered matters of sin as doctrinal issues as much as matters of worship are doctrinal issues, and consider matters of sin as being serious.

My perspective is one of mercy, and simply wish this site would acknowledge the grace of God and goodness of God toward sinners, whether it be differences in lifestyle or worship. Romans 11:32 says all are disobedient, and yet God has chosen to show mercy to "all". The context shows this to be through Christ Jesus.

As a last observation, it has been my experience in Churches of Christ that we show grace toward lifestyle issues but not worship issues. You, and others on this site, may have a helpful perspective on this.

Your brother in Christ,

-Sonny


    
This message has been edited by Donnie.Cruz from IP address 170.141.177.53 on Oct 18, 2010 4:38 PM


 
 Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(Login Ken.Sublett)
ConcernedMembersMadison
67.142.130.23

Re: Point Taken, But

October 18 2010, 9:24 PM 

I used to believe that silence was always prohibitive (since this is what I was taught), until studying matters such as Jesus and the Passover, and how there is never the explicit command to take wine with the meal in the Old Testament, yet Jesus, like Jews for centuries, took wine with the Passover. Based on examples like this, if silence is always prohibitive, Jesus sinned (which I obviously do not believe).

Silence among the Church of Christ writers meant that YOU cannot impose something that I am bound to observe if it is not required to conduct ekklesia/synagogue which is a school (only) of the Word of Christ (only) The obverse (perverse) view is that "I" and add anything I want to impose on YOU and you have no right to object." Instruments are ADDED using that law of EXCLUSION.

http://www.piney.com/Maxey-Silence-Passover.html

Al Maxey: Another innovation was the addition of drink to this Passover feast as part of the religious ritual. Four cups of wine had been added by the rabbis to the Passover celebration. These were not just for the purpose of "washing down the food," a mere "incidental," as a few have feebly sought to suggest, but these cups of wine were specially and purposefully added for their spiritual significance to the feast itself.

First, Jesus didn't drink four cups nor participate in the Babylonian drunken feast. Jesus then REPUDIATES the Rabinnic tradition--if you understand the tradition.

Second, you have to grasp that Passover was a FAMILY devotion: no one "sang Twila Paris and twanged the harp as an UNAUTHORIZED act of worship." Jesus would be in a private dwelling with His "family."

Jesus spoke and acted parables and therefore repudiated all of the festivals added in Babylon. Jesus is the LIGHT of the World. Jesus is the living water: no more water drawing festivals with loud instrumental rejoicing.

This was still a national or family festival and NOT an ACT of worship. Passover was to remember. The Passover was only rarely observed.

"There is no mention of wine in connection with Passover in the Pentateuch; but the Mishna strictly enjoins that there should not be less than 4 cups.

Two of these are mentioned in Lk. 22:17,20. 'The cup of blessing' I Cor 10:16 is probably the latter of these." (Smith's Dictionary of the Bible).


Of Esther:

"To add insult to injury, Achashverosh invited the Jews to the feast as well. He told them: "Torah is proven false, so give up your hope and join us." Unfortunately, many Jews succumbed to this challenge of faith and attended the party

6 The third day of Esther's fast was the 15th of Nissan -- the night of the Passover Seder (Rashi 5:1).
......Because of the dire situation, the regular Seder could be forfeited.

......Still, Esther kept as much as she could and served matzah at the banquets.
......Additionally, the banquets are called "mishteh ha-yayin" --
...... a wine feast (5:6, 7:2, 7:7) -- alluding to the four cups of wine drunk at the seder


IF Jesus approved this the He commanded us to GET DRUNK.
"a man is bound to get so drunk with wine at Purim as not to know the difference between, 'Cursed is Naaman and Blessed is Mordecai.'" (Talmud, Megillah 2:7)

Third, even from the beginning the Passover of ROASTED LAMB (never changed even for Jesus) was connected to the FEAST OF UNLEAVENED bread. This was observed after the passover which was roast lamb and bitter herbs.

Luke 22:1 Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.
Luke 22:7 Then came the day of unleavened bread,
......when the passover must be killed.

You see, you KILL the Passover and do not drink it. Unleavened Bread was merged with the Passover: they teach different things and are a family affair and never an act of worship. I am not aware of any law against drinking while eating. However, even with the "drink offering" if fermented was POURED OUT.

1Cor. 11:25 In the same way, he also took the cup AFTER SUPPER saying,

This cup is the new covenant in my blood.
Do this, every time you drink it, in remembrance of me.

In this part there is no Roast Lamb: the Passover was not changed.

G1172 deipne dipe-neh'-o From G1173 ; to dine, that is, take the principal (or evening) meal:sup (X -per).

AFTER the Passover Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper with the unfermented juice.

The institution of the Lord's Supper repudiates the false PASSOVER developed in Babylon as Esther tried to mitigate the evils. The result of the FOUR CUPS is that

......God turned the TRAITOR Haman over to be HANGED in place of Mordecai.

......They were called FESTIVALS OF WINE and not the Jewish Passover.


Jesus used the FIFTH CUP to fulfill expectations to prove that John had become the forerunner and that He would institute the "New Testament in His blood" and not the blood of animals.

......Jesus turned the TRAITOR Judas over to Satan and to be hanged.

As to the Babylonian- induced Passover the wine was not spiritual: they added four cups of intoxicants to GET DRUNK: even little children were forced to get drunk.

"There is an opinion in the Talmud which states that five cups of wine, not four, are to be drunk at the Seder. In practice we follow the majority opinion and drink only four cups. In deference to the minority opinion,

......however, we pour the Fifth Cup of wine even though no one drinks from it.

......This Fifth Cup of wine bears the name of Elijah
......because it is he who will eventually resolve this question, as well as many others. Cup of Elijah


"Since the majority opinion forbids drinking more than four cups, that opinion is followed, and one drinks only four cups. On the other hand, in deference to Rabbi Tarfon's opinion, a fifth cup is poured out, the Great Hallel is RECITED over it, but as stated above, it is not drunken in compliance with the view that drinking it is prohibited.

Elijah had come and announced Messiah who was preparing to die for their sins. Therefore, it is logical that they FINALLY DRANK the fifth cup--

......And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives. Matt 26:30

Jesus missed a grand opportunity not to have called Judas back to play MUSIC:

......Humneo (g5214) hoom-neh'-o; from 5215; to hymn,
......i.e. sing a religious ode; by impl. to celebrate (God) in song: - sing an hymn (praise unto).

So the only approved patternism would be to sing ONE of the Great Hallel (hymns) were sung ONCE a year and THEN you must go out. Jesus cast out the "musical worship team" using a term "like dung." He consigned the pipers, singers and dancers to the marketplace where they sold thingies.

 
 Respond to this message   
Sonny
(no login)
99.186.93.107

Before agreeing or disagreeing with you, or some of both...

October 18 2010, 10:06 PM 

I want to make sure I understand you and your points.

1. Do you believe that Jesus did not participate in the Passover and drinking of wine (which was not commanded as part of the Passover)?

2. Are you saying that the Passover was not worship, or are you making a distinction based on worship in a home vs. elsewhere (synagogue, etc.)?

3. You stated that you are not aware of any law against drinking while eating. Can you clarify what you meant, since this was my point about the "law of exclusion" or saying that silence is always prohibitive. Perhaps we agree on this?

4. Finally, do you agree that there are teachings in the New Testament of which we can learn a principle, but are not to adhere rigidly to, such as the 3 examples I mentioned about benevolence lists/criteria, greetings, and head coverings? I mention this one mostly as a means of common ground consensus that we both agree that biblical interpretation involves more than simply doing exactly what is stated period. A fourth example is 1 Corinthians 14 where the discussion is on tongue-speaking and prophesying. Other than Pentecostals/charismatics (and perhaps a few others, but still a minority of Christians), most Christians do not believe we are to go by 1 Corinthians 14 anymore other than as a general principle for worship being edifying (and exceptions like churches of Christ on vs. 34-35 on women being silent)..

Thanks for your interest in these matters and sharing your perspective and knowledge on Scripture and pleasing the Lord.

-Sonny

 
 Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(Login Ken.Sublett)
ConcernedMembersMadison
72.171.0.148

Re: Before agreeing or disagreeing with you, or some of both...

October 18 2010, 10:49 PM 

The Jews observed a Babylonian practice which had nothing to do with the original Passover.
The Babylonian and Jewish (as recorded) demanded that everyone drink to the point of getting drunk. Even when little children got violently ill they were forced to drink some wine.

Luke 22:1 New English Note
1 sn The Feast of Unleavened Bread was a week long celebration
......that followed the day of Passover,
......so one name was used for both feasts (Exod 12:120; 23:15; 34:18; Deut 16:18).


Several make the same claim. Exodus 12 includes more but:

Ex. 12:14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial;
......and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations;
......ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
Ex. 12:15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread;
......even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses:
......for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day,
......that soul shall be cut off from Israel.

I believe that the Passover which was "Killed" and roasted and consumed with nothing left over. Jesus then goes into the Feast of Unleavened bread.

I don't know any direct command for the "Juice" but "Wine" of the four cup Babylonian model was not observe by Jesus.

Then and now Jews (not the Babylonish practice) understood that "unleavened" excluded fermented wine.

"The law forbade seor--yeast, ferment, whatever could excite fermentation--and khahmatz (chametz), whatever had undergone fermentation, or been subject to the action of seor." (Patton 85).

"The great mass of the Jews have ever understood this prohibition as extending to fermented wine, or strong drink, as well as to bread. The word is essentially the same which designates the fermentation of bread and that of liquors." (Patton)


The Jews yearly anticipated that the forerunner would announce Messiah and set a place for Him. This fifth cup was not fermented as a sign of John's announcement. Because Jesus "drank" the Jews charged Jesus with being a winebibber: a winebibber or tippler would be one who drank even wine diluted 3 to 1. Jesus, in His cutting way, told them they were liars.

Of John the Baptist

Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord,
......and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink;
......and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mothers womb.
Luke 1:16 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.
Luke 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias,
......to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,
......and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just;
......to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

A modern Jew notes:

"Chametz is symbolic of sin. Chametz (leaven) rises teaching us pride, arrogance, and self-will. Matzah (unleaven) is flat teaching us humility, selflessness and love. As we work to remove all traces of Chametz from our homes, we are aware of the deeper meaning of Chametz and endeavor to remove the spiritual Chametz from within ourselves.

If you serve wine, be sure that it is kosher wine. Wine that is not kosher contains yeast. Yeast is symbolic of leaven or sin. Therefore, kosher or non-alcoholic wine should be served. Grapejuice is also acceptable. Passover Guide.


http://www.haydid.org/antipan4.htm

I believe that Christ defined the qahal, synagogue or Church in the wilderness for "Resting, reading and rehearsing the Word of God." Jesus observed, Paul observed and commanded, and the historic church continued that pattern for over 300 years.

So, the reasonable practice is "not to impose anything on anyone not required to carry out the role of church."
That is defined from the wilderness onward and by the Campbells as:

Church is A School of Christ.
Worship is reading and musing the word: speak and medite.

So if the Jews changed the Passover and Jesus endorsed their changes (He did not) that would not authorize us to "sin" believing that grace will cover it up.

Jesus is now our Passover and we would never observe the Lord's Supper where everyone is bound to get so drunk they couldn't tell one person from another. So finding people who got away with violating the law won't work because the Law had no provision for deliberate sin.

People just added instruments and the stated purpose was often to "pay the bills of the new mega church." Lipscomb said that no one prior to the Disciples in 1878 ever tried to justify instruments from the Bible: they used the "psallo" word which is not a musical word. Such people know that they are sowing discord but even now the few diverted Churches of Christ "count the cost" and decide they can lose up to half of the "owners" and make it up by attracting those wanting to be entertained and not taught. In Donnie's church the secret that slipped out is "we are going to turn this church into a theater for holy entertainment."

I believe that if you have EARS and EYES you will see God using musical performance from Genesis to Revelation (the serpent or musical enchanter) as the MARK of people who tell God "we don't want to hear your words anymore." It is not reasonable that "doctors of the law" whom Jesus said "take away the key to knowledge" would be allowed to know that.

 
 Respond to this message   
Sonny
(no login)
99.186.93.107

Some Agreement And Common Ground

October 19 2010, 3:24 PM 

Brother Sublett,

Thanks for your information and insight, especially pertaining to the Passover and Feast Of Unleavened Bread. I feel I have a good understanding of the Old Testament, but you shared some thoughts I will need to further study and ponder. Pertaining to your application and specific perspective, I do believe you are accurate when mentioning the first century church (historic church for 300 years) pattering their worship after the synagogue worship, which was acappella. And thus, I do not discredit all of your information and entire interpretation.

However, I do find at least a portion to be extreme and unscriptural. You state:

I believe that if you have EARS and EYES you will see God using musical performance from Genesis to Revelation (the serpent or musical enchanter) as the MARK of people who tell God "we don't want to hear your words anymore."

I disagree that the Bible from Genesis to Revelation teaches this. I believe this is a slanted view. Psalm 150 alone says to actually praise the LORD with various instruments.

What most advocates of acappella say is that the Old Testament warrants worship with instruments, but the New Testament is silent, and not that the entire O.T. and N.T. teaches they are a mark of Satan, which is why I find this portion of your interpretation to be extreme and in the minority. In fact, I have never heard another Church of Christ preacher or any other person say this.

Some common ground that you and I have is that neither of us worship God with instruments (though I have on a few occasions when the church I was visiting used them). Part of the reason may be that I have never pursued playing an instrument even in secular matters, like a school band. Furthermore, since I was raised in the acappella tradition, I personally prefer acappella, for various reasons (just as I have friends who prefer instruments for various reasons), and can also see ways in which instruments can lead to unspiritual worship. I have visited churches where they just used an organ, and did not find it distracting or diminishing to personally singing and participating. However, I have also worshipped where an entire band with drums and guitars were playing and more people listening instead of participating, and where the emphasis was more on the music, and it was more like a "performance". In fact, this is a debate currently taking place in many Presbyterian congregations and having a traditional vs. contemporary service, with traditional having a piano and the contemporary adding drums, guitars, and such. So these "worship wars" are not just a C of C matter.

Lastly (and perhaps more common ground/agreement), I believe that worship should be a refuge for a church family. Unfortunately, the way differences are sometimes handled leads to rifts and strife, instead of unity and mutual edification.

Ultimately, we may disagree on one matter, and that is whether IM is sin. I believe it is a slant in interpretation to say that Scripture teaches it is. This does not mean every congregation has to worship with them. Churches of Christ can be distinct without being divisive, or sectarian toward Christians who worship God with music.

Thanks for hearing my perspective on Scripture and this doctrinal matter. I realize hearing and respecting does not mean agreeing.

-Sonny

 
 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(Login Ken.Sublett)
ConcernedMembersMadison
67.142.130.25

Why would God let the WORLD or WISE know the mysteries.

October 19 2010, 4:37 PM 

What most advocates of acappella say is that the Old Testament warrants worship with instruments, but the New Testament is silent, and not that the entire O.T. and N.T. teaches they are a mark of Satan, which is why I find this portion of your interpretation to be extreme and in the minority. In fact, I have never heard another Church of Christ preacher or any other person say this.

You are probably correct: I am aware of only two or three people who believe that and they are all on this forum.

You don't know a preacher or "scholar" who knows what happened at Mount Sinai: being a New Testament church has led to ignoring the Old Testament. In my last teaching effort after moving and attending one of the largest congregations I god permission to put all of the Adult Classes through a survey of the Old Testament. I remember one elder saying "if it don't mean nothing to me it don't mean nothing."

The fall from grace at Mount Sinai was when they rose up to PLAY: there are only two or three who knows "what means play?"

http://www.piney.com/MuSinai.html

I have updated some of this in Exodus 32

http://www.piney.com/Exodus.32.html

In a second edition I look at what Christ in Spirit said about Mount Sinai. But then, the church of Christ never spend much time on the prophets even when Peter commanded "the prophets (by the Spirit of Christ) and the prophecies fulfilled" by Jesus of Nazareth as the CORE teaching resource.

http://www.piney.com/MuSinai2.html

That all stems from the belief that God established the sacrificial system as His PATTERN FOR WORSHIP but has changed His Mind. In fact, Acts 7 is the clue that God turned them over to worship the starry host: what gods do you think they worshipped even when they call the golden calf their god?

"The Israelite state was not founded with divine blessing. Rather, it was allowed as a grudging concession, just as a parent lets a child have his way in order that he may learn his folly from experience." (Anderson, Bernard, Theology of the O.T. p. 163).

"In one sense the creation of the monarchy was providential...In retrospect, one can say that events which brought about the collapse of the Confederacy and the rise of the Israelite state were not...devoid of divine purpose. God's revelation is relevant to the whole of human life--to economics, politics, and every sphere of human activity.

If God would speak to the nations through Israel,

then Israel must undergo the experience of being a nation in order that she might appreciate the wealth of nationhood and attack the idolatrous power of nationalism." (Bernard Anderson, p. 163)

Burton Coffman:

The great Cambridge scholar, Henry McKeating, has the following comment on this passage from Hosea:

"Hosea is not only antagonistic to the northern kings but to the monarchy as such. The monarchy is powerless to save the nation. Israel was wrong to ask for a king. Her punishment was that she got what she asked." 7: Henry McKeating, Amos, Hosea, and Micah (Cambridge: University Press, 1971), p. 148.

"We are aware that it is popular among many able commentators today to make apologies for Israel's monarchy and to apply what the Scriptures plainly say about it to some specific monarch, Saul, for example, as did Dummelow, or to the kings of Northern Israel as did Hailey; but it is the conviction of this writer that
Israel was totally and completely wrong in asking a king and that this rejection of God (that is what the text calls it) contained embryonically all of the later sorrows of the Chosen People.

Throughout the whole history of Israel, there were very few monarchs who even tried to serve the Lord. Solomon was to be blamed for the division of the kingdom under his son, because the people simply rejected the excesses of Solomon; and yet, even after God took the monarchy away from them, the nation wanted nothing in heaven or on earth as much as they wanted the restoration of that scandalous Solomonic empire.

It was this, more than anything else, that motivated their rejection of God Himself,
finally and irrevocably,
in their rejection of God's Son, Jesus Christ the Holy One.

 
 Respond to this message   
Sonny
(no login)
99.186.93.107

If you read the original post

October 27 2010, 12:16 AM 

Brother Waddey states:

"There are many leaders who really see nothing wrong with using instruments in worship. It is just a matter of time before join the pilgrimage to Baal's shrine."

Is Brother Waddey being sarcastic or serious? Is he exaggerating or being literal? Baal worship involved the murder of infants through sacrificing them on altars. Is Brother Waddey suggesting that churches that worship with instruments are also going to kill their children in the assembly? Talk about a new spin on "Children's Worship"! I guess I will believe all the "hype" about "change agents" when it results in the literal slaughtering of children.

Brother Waddey also states:

"Their acceptance of instruments of music in worship implies that their fathers were wrong in their faith, worship and stand!"

Yes, and perhaps this is why we truly struggle with this matter. It is hard to accept that a few issues Churches of Christ have been adamant about and majored in are matters for which we have been wrong.

I used to be legalistic, self-righteous and sectarian in my view of Scripture and others/church.

Brothers in Christ loved me while challenging my perspective, interpretive methods, and inconsistencies. Thanks be to God.

-Sonny


 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
99.177.249.211

Re: If you read the original post

October 27 2010, 1:24 AM 

Sonny,

That's clever of you to pull one or two statements out of the entire message that accurately explains why change agents are creating a lot of problems for/in the church -- unnecessarily. So, it does not matter to you that the church suffers from the devious acts of change agents.

Oh, Baal's shrine? Instead of you doing your own little spin, why don't you read Daniel 3:
[1] Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits: he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon.
[2] Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the princes, the governors, and the captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellers, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, to come to the dedication of the image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up.
[3] Then the princes, the governors, and captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellers, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, were gathered together unto the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up; and they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up.
[4] Then an herald cried aloud, To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages,
[5] That at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up:
[6] And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.
[7] Therefore at that time, when all the people heard the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and all kinds of musick, all the people, the nations, and the languages, fell down and worshipped the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up.
[8] Wherefore at that time certain Chaldeans came near, and accused the Jews.
[9] They spake and said to the king Nebuchadnezzar, O king, live for ever.
[10] Thou, O king, hast made a decree, that every man that shall hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, shall fall down and worship the golden image:
[11] And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth, that he should be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.
Know what? If nothing else, I've learned from the passage to list some of the various musical instruments used in musical idolatry:

-- tabret
-- cornet
-- trumpet
-- viol
-- tambourines
-- flute
-- stringed
-- harp
-- cymbal
-- psaltery
-- timbrel [and DANCE]
-- dulcimer
-- sackbut

Wow! The first century New Testament church, according to Sonny's view, was "legalistic, self-righteous and sectarian" for not indulging in the mechanical operation of musical instruments when the saints gathered.

 
 Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)
99.186.93.107

Re: If you read the original post

October 27 2010, 1:46 AM 

1. Daniel 3 is not an example of Baal worship, though it is an example of idolatry. (But mine was not a "spin" on Baal worship, as it did include serious ethical matters, including the sacrificing of children.)

2. Though examples like Daniel 3 where instruments are involved there is sin (or at some concert where there is illegal drug use and drunkenness), this does not mean IN EVERY CONTEXT that instrumental use is bad, hence, WORSHIPPING GOD WITH INSTRUMENTS, per Psalm 150, etc.

3. I do not believe the early church ever intended Scriptures such as Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 to forbid such use. I believe this to be a slant in interpretation.

4. Why did my short responses to Dr. Crump on two other threads ("A Concerned Member" and "Question About Two Churches") not show up? Do I need to resend each of them? (I will resend both after this one, however, if in the meantime they post twice, one can obviously be deleted.)

-Sonny

 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
99.177.249.211

Re: If you read the original post

October 27 2010, 2:16 AM 

I did not say that Daniel 3 is an example of Baal worship. It is an example of musical idolatry.

There you go again with your philosophy: "The Scripture does not say 'not to.'" Can you imagine doing this and that in "worship" because the Scripture forbids not?

[I'll check on the other posts meanwhile.]

 
 Respond to this message   
Sonny
(no login)
99.186.93.107

Re: If you read the original post

October 27 2010, 2:45 AM 

They showed up right after I sent the message(so you don't keep looking). Thanks. -Sonny

 
 Respond to this message   
 
< Previous Page 1 2 3 Next >
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>  
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