The Change Agents Are Coming!!!!December 15 2010 at 6:14 PM
|Dave (no login)|
from IP address 220.127.116.11
Just hadn't heard it in a while, and just wanted you to know that of following Jesus, the Mightiest Change Agent of all........WE'RE HERE!!!
Jesus Christ: "Mightiest Change Agent" (According to Dave)
|December 16 2010, 12:16 AM |
I don't know about Christ's new title: "Mightiest Change Agent" coming from you, in addition to:
-- Son of God
-- Son of Man
-- Lamb of God
-- High Priest
-- Head of the Church
-- King of Kings
-- ... and more
The Change Agents operating in the brotherhood are here to CHANGE and transform, restructure, reorganize the church that Christ Himself established in the first century. Can you imagine Jesus Christ restructuring His own church?
So, you haven't heard in a while that "the Change Agents are coming"? Don't worry. I have bumped the thread for your benefit:
A NEW BIG PICTURE: THE CHANGE AGENTS ARE COMING! THE CHANGE AGENTS ARE COMING!
Don't Kid Yourself
|December 16 2010, 12:42 AM |
Donnie......you might fool others but you don't fool yourself. When you look in a mirror you can see the same pharisee type of person(s) that Jesus went up against everyday. Jesus not only messed with the mold, he reshaped it altogether. He fulfilled the law and then did away with it.
You and yours want to bring back a man-made law.
It just will not happen.
Bringing back a man-made law?
|December 16 2010, 1:35 AM |
You are confusing me.
1. Which law did Jesus fulfill?
2. Which law did Jesus away with?
3. I know nothing of bringing back a law. Please explain.
4. What was/is this man-made law you made reference to?
If I were you, I wouldn't even begin to equate the destructive deeds of change agents in and against the church with the accomplishments of Christ on earth.
|December 16 2010, 9:26 AM |
17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Donnie asked "1. Which law did Jesus fulfill?"
Donnie, did you notice the word 'fulfill?'
When Jesus died on the cross for all mankind.........wasn't 'everything' accomplished?'
Donnie asked "2. Which law did Jesus away with?
25 But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in itnot forgetting what they have heard, but doing itthey will be blessed in what they do.
The PERFECT LAW through Christ replaced your Old Law.
Your last two questions refer to this man-made law that you and yours want to use instead of what Christ instituted. You want your traditions to be THE LAW.
"3. I know nothing of bringing back a law. Please explain.
4. What was/is this man-made law you made reference to?"
Donnie, there are so many like You who aren't happy with what Christ offers.....you want something better.
There is NOTHING better than Christ. Nothing!
|Dr. Bill Crump|
|December 16 2010, 11:52 AM |
It looks like Dave actually wants "something better," because he stands as an advocate for instrumental music in Christian worship. Although his own congregation allegedly has yet (?) to implement instruments, Dave would pat other church of Christ congregations on the back for having them. Christ through Paul told us to use vocal music (Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16), but Dave and the other progressives just aren't satisfied with that. They want something MORE to "accompany" and/or "enhance" the singing, as if Christ would detest a cappella singing. Actually, it is man who detests a cappella singing, hence the push to "accompany" and "enhance" the singing with instruments.
Before Dave accuses Donnie and the other conservatives of wanting "something better," Dave should first examine his own worship priorities.
You Got It!!!
|December 16 2010, 4:55 PM |
Finally, I seem to be getting through......William Crump admitted....."Dave would pat other church of Christ congregations on the back for having them." THEM being instruments of music.
YES William. YES!!!
You now seem them as legitimate congregations!!!
Yes....they are ALL churches of Christ, whether they prefer instrumental music or straight vocal/a capella.
WIlliam, you also said...."They want something MORE to "accompany" and/or "enhance" the singing, as if Christ would detest a cappella singing."
No more than Christ would detest the singing being accompanied by instrumental music or a PA system.
It has to do with the heart William. Do you believe that someone who attends an a capella congregation may not have his heart in the right place? Certainly. Just because he/she sings, does that mean he is giving to God and His Son what they desire? The heart William. That is from whence the proper worship is given.
We got one down William, and more yet to come.
|Dr. Bill Crump|
Re: You Got It!!!
|December 18 2010, 9:54 AM |
A woman who works as a prostitute cannot legitimately call herself a "lady" in the refined, social sense of the term; likewise, a church that uses instruments certainly cannot legitimately call itself a "church of Christ congregation" in the spiritual sense of the term.
A true lady does not work as a prostitute.
A true church of Christ congregation does not use musical instruments.
It is a sham for a prostitute to call herself a "lady."
It is a sham for a church that uses instruments to call itself a "church of Christ congregation."
Sometimes, a "rose" by any other name really does stink.
Make Up Your Mind
|December 19 2010, 12:01 AM |
One minute your saying that they are all churches of Christ, no matter if they use instruments of music or not.
Now you're back into your 'if the Lady is a tramp' thing. The lady is not a prostitute example compared to a coC not using instrumental music is not a correct or parallel analogy, but just another lame attempt to pump up another man made tradition. It made no sense whatsoever and in end William....you again, look very immature.
Making up one's mind
|December 19 2010, 1:57 AM |
I think that you've almost made up your mind as a mature Christian by not addressing others as: "son" ... "boys" ... "ole boy," etc. Except when you said: "you ... look very immature." I think that many readers would agree that messages are clearer and more meaningful and civil without these extraneous expressions. Hopefully, you've arrived.
I would like to point out that the use of mechanical music in the assembly is a man-made tradition.
(1) The NT church of the first century did not use it.
(2) The Roman Catholic Church initiated it.
(3) Protestant Churches propagated it.
(4) Certain "progressive" churches of Christ are IMITATING.
(5) The imitating churches of Christ are now affiliated with Community Churches or the Christian Church.
(1) Dave, your own congregation in S.C. is non-instrumental.
(2) Sonny Elliot's congregation is non-instrumental.
(3) Fred Whaley's congregation is non-IM.
(4) Jeff Walling's (a prominent Change Agent) congregation is non-IM.
Churches of Christ are virtually non-instrumental (99.888888%). That would be 100% if only Change Agents would leave peaceful congregations alone.
Remember this, Dave: The New Testament church of the first century did not practice it. Christ and the apostles did not teach it. The Roman Catholic Church started it and thus mechanical music became a man-made tradition.
|Dr. Bill Crump|
Re: Making up one's mind
|December 19 2010, 10:05 AM |
I've noticed that when Dave disagrees with people, he becomes particularly agitated and adds extraneous expressions like "very immature" to his comments. I wonder if Dave may have feelings of insecurity about his own beliefs and convictions and uses those extraneous expressions as a defense mechanism to "strengthen" himself.
4 Part Harmony
|December 19 2010, 6:00 PM |
Never said that instrumental music wasn't a tradition. It is.
So is four part harmony. It goes beyond what is needed....which is singing. Does God here the different tenor, bass, soprano, or alto notes? Only God knows. If the worship is from the heart, then why would you need four part harmony? You don't! We know that WE like it. Again, the playing of the instrument is individual expression, just as the four part harmony is.
Does that make either one wrong?
Donnie, you put up with William Crump. You push this site.
You are immature also.
Remember about the truth and how sometimes it hurts?
|Dr. Bill Crump|
Re: 4 Part Harmony
|December 19 2010, 6:49 PM |
If Donnie "puts up" with me, did Dave ever consider the fact that Donnie also "puts up" with Dave?
|Dr. Bill Crump|
Re: 4 Part Harmony
|December 19 2010, 8:13 PM |
There's nothing wrong with four-part harmony, because God doesn't address harmony in the New Testament. Likewise, there's nothing wrong with many other things, because God also doesn't address them: for example, kitchens in the church, church buildings, pews, PA systems, microphones, indoor plumbing, electricity, restrooms, etc., etc. Those items and many others like them do not clash with God's existing commands. We may choose to do without any of those items, but having them all is certainly not sinful.
However, instrumental music DOES clash with God's existing command to sing and make melody in the heart. The ONLY type of music that the New Testament authorizes us to use is vocal music, not instrumental music. Although we are told to sing, we are not told whether to sing in unison or in harmony. We are not told the tempo or the volume to use. Therefore, harmony, volume, and tempo are at our discretion. We may NOT use our discretion about the KIND/TYPE of music to use, because the command specifies VOCAL MUSIC, NOT INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC. If you say, "Who cares? Music is music," then you put your own preferences ahead of God's EXPLICIT command to use vocal music. We would be free to have any kind of music if God had said, "Worship Me with music [not otherwise specified]"; since God is quite specific about vocal music, we are not free to do as we please.
Never said it?
|December 19 2010, 9:15 PM |
You're right -- I recall that you "never said that instrumental music wasn't a tradition." But only because you always said the opposite -- that "a cappella worship" is a tradition.
Non-mention in the New Testament (or in the entire Bible> of activities or practices does not make anything into a tradition.
1. NT does not mention the worship of the Virgin Mary.
2. NT does not mention veneration of angels and dead saints.
3. NT does not mention prayers for the dead.
4. NT does not mention the sale of indulgences (forgiveness).
5. NT does not mention confession of sin to the priest.
6. NT does not mention operating mechanical music in assembly.
1. Non-worship of the Virgin Mary is NOT a tradition.
2. Non-veneration of angels and dead saints is NOT a tradition.
3. Non-prayer for the dead is NOT a tradition.
4. Non-sale of indulgences is NOT a tradition.
5. Non-confession of sin to the priest is NOT a tradition.
6. Non-use of musical instruments in assembly is NOT a tradition.
However, when any of the following is practiced, it is (becomes) a MAN-MADE TRADITION:
1. Worship of the Virgin Mary.
2. Veneration of angels and dead saints.
3. Praying for the dead.
4. Sale of indulgences (forgiveness).
5. Confession of sin to the priest.
6. Mechanical playing of musical devices in the assembly.
I realize the list happens to be "sacred traditions" of the Roman Catholic Church, although there are other man-made traditions believed and practiced in "Christianity." After all, it was the RCC that originated the "CHOIR BOYS" and instrumental music.
Oh, the "four-part harmony" argument.
I'm glad there are those parts in "harmony." You see, Dave, if I were to sing the soprano or tenor part of certain songs, my voice would be like that of duck squeaking. Thanks to the alto or bass part that I can sing. It is still singing.
But in regard to the MAN-MADE TRADITION of using those lifeless, inanimate, soul-less musical devices in the gathering of saints, it does not matter which of the following instruments is used, it is still that man-made tradition of using musical objects or idols in the assembly:
-- stringed instruments
It does not matter what the favorite musical instrument is. It is still PLAYING a musical device in the assembly -- a man-made tradition.
"If it is worship from the heart"? Wow!!! Who could be more sincere or do worship more from the heart than devout Roman Catholics? Buddhists? Shintoists? Mohammedans? Jehovah's Witnesses?
Like You Said....WOW!!!
|December 20 2010, 10:24 AM |
Donnie, so now you believe that a Buddhist can have a correct heart to worship God?
You said..."Who could be more sincere or do worship more from the heart than devout Roman Catholics? Buddhists? Shintoists? Mohammedans? Jehovah's Witnesses?
I knew you were out there with some of your beliefs, but like you said...WOW!!!
Re: 4 Part Harmony
|December 20 2010, 10:43 AM |
Dr. Crump, if I understand you correctly, solo singers and amplified singers are acceptable?
This is Good!
|December 20 2010, 10:46 AM |
William Crump said...."However, instrumental music DOES clash with God's existing command to sing and make melody in the heart."
In all of his meanderings he has never explained why instrumental music clashes with the command to sing.
If you play an instrument (piano, guitar, sakbut for Donnie), AND sing along with the playing how does that clash with the command to sing?
It does NOT!!! We aren't commanded to play, as has been suggested. We aren't commanded to use the PA system either. We play.....we use the PA system.....to AID the singing.
All in HARMONY to keep our worship ORDERLY.
See guys, it is really not that hard to understand....unless you have hangups with traditions.
"Sincerity" vs. "In Spirit and Truth"
|December 20 2010, 11:01 AM |
No, Dave, "sincerity" was YOUR idea. But Scripture says: "worship ... in spirit and in truth."
Besides, "singing" and PLAYING don't mix in worship.
|December 20 2010, 11:36 AM |
I mentioned sincerity from a Christian standpoint. YOU however, mentioned the Buddhist.
That was a direct quote from you Donnie.
Singing and playing doesn't mix in worship in YOUR MIND Donnie....just because you don't like the playing.
You don't like the playing to accompany the voice, but you do like the PA to accompany the voice.
Neither the playing nor the PA are authorized. What you have defined is PREFERENCE Donnie.
William....help me out here. Is the neither good with the nor??? Since we use neither and nor, could it thus be in singular form and thus we should use 'are' or 'is?'