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 >>  
Anonymous
(no login)
66.230.85.127

Re: The Law of Silence: Two Views: The intoxicating New Wineskin heresy.

May 26 2012, 10:22 PM 

B (no login)
Posted May 26, 2012 9:31 AM

The change agents reject the concept of "Law of Silence," because that expression is not found in Scripture. Yet its PRINCIPLE is definitely found in the Old and New Testaments alike when we are told not to add to or take from God's Word:

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you" (Deut. 4:2 KJV).

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book" (Rev. 22:18-19 KJV).

When God commands anything, we are not free to expand upon or edit His commands according to what pleases us. That's what the two passages above mean. God doesn't have to say, "Worship me with singing but not with mechanical instruments." His explicit directive that we worship Him with singing is sufficient alone. To add instruments when God hasn't commanded them in the New Testament is to pollute God's directive.

On the other hand, the change agents' excuse to do as they please is, "God didn't say not to do thus and so." That statement is not only absent from the Old and New Testaments, there is no principle even remotely akin to it. The reason is that "God didn't say not to do thus and so" is a fabrication of those who are dissatisfied with following God's Word AS WRITTEN in the New Testament.


The "Law of Silence" is a man-made construct. When God forbids something, He speaks to it specifically. Silence does not permit or prohibit.
The above quotes are taken out of context. Moses was told not to add to or take away from the Law given by God. John was told not to add to or take from the message given in Revelation.
I find ironic you find it necessary to interpret the command to sing to mean only a capella music is allowed. Isn't that adding to scripture when you seek to bind your preference on others? Doesn't that violate Romans 14 - "All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth , or is offended , or is made weak . Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."
Nowhere in scripture does God condemn or forbid instrumental music. Yet you would change the plain meaning of the passage to mean singing only. Who then is the "change agent"? Don't you recognize the double standard inherent in your argument? Apparently not.

 
 Respond to this message   
B
(no login)
74.179.13.5

Re: The Law of Silence: Two Views: The intoxicating New Wineskin heresy.

May 27 2012, 7:02 AM 

You would change the plain meaning of the passage to mean ADDING instrumental music to the singing if desired, when instrumental music isn't mentioned at all. You would change a command of God that specifies vocal music. Why do you think God specified vocal music but omitted instrumental music? Do you assume God gave us a ittle "push" with vocal music and "meant" for us to take it from there with other kinds of music like instrumental music?

You hold to the sentiment of, "God doesn't condemn instrumental music, so we may use it." That's the same sentiment of "God didn't say not to use instrumental music." You ignore the fact that such a sentiment is found nowhere in Scripture. We all know God commands singing. But you don't ask the question, "Does God anywhere in the New Testament also command instrumental music?" You also do not ask, "Do we have permission from God to ADD anything more to His explicit commands over, above, and beyond what He has specified in the New Testament?" The answer is NO. If God's silence neither permits nor prohibits, then Christians must be guided by what is WRITTEN and SPECIFIED in the New Testament. They certainly can't have a "Christianity" based on everything that is NOT written therein. That's a "Christianity" based entirely on man-made constructs.

 
 Respond to this message   
B
(no login)
74.179.13.5

Re: The Law of Silence: Two Views: The intoxicating New Wineskin heresy.

May 27 2012, 2:08 PM 

Person A says, "God explicitly commands vocal music but says nothing about instrumental music. Therefore, I cannot ADD a different kind of music to what God has already commanded, because God explicitly forbids that I add to or take from any of His commandments."

Both of Person A's sentences are based entirely on New Testament Scripture (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16, Rev. 22:18-19).

Person B says, "God explicitly commands vocal music but says nothing about instrumental music. Therefore, I can ADD a different kind of music to what God has already commanded, because God doesn't explicitly forbid it."

Whereas Person B's first sentence is based on New Testament Scripture (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16), his second sentence is not. Person B deliberately ignores the fact that God has explicitly forbidden us to add to or take from any of his commandments. Person B prefers such man-contrived notions as, "What God does not forbid by name is fair game" and "God didn't say not to have instrumental music." Instead of obeying what is clearly WRITTEN in the New Testament, Person B thinks, "Unless God lists every conceivable 'Thou shalt not' that is possible, I will do as I please." Person B and all like-minded people are dissatisfied with what God has WRITTEN in the New Testament and seek excuses to go over, above, and beyond it.


 
 Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(Login BrianCade)
216.67.48.153

Re: The Law of Silence: Two Views: The intoxicating New Wineskin heresy.

May 27 2012, 6:09 PM 

B (no login)
Posted May 27, 2012 7:02 AM

You would change the plain meaning of the passage to mean ADDING instrumental music to the singing if desired, when instrumental music isn't mentioned at all. You would change a command of God that specifies vocal music. Why do you think God specified vocal music but omitted instrumental music? Do you assume God gave us a ittle "push" with vocal music and "meant" for us to take it from there with other kinds of music like instrumental music?

You hold to the sentiment of, "God doesn't condemn instrumental music, so we may use it." That's the same sentiment of "God didn't say not to use instrumental music." You ignore the fact that such a sentiment is found nowhere in Scripture. We all know God commands singing. But you don't ask the question, "Does God anywhere in the New Testament also command instrumental music?" You also do not ask, "Do we have permission from God to ADD anything more to His explicit commands over, above, and beyond what He has specified in the New Testament?" The answer is NO. If God's silence neither permits nor prohibits, then Christians must be guided by what is WRITTEN and SPECIFIED in the New Testament. They certainly can't have a "Christianity" based on everything that is NOT written therein. That's a "Christianity" based entirely on man-made constructs.


When God speaks to a matter, the debate is over. When God is silent on a matter, then we have to use good judgment. May we use instruments to accompany our singing? We certainly may; God is silent on the matter. The question then becomes, "Should we use instrumental accompaniment?" If it will cause a major disruption in the congregation, probably not. Point is, we have that freedom to choose when God is silent on any given issue. Within the bounds of holiness, God gives us the opportunity to exercise good judgment. Even you have that opportunity; I suggest you begin by learning the difference between tradition and truth.

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

Brian's Law of Silence: "When God Is Silent, Man Opines--and That's OK"

May 27 2012, 7:21 PM 

Brian,

You continue to be defiant: You still argue with God even when He is silent.

If the Roman Catholic Church opines while God is silent and when Brian Cade and the change agents opine while God is silent, they all have something in common. Consider the following RCC teachings that Brian should agree with because the Scripture is silent about these matters:

1. Directing prayers to Mary is not prohibited in Scripture;
2. Purgatory is a fine place while unsure of heaven or hell;
3. Peter is the first pope; papacy is to continue;
4. Holy Water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by the priest, is authorized;
5. Canonization of dead saints is just fine;
6. The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand--good;
7. The Scripture does not prohibit the sale of indulgences;
8. Confession of sin to the priest is not forbidden in Scripture;
9. There are scores of man-made dogmas not listed above.

Brian, if we went by YOUR "law of non-prohibitive," the list of man-made traditions [real ones] would be endless.

It is common knowledge, Brian, that implementation of mechanical music in the church of Christ has caused disruption, division, alienation, confusion. You and the other change agents must stop changing the church of Christ Jesus to what it is not. Start your own FROM SCRATCH!!!

 
 Respond to this message   
B
(no login)
98.87.22.88

Re: The Law of Silence: Two Views: The intoxicating New Wineskin heresy.

May 27 2012, 7:22 PM 

When God speaks about a matter, the debate is indeed OVER. Since we are forbidden to ADD to or take from any of God's existing commands, then WE ARE NOT COMMANDED, WE ARE NOT FREE to add instruments to the vocal music that God has explicitly commanded.

You should learn to follow the Word of God AS WRITTEN in the New Testament instead of corrupting God's commands with your personal preferences and traditions. To sing without adding instruments is to follow God's command AS WRITTEN. To ADD instruments is to follow man's tradition.

Brian evidently denies that God forbids us to add to or take from His explicit commandments.

 
 Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)
216.67.70.205

Re: The Law of Silence: Two Views: The intoxicating New Wineskin heresy.

May 27 2012, 11:33 PM 

B (no login)
Posted May 27, 2012 7:22 PM

When God speaks about a matter, the debate is indeed OVER. Since we are forbidden to ADD to or take from any of God's existing commands, then WE ARE NOT COMMANDED, WE ARE NOT FREE to add instruments to the vocal music that God has explicitly commanded.

You should learn to follow the Word of God AS WRITTEN in the New Testament instead of corrupting God's commands with your personal preferences and traditions. To sing without adding instruments is to follow God's command AS WRITTEN. To ADD instruments is to follow man's tradition.

Brian evidently denies that God forbids us to add to or take from His explicit commandments.


Silence neither permits nor forbids. When God prohibits or permits, He speaks to the matter. Scripture is silent on the use of instrumental music to accompany singing. If it violates your conscience to sing with instrumental accompaniment, don't do it. However, that does not give you leave to bind your conviction on your brethren to the point of calling down judgment on them. That's not your place.

 
 Respond to this message   
B
(no login)
74.179.243.237

Re: The Law of Silence: Two Views: The intoxicating New Wineskin heresy.

May 28 2012, 7:25 AM 

People call judgment upon themselves when they violate God's commands by adding more to them than what He explicitly specifies within His commands.

 
 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(Login Ken.Sublett)
ConcernedMembersMadison
166.248.64.37

Personal opinions NOT ALLOWED where Jesus is the only Teacher

May 26 2012, 12:50 PM 

Romans 14 outlaws anything that does not edify or educate in the assembly (romans 15) where the COMMAND is to speak "with one mind and one mouth that which is written for our learning." No one with eyes or ears could fail to read that.

Jay Guin Romans 14

http://www.piney.com/Jay.Guin.Romans.14.html


Ronnie Normans on Romans 14

http://www.piney.com/Norman.Romans.14.html

Terry Rush:

http://www.piney.com/Terry.Rush.Review.html



    
This message has been edited by Ken.Sublett from IP address 166.248.64.37 on May 26, 2012 12:58 PM


 
 Respond to this message   
ken Sublett
(Login Ken.Sublett)
ConcernedMembersMadison
166.248.75.39

SING has never CAN NEVER include a musical instrument

May 27 2012, 1:35 PM 

Cade, Maxey, Guin, Fudge say:The "Law of Silence" is a man-made construct. When God forbids something, He speaks to it specifically. Silence does not permit or prohibit.

The above quotes are taken out of context. Moses was told not to add to or take away from the Law given by God. John was told not to add to or take from the message given in Revelation. I find ironic you find it necessary to interpret the command to sing to mean only a capella music is allowed

Nowhere in scripture does God condemn or forbid instrumental music. Yet you would change the plain meaning of the passage to mean singing only. Who then is the "change agent"? Don't you recognize the double standard inherent in your argument? Apparently not.


THE HIRELING-CHANGLINGS ADD THE INSTRUMENT TO THE WORD SING. You need a DIRECT COMMAND to add to the word SING.

There is no Bible or literary event where SING can possibley mean SING AND PLAY AN INSTRUMENT. The command to SING is not God being silent and to refute that is blasphemy because it claims that the Spirit OF Christ said something He did NOT say.
Only instrumentalists use the "law of silence" as proven by these posts.

Rev. 15:3 And they SING the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb,
.....SAYING, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty;
..... just and true are THY ways, thou King of saints.


SINGING can only be accomplished by SAYING as proven from this passage. You can SING with an INSTRUMENT but you CANNOT say the works of God because HIS WAYS do not ADD what only the musicators add.

Point One: Moses SPAKE or RECITED his song so the elders could LEARN it and repeat it later.
.....It was Miriam who caused the women to break out or escape with the sistrum
.....her badge of being a Prophetess of Hathor--the man killer. A Soothsayer as were the Levites

Point Two: Sing: G103 ad ad'-o A primary verb; to sing:sing.

Point Three: Song: G5603 d o-day' From G103 ; a chant or ode (the general term for any words sung;
and G5568 still more specifically a Hebrew cantillation:song.

Cantillation is a SAYING using the MOUTH word: SAYING the Words of "a god" is always called SINGING but not related to a musical instrument.

The VOICE "accompanies" a Psalmos: the voice is the Harp of God used to communicate and not musicate.

G5568 psalmos psal-mos' From G5567 ; a set piece of music, that is, a sacred ode
.....accompanied with
.....the voice,
.....harp
.....or other instrument; a psalm);
.....collectively the book of the Psalms:
.....psalm. SAME AS Compare G5603 .

Ode , h, CONTRAST for aoio,
aoid (q. v.)), of dirges, pollas thrnn das S.El.88 (anap.); lgousi t' aoids be read) and in Pi. l.c. (unless melizen or MODULATE be read).]

Luke 7:32 They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying,
.....We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced;
.....we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.

The MEN ware really BOYS which in Christ's prophecy in Isaiah 3 would be perverted people: This was the universal MARK of the pagan worship in the marketplace (Romans 14) still lusted after in contrast to the synagogue (Romans 15) where the command is to use that which is written for our learning: a musical instrument cannot TEACH as David believed in his "god awakening" psalms

Jesus consigned the singers with instruments to the Agora or Marketplace: this was the mark of Dionysus worship intending to use music to force people to BOW DOWN and be sodomized as the MARK of the Old Wineskin religion from Egypt onward.

1Corinthians 14:7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp,
.....except they give a distinction in the sounds,
.....how shall it be known what is piped or harped?

AOIDE CAN be accompanied with an instrument in CONTRAST to ODE which cannot be accompanied. AOIDE never includes an instrument unless that instrument is NAMED. The NAMED instrument of PSALLO is the human voice.

Point Four: SAYING: G3004 leg leg'-o A primary verb; properly to lay forth, that is, (figuratively) relate (in words [usually of systematic or set discourse; .... by implication to mean:--ask, bid, boast, call, describe, give out, name, put forth, say (-ing, on), shew, speak, tell, utter.

PAUL MAKES IT CLEAR THAT WE CANNOT SING WITH A HARP

1Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue,
.....my spirit prayeth,
.....but my understanding is unfruitful.
1Corinthians 14:15 What is it then?
.....I will pray with the spirit,
.....and I will pray with the understanding also:
.....I will sing [PSALLO] with the spirit,
.....and I will sing with the understanding also.


Cade, Maxey, Guin etal COMMANDS that we PSALLO with a musical instruments.
Paul said that we PSALLO with the heart: you cannot hear it.

Psallo NEVER means to PLAY an instrument: it means PLUCK
When Psallo means play the instrument MUST be named.
Paul commanded PSALLO With the Heart: make the heart strings "sing" as any literate of the time would grasp

1Corinthians 14:16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit,
..... how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks,
..... seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?


If you PSALLO with a HARP how can those who assemble to be EDUCATED or understand?
They cannot. Therefore, you are the HYPOCRITE of Ezekiel 33 Rhetoricians, performance singers, instrument players.
The MARK is that people have NO INTENTION of obeying.

Paul said to psallo WITH the SPIRIT and WITH UNDERSTANDING. This is the normal Paul's ANTITHESIS to the perverted pagans who intended to "make the lambs dumb before the slaughter" so they could be fleeced.

Job etal shows the CONTRAST to those speaking LYING VANITIES: Instruments were always said to "lie" because the intention was to DECEIVE the people

Jonah 2:8 They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy.
.....vntas , Magicae vanitates, Plin. 26, 4, 9, § 18; cf. id. 27, 8, 35, § 57.
.....mgcus i magici, that were invoked by incantations (as Pluto, Hecate, Proserpine),
.....Tib. 1, 2, 62; Luc. 6, 577: linguae, i. e. hieroglyphics, id. 3, 222;
.....but lingua, skilled in incantations,

.....cantus, Juv. 6, 610: magicae RESONANT ubi Memnone CHORDE mysterious,
Jonah 2:9 BUT I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving;
I will pay that that I have vowed. Salvation is of the LORD.


Cade, Maxey, Guin etal speak LYING VANITIES: all self-compositions are vanity and intended to be MAGICAL MUSIC "to lead you into the presence of God"


    
This message has been edited by Ken.Sublett from IP address 166.248.72.110 on May 27, 2012 3:06 PM


 
 Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)
64.234.85.24

Re: The Law of Silence: Two Views: The intoxicating New Wineskin heresy.

May 28 2012, 1:02 AM 

Mr. Cruz said "Scripture does not specify this prohibition: "Thou shalt not worship Mary, 'Mother of God.'"

Yet the Scriptures say differently....
Matthew 4
10 Get out of here, Satan, Jesus told him. For the Scriptures say,
You must worship the Lord your God
and serve only him.

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

Re: The Law of Silence: Two Views: The intoxicating New Wineskin heresy.

May 28 2012, 5:24 AM 

The argument from those who are opposed to New Testament specifications is that because the Scripture does not say "not to" use instrumental music in the assembly, it means that its use is permissible.

I'm just trying to follow the logic of the change agents, which is fallacious:

  1. Scripture does not say specifically "not to use" the trumpet or the piano while singing in worship.
  2. To the change agent, "not to" authorizes and gives permission; therefore, blowing the trumpet while singing in worship is not prohibited; rather, it is permitted
  3. Scripture does not say specifically: "Thou shalt not worship Mary, 'Mother of God.'"
  4. Following the logic of the change agent means that worship of the "Virgin Mary" or offering prayers to "God's Mother" is not prohibited; rather, it is authorized or permitted.
  5. But yet the change agents are INCONSISTENT and have the "pick-and-choose-theology" mentality:
  6. ------ The change agent opts for musical idolatry [instrumental music];
  7. ------ The change agent does not opt for non-musical idolatry [Virgin Mary].
Matt. 4:10 is a great passage; however, it still does not say "not to" worship or pray to "God's Mother."

Besides, the Lord was speaking to the Big Devil. You would not consider yourself as a little devil, would you?

 
 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(Login Ken.Sublett)
ConcernedMembersMadison
166.248.72.98

Re: The Law of Silence: Two Views: The intoxicating New Wineskin heresy.

May 28 2012, 10:04 AM 

Mt 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Mt 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain,
and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Mt 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee,
if thou wilt fall down and worship me.


See, Al-Brian does not even know that visible worship means to FALL DOWN in submission: now that's what the peoplewho HELD their harps (or Apprehended the Word) did: they did NOT, NEVER,. EVER play these "harps of God."

Mt 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written,
Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Mt 4:11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.


He cannot READ that worship is IN THE SPIRIT instead of IN THE FLESH Philippians 3: that would be the way to MARK and EXCLUDE the concision or dogs or Cynics who identified themselves with an OLD STYLE PRAISE SINGING.

That is why the BEAST in Revelation is defined in a spiritual sense as "A New Style of Music or Drama." Since these people have MARKED THEMSELVES and attack those who do not take the MARK with such violence.

Only those who BOW DOWN to the Word of God with "nothing to the cross they bring" engage in SPIRITUAL (place) worship.

 
 Respond to this message   
B
(no login)
74.179.243.237

God Is Not Always Explicit When He Forbids

May 28 2012, 11:17 AM 

Proponents of instrumental music "justify" it by stating that when God forbids something, He ALWAYS explicitly forbids it by name. They mistakenly reason that if God did not want something in Christian worship, like instrumental music, He would have explicitly forbidden it in the New Testament.

Apparently the proponents of instrumental music don't realize that God forbids in more than one way. At times, God indeed forbids by being explicit, as in "Thou shalt not kill," but He is NOT ALWAYS explicit. At other times, He generalizes. A prime example of general forbidding is God's command that we neither add to nor take from any of His commandments. God specifies singing (vocal music), and that's as far as He goes. That's as far as any of us may go if we want to follow His directive properly. If we go over, above, and beyond what God has specified within that command or any other command, we sin. God doesn't have to say, "You sin if you add to or take from my commandments." To violate anything that God has explicitly or generally commanded or forbidden is to sin. Therefore, it should be clear to discerning Christians that if we ADD instrumental music or any other kind of music to vocal music, we sin.

Do not make the mistake of assuming that everything God forbids MUST be mentioned explicitly by name. We have clearly shown that God does NOT always work that way.




 
 Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(Login BrianCade)
216.67.48.13

Re: God Is Not Always Explicit When He Forbids

May 28 2012, 2:39 PM 

B (no login)
Posted May 28, 2012 11:17 AM

Proponents of instrumental music "justify" it by stating that when God forbids something, He ALWAYS explicitly forbids it by name. They mistakenly reason that if God did not want something in Christian worship, like instrumental music, He would have explicitly forbidden it in the New Testament.

Apparently the proponents of instrumental music don't realize that God forbids in more than one way. At times, God indeed forbids by being explicit, as in "Thou shalt not kill," but He is NOT ALWAYS explicit. At other times, He generalizes. A prime example of general forbidding is God's command that we neither add to nor take from any of His commandments. God specifies singing (vocal music), and that's as far as He goes. That's as far as any of us may go if we want to follow His directive properly. If we go over, above, and beyond what God has specified within that command or any other command, we sin. God doesn't have to say, "You sin if you add to or take from my commandments." To violate anything that God has explicitly or generally commanded or forbidden is to sin. Therefore, it should be clear to discerning Christians that if we ADD instrumental music or any other kind of music to vocal music, we sin.

Do not make the mistake of assuming that everything God forbids MUST be mentioned explicitly by name. We have clearly shown that God does NOT always work that way.


The why do you add the requirement that music must be vocal only? God is silent on the use of musical instruments. Do you not see the double-standard?
As for the warning not to add or take away, those warnings are applicable only to the books they were written in, Deuteronomy and Revelation. No similar warning is found in the books that contain your proof-texts.Thus, again, you add to the scripture in order to bind your preference.

 
 Respond to this message   
Ke
(Login Ken.Sublett)
ConcernedMembersMadison
166.248.66.146

Re: God Is Not Always Explicit When He Forbids

May 28 2012, 3:25 PM 

You keep calling the Spirit of Christ a liar. That's fine: you may be predestinated.

[linked image]

 
 Respond to this message   
ken sublett
(Login Ken.Sublett)
ConcernedMembersMadison
166.248.66.146

Re: God Is Not Always Explicit When He Forbids

May 28 2012, 3:34 PM 

Deuteronomy 5:32 Ye shall observe to do therefore as the LORD your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.
Deuteronomy 17:11 According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.
Deuteronomy 17:20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.
Deuteronomy 28:14 And thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them
Joshua 1:7 Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest.
Joshua 23:6 Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom to the right hand or to the left;
2Kings 22:2 And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left.
2Chronicles 34:2 And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, and walked in the ways of David his father, and declined neither to the right hand, nor to the left.
Proverbs 4:27 Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove thy foot from evil

 
 Respond to this message   
B
(no login)
74.179.243.237

Re: God Is Not Always Explicit When He Forbids

May 28 2012, 6:47 PM 

Does God's command that we not add to or take away apply ONLY to Deuteronomy and Revelation? I can just hear New Age preachers saying to their congregations, "Hey, listen up! God forbids that we add to or take from His commandments, but that's only found in Deuteronomy and Revelation. That means we can do anything we want with the rest of the Bible! We don't have to obey or follow anything God says in the rest of the Bible if we don't want to. We can add to, take away, or completely change all of the Bible EXCEPT Deuteronomy and Revelation! Hurray!"

Brian seems to be advocating a "Christianity" based on creating a bunch of loopholes in the Bible. True Christians, however, are not eager to create loopholes and will obey and follow God's commandments AS WRITTEN in the New Testament.

 
 Respond to this message   
B
(no login)
74.179.243.237

Re: God Is Not Always Explicit When He Forbids

May 28 2012, 7:07 PM 

Let's put it this way: If a person desires to obey God's Word AS WRITTEN in the New Testament, he will do so, and no one will be able to tell him differently. Such a person yields to Christ's teachings in the New Testament.

Likewise, if a person is completely dissatisfied with God's Word AS WRITTEN in the New Testament, he will find as many ways to circumvent it as possible, and no one will be able to tell him differently. Such a person resists Christ's teachings in the New Testament.

 
 Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)
64.234.85.24

Re: The Law of Silence: Two Views: The intoxicating New Wineskin heresy.

May 28 2012, 5:16 PM 

Mr. Cruz said..."Matt. 4:10 is a great passage; however, it still does not say "not to" worship or pray to "God's Mother." "

Matthew 4
10 Get out of here, Satan, Jesus told him. For the Scriptures say,
You must worship the Lord your God
and serve only him

Mr. Cruz, when you see the Scriptures say "and serve ONLY him....exactly what would you consider "serve ONLY him" to mean?

 
 Respond to this message   
 
  << 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