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  
Donnie Cruz
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
99.177.249.211

The Issue of "Thou Shalt Not" Being Absent Is Permissive

May 28 2012, 6:29 PM 

  1. I know what "only" means -- that is not the issue at this time and I'll be glad to discuss that later; the issue is the change agents looking for a "THOU SHALT NOT" in Scripture.
  2. But I am trying to follow the change agents' argument: the literal and SPECIFIC "thou shalt not" as in "thou shalt not use musical instruments";
  3. And I am also using another parallel to the change agents' argument with: "thou shalt not worship the Virgin Mary, 'Mother of God.'"
  4. You cannot find either "thou shalt not" directive in Scripture;
  5. But the change agents would ADD musical idolatry to worship -- remind you that the Roman Catholic Church originated the use of musical instruments, as well as the CHOIR BOYS. The change agents love the RCC teachings in this regard.
  6. But the change agents would not ADD the Virgin Mary idolatry, but destroy their own faulty and inconsistent logic of "thou shalt not."
  7. CONCLUSION: The change agents' argument that "where there is no 'thou shalt not,' the Scripture does not prohibit; instead, Scripture permits" ... is a MAJOR fallacy.

 
 Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)
216.67.70.105

Re: The Issue of "Thou Shalt Not" Being Absent Is Permissive

May 28 2012, 11:50 PM 

Donnie Cruz (Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
Posted May 28, 2012 6:29 PM


I know what "only" means -- that is not the issue at this time and I'll be glad to discuss that later; the issue is the change agents looking for a "THOU SHALT NOT" in Scripture.

But I am trying to follow the change agents' argument: the literal and SPECIFIC "thou shalt not" as in "thou shalt not use musical instruments";

And I am also using another parallel to the change agents' argument with: "thou shalt not worship the Virgin Mary, 'Mother of God.'"

You cannot find either "thou shalt not" directive in Scripture;

But the change agents would ADD musical idolatry to worship -- remind you that the Roman Catholic Church originated the use of musical instruments, as well as the CHOIR BOYS. The change agents love the RCC teachings in this regard.

But the change agents would not ADD the Virgin Mary idolatry, but destroy their own faulty and inconsistent logic of "thou shalt not."

CONCLUSION: The change agents' argument that "where there is no 'thou shalt not,' the Scripture does not prohibit; instead, Scripture permits" ... is a MAJOR fallacy.


No one has said that scripture permits where scripture is silent. When God prohibits or permits something, He is specific. Where He is silent, sound judgment must be used.
Your argument that the worship of Mary is permitted because there is no "thou shalt not" forbidding it is fallacious because God has forbidden the worship of anyone or anything but Himself. He is very specific about it. Your assignment is to find the references forbidding the worship of anyone or anything other than God; there are no exceptions. The logical fallacies in your argument are two, misuse of analogy and the black-or-white fallacy.

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

Re: The Issue of "Thou Shalt Not" Being Absent Is Permissive

May 29 2012, 1:49 AM 

Brian,

(So far, you have not objected to my addressing you as "Brian Cade." Actually, we prefer that you be brave and unashamed to identify yourself voluntarily ... rather than being addressed as "Annie Mouse" for "Anonymous." Seriously, we would encourage you to try to log in such a matter as at other times when "Brian Cade" automatically displays.)

You are obfuscating.

The premise that is quite consistent among the change agents in defense of the use of musical instruments in the assembly of saints is the following: "Where in Scripture does it say, 'thou shalt not' use instrumental music in the assembly?"

Keep that premise of the change agents in mind, Brian.

The change agents are essentially saying that since there is NO SPECIFIC prohibition [as in "thou shalt not use IM"], then, it means to the change agents that it is PERMISSIBLE to use IM in the assembly.

Are you with me so far?

In following the logic of the change agents, they are saying:

  • That since the change agents believe that there is NO SPECIFIC "thou shalt NOT use IM in worship,"
  • Therefore, the change agents have the freedom to formulate their own man-made directive: "Thou mayest use IM in worship";
  • But when the change agents are confronted with their own fallacious logic ... by pointing out that there is neither a SPECIFIC "thou shalt not worship 'God's Mother'" ...
  • Which, by the agents' own logic, allows them to formulate once again their own man-made directive: "Thou mayest worship the Virgin Mary" ...
  • It is at this point when the change agents violate their own rule, i.e., their "where does it say 'NOT TO'" theory fails miserably.
Brian, you are in a very dangerous territory when you proclaim to the church the following:
Brian says: "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."

Brian says: "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."

Brian says: "Point is, we have that freedom to choose when God is silent on any given issue."

Brian says: "Nowhere in scripture does God condemn or forbid instrumental music."

It's the same story from you and the change agents.

Caution, Brian. This website may allow you to make assertions and express ideas and opinions of your own or the change agents'. Only for discussion or study purposes, though. But a disclaimer from you would help: "This is not necessarily God's directive that He FORGOT to put in writing."

 
 Respond to this message   
B
(no login)
74.179.245.206

Re: The Issue of "Thou Shalt Not" Being Absent Is Permissive

May 29 2012, 2:20 AM 

I think Brian made a statement in either this or another thread that God's neither-add-to-nor-take-from command applies only to Deuteronomy (4:2) and Revelation (22:18-19). He implies that the rest of the Bible is exempt from that command. Therefore, he evidently feels that he is free to go over, above, and beyond what God explicitly commands about vocal music in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16. Since he believes that God's "silence" neither permits nor forbids, he says man may use his own judgment about the use of instruments. That means Brian believes he need not stay within the bounds of God's explicit commands but may do as he pleases.

 
 Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)
216.67.70.105

Re: The Issue of "Thou Shalt Not" Being Absent Is Permissive

May 29 2012, 3:01 AM 

Donnie Cruz (Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
Posted May 29, 2012 1:49 AM

Brian,

(So far, you have not objected to my addressing you as "Brian Cade." Actually, we prefer that you be brave and unashamed to identify yourself voluntarily ... rather than being addressed as "Annie Mouse" for "Anonymous." Seriously, we would encourage you to try to log in such a matter as at other times when "Brian Cade" automatically displays.)

You are obfuscating.

The premise that is quite consistent among the change agents in defense of the use of musical instruments in the assembly of saints is the following: "Where in Scripture does it say, 'thou shalt not' use instrumental music in the assembly?"

Keep that premise of the change agents in mind, Brian.

The change agents are essentially saying that since there is NO SPECIFIC prohibition [as in "thou shalt not use IM"], then, it means to the change agents that it is PERMISSIBLE to use IM in the assembly.

Are you with me so far?

In following the logic of the change agents, they are saying:

That since the change agents believe that there is NO SPECIFIC "thou shalt NOT use IM in worship,"

Therefore, the change agents have the freedom to formulate their own man-made directive: "Thou mayest use IM in worship";

But when the change agents are confronted with their own fallacious logic ... by pointing out that there is neither a SPECIFIC "thou shalt not worship 'God's Mother'" ...

Which, by the agents' own logic, allows them to formulate once again their own man-made directive: "Thou mayest worship the Virgin Mary" ...

It is at this point when the change agents violate their own rule, i.e., their "where does it say 'NOT TO'" theory fails miserably.

Brian, you are in a very dangerous territory when you proclaim to the church the following:

Brian says: "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."

Brian says: "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."

Brian says: "Point is, we have that freedom to choose when God is silent on any given issue."

Brian says: "Nowhere in scripture does God condemn or forbid instrumental music."

It's the same story from you and the change agents.

Caution, Brian. This website may allow you to make assertions and express ideas and opinions of your own or the change agents'. Only for discussion or study purposes, though. But a disclaimer from you would help: "This is not necessarily God's directive that He FORGOT to put in writing."


This website long ago lost any credibility by habitually mis-representing the positions of men who challenged you to think for yourself, including me. I'll not add to the insanity by committing perjury.
You have been shown more than once that God forbids the worship of Mary by forbidding the worship of anyone other than Himself. How many ways must it be explained to you? The explanation has been consistent. Yet you continue to insist that because there is no specific "Thou shalt not worship Mary", that her worship is permitted. You make that assertion, not I. God forbids the worship of anyone other than Himself, be it Mary or John the Baptist or Balaam's ass, to which you and Ken and "B" bear a remarkable resemblance when you persist in your attempts to twist someone's words to say something they never meant. Who then is obfuscating? Seems you are more interested in winning the argument than in discovering truth.

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

Re: The Issue of "Thou Shalt Not" Being Absent Is Permissive

May 29 2012, 4:17 AM 

Do I have to tell you in so many ways that "worship of the Virgin Mary" is NOT ... is NOT ... is NOT my assertion? That is NOT MY ASSERTION. [I do not like saying this, but I think your cranium is getting somewhat dense -- it may need refreshing.]

Why should I teach the worship of the Virgin Mary as being scriptural when it is NOT in Scripture?

Brian, one more time: You and the change agents teach that because Scripture does not say "NOT TO" regarding instrumental music, that Scripture gives permission to do so.

Same is true with regard to worshiping the Virgin Mary -- there's no specific command in Scripture "not to" worship Mary. You know it. I know it.

In BOTH CASES, there is not a specific "thou shalt not" in Scripture.

It's really time for you to understand the inconsistency in following your own rule of "NOT TO" as "PERMISSION GRANTED [by God]."

(1) In the case of instrumental music: your "NOT TO" rule yields to "DO SO; God approves it."

(2) In the case of worship of "God's Mother": your "NOT TO" rule suddenly changes and yields to "Oh, NO, NOT SO; that's Catholic."

Let's just deal with the change agents' old premise: "Where in Scripture does it specifically say "not to use instrumental music in the assembly." Why? Because when you use that as your premise of "NOT TO" as being equivalent to "GOD GRANTING PERMISSION, it is fallacious and it contradicts the teachings found in the Scripture.

I'll be glad to provide another list of man-made directives to which God has not said: "Just say, NO." But we know better NOT TO do them.

 
 Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(Login BrianCade)
66.230.81.234

Re: The Issue of "Thou Shalt Not" Being Absent Is Permissive

May 31 2012, 1:43 AM 

Do I have to tell you in so many ways that "worship of the Virgin Mary" is NOT ... is NOT ... is NOT my assertion? That is NOT MY ASSERTION. [I do not like saying this, but I think your cranium is getting somewhat dense -- it may need refreshing.]

Why should I teach the worship of the Virgin Mary as being scriptural when it is NOT in Scripture?


Then why are you so dishonest as to insist that is the position of the men you excoriate? None of them teach this either.You know better; shame on you.

It's really time for you to understand the inconsistency in following your own rule of "NOT TO" as "PERMISSION GRANTED [by God]."

Wrong again. It does not follow that silence equals permission by default. Silence neither permits nor prohibits. Specificity permits or prohibits. When God forbids, He is very specific. God doesn't play "gotcha".

(1) In the case of instrumental music: your "NOT TO" rule yields to "DO SO; God approves it."
Wrong again. Non sequiter.

(2) In the case of worship of "God's Mother": your "NOT TO" rule suddenly changes and yields to "Oh, NO, NOT SO; that's Catholic."

Blatant misrepresentation. Have you no shame?
You are guilty of black-or-white thinking. You cannot tolerate gray areas or ambiguity so everything must be cut and dried even if you have to misrepresent the opposing viewpoint. Where in scripture does God make an exception to the command, "Thou shalt not bear false witness?"
By the way, the doctrine of committing the lesser evil in order to advance the greater good was taught by Ignatius Loyola, a Catholic theologian.

 
 Respond to this message   
William
(no login)
108.18.178.148

Congregational singing?

May 29 2012, 2:08 AM 

These are some of the scriptures that would seem to have some application to the assemble, taken from different "translations" for no particular reason.

I will sing psalms with the spirit, and I will sing psalms also with the understanding

singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord

in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts unto God

When you meet together, one will sing, another will teach, another will tell some special revelation God has given, one will speak in tongues, and another will interpret what is said

In the midst of the congregation I will sing Your praise
Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise

Singing "with the spirit", "making melody in your heart" and "with grace in your hearts" have nothing to do with physical or vocal singing. It refers to a state of mind. Both seem plural to me, though, indicating some level of assembly singing. Arguable.

Some seem to emphasize singing "with the spirit." It is rare for us to "teach and admonish" with songs. Usually the preachers do not do that with psalms, either.

The Corinthians were criticized for how they did and not what they did. So "one has a song (or psalm)" is clearly singular, or solo singing. "In the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise" is clearly solo.

We draw the line at a song leader, by silence and by no contrary example and no general otherwise context why not a "worship leader" or "praise team." Personally, I am uncomfortable with the idea, but worship leader is mentioned just as often as song leader.

Paul would, I think, be aghast at any of our assemblies. Women intermingled with men?! When I was a teenager at Charlotte Ave. in Nashville I got sent home one Wednesday evening for wearing Bermuda shorts. Now we have young men serving from the Lord's table in shorts and shower clogs. But I will bet that in the first century robes and sandals looked about the same.

If we were acting from a series of rules on Sunday morning we would still be under the old law. Silence is silence, and its interpretation requires thought, wisdom and context. Please don't threaten me with Nadab and Abihu, but do not lead me into paganism either. Let me sing with understanding.

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

Re: Congregational singing?

May 29 2012, 2:37 AM 

Thanks for posting, William. At the Madison congregation, Charlotte Ave. has been mentioned quite a bit, perhaps as a case study to determine what causes or factors there may be in the decline of membership. I would like to discuss your points in detail as soon as time permits.

 
 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(Login Ken.Sublett)
ConcernedMembersMadison
166.248.73.59

Re: Congregational singing?

May 29 2012, 11:22 AM 

It is a fact that there is never a single example of anyone in the Bible or for several centuries of "congregational singing with or without instruments." "Unity" would best be served if we left off all of the ACTIONS and followed the example affirmed by the Campbells that church is "A school of Christ." I believe that to be the only role for which people are called out of their already burdended lives. That leaves the rest of the week to do all of the singing and playing you wish.

However, message of Nadab and Abihu rests on Exodus when the Jacob-cursed Levites volunteered to execute 3000 of the "brethren" who participated in profaning the rest. The command of God was that the Levites (under the king and commanders of the arm) stand in ranks and warn any civillian that if they came near the "worship of the starry host" to which God abandoned the Civil-Military-Clergy.

Any Levite "noise makers" who went near or into any holy place in the future was to be executed. If the Holy Place was a worldy type of the Body of Christ, then the Nadab-Abihu story would still apply.

Whose voice then SHOOK the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet ONCE MORE I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. Heb 12:26

And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the REMOVING of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken [a trumpet-like word] may remain. Heb 12:27

Wherefore we RECEIVING a KINGDOM which cannot be moved, let us have GRACE,

whereby we may SERVE God acceptably with REVERENCE and godly fear: Heb 12:28


For our God is a consuming fire. Heb 12:29

Numbers 18:1 And the LORD said unto Aaron,
.....Thou and thy sons and thy fathers house with thee
.....shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary:
.....and thou and thy sons with thee shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood.

Num 18:2 And thy brethren also of the tribe of Levi,
.....the tribe of thy father, bring thou with thee,
.....that they may be joined unto thee, and minister unto thee:
.....but thou and thy sons with thee shall minister
.....BEFORE the tabernacle of witness. [never IN]

H8334 sharath shaw-rath' A primitive root; to attend as a menial or worshipper; figuratively to contribute to:---minister (unto), (do) serve (-ant, -ice, -itor), wait on.

Num 18:3 And they shall keep thy charge, and the charge of all the tabernacle:
.....only they shall NOT come nigh the vessels of the sanctuary and the altar,
.....that neither they, nor ye also, die.


Num 18:4 And they shall be joined unto thee,
.....and keep the charge of the tabernacle of the congregation,
.....for all the service of the tabernacle: [hard bondage]
.....and a stranger shall not come nigh unto you.

Num 18:5 And ye shall keep the charge of the sanctuary, and the charge of the altar:
.....that there be no wrath any more upon the children of Israel.


    
This message has been edited by Donnie.Cruz from IP address 99.177.249.211 on May 29, 2012 1:44 PM


 
 Respond to this message   
William
(no login)
108.18.178.148

I have bee gone a long time

May 29 2012, 1:50 PM 

I have a pretty definite idea of what happened to Charlotte Ave., and Park Ave., too. But I have been away from Nashville for a long, long time. I am pretty assured, though, that the problems in West Nashville are the same as the ego-centric problems of some of the larger congregations, but the absolute other side of the coin so to speak.

 
 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(Login Ken.Sublett)
ConcernedMembersMadison
166.248.68.194

Re: I have bee gone a long time

May 29 2012, 3:49 PM 

oops!


    
This message has been edited by Ken.Sublett from IP address 166.248.68.194 on May 29, 2012 4:00 PM


 
 Respond to this message   
William
(no login)
108.18.178.148

Been

May 29 2012, 6:23 PM 

Been

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

"What Happened to Charlotte Ave."

May 30 2012, 3:56 AM 

William,

Your participation is greatly appreciated.

I wonder how close your knowledge of "what happened..." is to the "findings" that the Madison leaders obtained from whatever sources regarding Charlotte Ave. Were you still in Nashville when it "happened"?

The current leadership at Madison seems to be taking nonchalantly or having "senior moments" concerning the havoc that the congregation experienced in 2001. It seems to be looking at its decline in membership from a different angle(s) other than the effect(s) of implementing Charismatic-Contemporary-Change Movement changes for a decade that reduced its membership ultimately in half in 2001. It's been a decade, and its membership has been stagnant, if not declining still.

Please be patient with me -- just do not have enough time away from work and other responsibilities. Meanwhile, feel free to post topics that you would like discussed ... or simply respond to messages that are of interest to you.

Thanks!

 
 Respond to this message   
William
(no login)
108.18.178.148

Charlotte Ave.

May 30 2012, 3:14 PM 

If you would like me to respond with a kind of thesis to your personal e-mail I will. Just respond to my personal e-mail and I will do it. I believe that it would be too long and perhaps too personal for this forum. You may then do as you will to my reply.

I was not officially a part of Charlotte Ave. during the time of its dissipation. However, I always considered it my home congregation so when we were attending Old Charlotte Road, Belleview, Vultee, etc., I maintained a watchful interest. Then as my work took me on the road I sometimes visited Ch. Ave. when I was in town on vacation, between jobs, or other family matters. As a detached but interested observer the fate of the congregation was becoming obvious by about 1973. That year Jimmy Dorris who was then preacher at Park Avenue and an old family acquaintance held a meeting at Old Charlotte Road, where I and my family attended. In discussions with Jimmy, it was clear that Park Ave. was in trouble, and he thought that the problems had already enveloped Ch. Ave. to the point of death. If you want more discussion send me your e-mail.

I have watched this forum with some interest for several years, and a few times I have posted a reply. This is the first time I have entered into the spirit of the blog, though.

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

Re: Charlotte Ave.

May 31 2012, 5:31 AM 

I've made a note to myself to send you an e-mail later today. Thanks.

 
 Respond to this message   
B
(no login)
98.87.22.169

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

May 30 2012, 9:05 AM 

The proponents of instrumental music often present the weary and fallacious argument that if instruments are disallowed because God is "silent" about them in the New Testament, then items such as song books, pews, podiums, kitchens, restrooms, carpets, indoor plumbing, church buildings, and a host of other incidental items must also be disallowed, because God is "silent" about them as well.

Such an argument conveniently refuses to differentiate between what God addresses in the New Tstament and what He does not. God addresses music and explicitly commands that we sing and make melody in our hearts; that is, God commands vocal music. Since God stops there and does not command any other kind of music, and since we may neither add to nor take from any of His commandments, we must stop there as well. Of course, some folks prefer to believe that God's neither-add-to-nor-take-from command applies ONLY to Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18-19 and that the rest of the Bible is exempt. If such a ridiculous notion were not so spiritually heinous, it would be laughable.

God, on the other hand, does not even remotely address in the New Testament such incidental items as I mentioned above, because they do not impact worshipping Him. Some folks go so far as to say that we may use our own "judgment" about instruments, because God is "silent." Such people believe that man may implement anything that God doesn't explicitly forbid by name. Again, that notion ignores God's neither-add-to-nor-take-from command.

Man indeed should use his judgment about matters that God does not address at all. Advocates of instruments then argue that since God doesn't address instruments in the New Testament, man may use them. Again, that notion ignores the fact that the only kind of music God stipulates is vocal music, and that the neither-add-to-nor-take-from command precludes instrumental music. Some people argue that four-part harmony is disallowed, because God is "silent" about it. God only addresses vocal music, but He neither addresses harmony, pitch, tempo, nor volume; the latter He leaves to man's judgment. Discerning Christians will also see that incidental items that God does not address, such as song books, podiums, pews, and restrooms, are likewise left to man's judgment.

 
 Respond to this message   
William
(no login)
108.18.178.148

Substituting your conclusions for God's

May 31 2012, 2:01 AM 

If we accept that Paul's words are God's commands, then He explicitly commands that we sing and make melody in our hearts - and in all wisdom teach and exhort through psalms, hymns and spiritual "odes." I don't know why we leave that out. We do remember that we are to praise.

But importantly, you substitute your conclusions for God's will: "God, on the other hand, does not even remotely address in the New Testament such incidental items as I mentioned above, because they do not impact worshipping (sic) Him." I know or have known many that believe that the Italian Renaissance style of music that we have in most of our song books is equivalent to emulating musical instruments. Their song books have the words, but under the title of the song is a series of numbers such as 8,4,4,6, which means that the lines repeat with eight beats, four beats, four beats, and six beats. They are (or at least were) convinced that they were correct. I have seen song books from early in the 20th century that only had shape notes, and none of the Italian notations. I have known others who were convinced, like the Amish, that congregations should not own property or church buildings. Personally, I have never preferred pitch reeds -- pitch reed go weeeee, song leader go waaaaa.

One congregation that I attended actually had a bit of controversy about purchasing shrubs for landscaping the new building. The preacher, a really conservative preacher, said that it was silly to think that we could finance a new building with church money but not landscape it. However, no funds were ever allocated so one of the brothers who operated a general store purchased the shrubs and we individually purchased them from him and donated them to the church.

To say that "God, on the other hand, does not even remotely address in the New Testament such incidental items ... " smacks of hubris. Like you, I want to do correctly on Sunday morning, but I am not prepared to speak for God.

Some would argue that the New Testament is silent on all matters of Christian assembly worship; in fact the term "worship" does not seem to ever be used in an assembly context, but some of the approx 48 times that "worship" is used in the English translations do refer to worshiping God. We do not need to be in a formal assembly to do that, and that the passages that we so quickly toss about from Eph. and Col. are not expressed as if they are necessarily in a worship setting. Surely we can only speak to one another when we are together, so Paul must have been speaking of an assembly. Hebrews 2 quotes Psalms 22, but in the KJV the word in Psalms is "praise" and then in Heb. it is "sing."

While I am unfavorably disposed towards instrumental music in church, my disposition is not entirely because I am looking for some safe set of rules for Sunday morning. If that be the case, then if I fail in one I would fail in all.

 
 Respond to this message   
B
(no login)
98.87.22.15

Re: Substituting your conclusions for God's

June 1 2012, 2:14 PM 

People say that we may ADD instruments to vocal music because God "doesn't say not to" or doesn't forbid them by name. THAT is substituting man's conclusions for God's. The neither-add-to-nor-take-from command precludes the addition of ANY other kind of music to vocal music (unless you're of the bizarre opinion that such a command ONLY applies to Deut. 4:2 and Rev. 22:18-19).

To sing without instruments is to follow God's command through Paul. BTW, I hope you believe that Pauls' epistles are God-inspired. As Paul said:

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:11-12 KJV).


 
 Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)
64.234.85.24

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

May 30 2012, 9:56 PM 

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

You said "And I am also using another parallel to the change agents' argument with: "thou shalt not worship the Virgin Mary, 'Mother of God.'"
You cannot find either "thou shalt not" directive in Scripture;


YES, you can Mr. Cruz. SERVING ONLY HIM means exactly that.....thou shalt not serve anyone (yes, including the Virgin Mary) else.


 
 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