General Music Chat

There were people who were trying to bind the old testament law of Circumcision. He was saying If you are binding part of the old testament law, you have to bind all of it.

Paul also said that women should have their hair (head) covered in church. I noticed that NONE of the women in your church have done so.

What about that?

It appears someone found musical instruments to be bringing the devil's music, but seeing a woman's hair was ok, even though Paul said NO.

Picking and choosing isn't it?

Express your own beliefs all you want, but it’s probably the more cautious to leave observance and comparisons of other’s detached from that personal expression. Given the diversity of the internet I can guarantee this or any conversation like it, will eventually get ugly. I have read probably hundreds of threads similar to this and the first flaw is to apply any logic whatsoever to any matter regarding faith. I’m agnostic, you want my take on Christianity in its entirety, or any other religion for that matter?

If either method logic or faith had all the answers we really wouldn’t need the other in the first place and for those people that it does, they don’t. If any one religion had the perfect truth acceptable to all of mankind, there would only be one religion.

Unless you can come up with a logical debate to dispute my favorite color and then make it seem like you just didn’t insult my wife in its emotional attachment and intensity. Sooner or later someone trips over that invisible line and nothing but bad feelings and resentment are the result.

Your church has found that instruments are not mentioned as being used in service in the New Testaments church. Therefore, let's create a whole offshoot of Christianity that follows suit.

If we follow the new testament pattern for the Church then are we an offshoot or a sect? Or are we simply the Church that follows Christ or then... The Church of Christ..... with no prefixes or suffixes.

The logic still stands that he asked us to sing and we are singing therefore I am doing what he asked of me. No more no less.

The Church met in homes yes, because they were persecuted. We are now not persecuted. Meeting in homes just shows it's ok to meet anywhere. The building is not the church. It's just where the church meets. Mics and lights are just tools to get the job done. Lights are no different from the candles you suggest. The mic is the same as the boat Christ used to project his voice. They are not adding to the worship.

Yes we know the Sabbath was Saturday. Again old testament which we are not under.

Am I saying using instruments of music is a prohibited sin? No I am saying that he told us to sing so I do. And in doing what he requested I know i am pleasing to him. I also know that he didn't tell us to use instruments in the new testament church therefore I would not be certain that that is pleasing. In my theology I am certain it pleases.

Where do you draw the line when saying what is creating a division and what is standing for the truth?

Is quoting Romans 1:27 to someone creating division? Or is it instead rightly dividing?

Which of course reminds me of the abuse of the "judge not lest ye be judged yourself" verse, because clearly we are to tell a brother if they are sinning. "If your brother sins, rebuke him (cf. Matthew 18:15)"


As for me and my house....

Paul,

Yes, you are an offshoot. The "organization" which is the Church of Christ, grew out of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement of the nineteenth century. As such, it had an absolute date of origin, which is NOT 2000 years ago. Furthermore, if I have the right group, the churches of christ, broke away from this movement in 1906 because of the issue of musical instruments. Something you yourself admit is not prohibited in the New Testament, yet the group breaks away? That is the separatism I speak of.

If you believe you are merely returning to biblical roots and therefore you are the true church as established by Christ and his disciples, then why name it? You would be better off to follow the path of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee (look them up) and NOT give yourselves a name. Their strategy is much more uniting in that sense, although, they too, are an offshoot, and being the "nameless church" has, in itself, become a doctrine of sorts, and they certainly know who is "in" and who is "out" of their little group.


You seem to grasp the logic that just because the early church met in homes, does not mean that the church in the modern era must do the same, even though NOTHING in the New Testament commands building physical buildings for churches. Why then do you not grasp the same logic regarding musical instruments? The early church could not afford monetarily, nor the time to practice and perfect musical worship, when they were often imprisoned for their faith. It was clearly a matter of convenience. They met when and where they could, and it was all rather unorganized.

You didn't answer me about head coverings. Paul was quite clear. What is your rationalization for that?

Again old testament which we are not under.

Well, we are certainly "under" some of it, or else we wouldn't find the Old Testament quoted so often in the New Testament.

I certainly agree that we don't need to stone our children to death for disobedience, as the Old Testament commands, but to hide under an umbrella and seemingly suggest that the Old Testament is useless and not a valid resource for spiritual understanding, revelation and a guide for living, is not tenable.

Christ followed much of the pattern of the Old Testament for his own personal worship, but also, seemed to "violate" many Old Testament rules of conduct, showing us that formal religious observance it is merely a guide for man, not a ball and chain.

It is the HEART Paul... the HEART, that God judges us by.

Express your own beliefs all you want, but it’s probably the more cautious to leave observance and comparisons of other’s detached from that personal expression. Given the diversity of the internet I can guarantee this or any conversation like it, will eventually get ugly. I have read probably hundreds of threads similar to this and the first flaw is to apply any logic whatsoever to any matter regarding faith. I’m agnostic, you want my take on Christianity in its entirety, or any other religion for that matter?

If either method logic or faith had all the answers we really wouldn’t need the other in the first place and for those people that it does, they don’t. If any one religion had the perfect truth acceptable to all of mankind, there would only be one religion.

Unless you can come up with a logical debate to dispute my favorite color and then make it seem like you just didn’t insult my wife in its emotional attachment and intensity. Sooner or later someone trips over that invisible line and nothing but bad feelings and resentment are the result.

Plenty of wisdom in there. But I'll discuss things with anyone who is willing to discuss them. I may learn something, and hopefully, so will they. I at least hope to give people something to think about and reflect upon.

hey, points to neanderdoode for not coming back with angst!
well done, whether we think you're right , wrong or whatever.

Gee, maybe we ought to have a religious views thread that allows everyone who wants to, to just put out there how they feel on all sorts of topics relating to faith, then it can easily be referred back to in any & all future wranglings!
I mean, dialogue...

crap, wheres that Guinness...

We of Christian faith are all offshoot sects. Ever hearof Martin Luther?
My good friend and Front man Ray lent me a movie on Martin Luther.
It is worth a look for anyone interested in history. And seems to be fairly accurate historicly speaking. I would truly like to sit and have a beer with Paul and Craig, (sasparilla for my friend Paul) I am sure that despite out diff, and opinions we could have an awsome conversation on Religion and walk out friends. Bravo Gentlemen.

Paul,

Yes, you are an offshoot. The "organization" which is the Church of Christ, grew out of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement of the nineteenth century. As such, it had an absolute date of origin, which is NOT 2000 years ago. Furthermore, if I have the right group, the churches of christ, broke away from this movement in 1906 because of the issue of musical instruments. Something you yourself admit is not prohibited in the New Testament, yet the group breaks away? That is the separatism I speak of.

If you believe you are merely returning to biblical roots and therefore you are the true church as established by Christ and his disciples, then why name it? You would be better off to follow the path of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee (look them up) and NOT give yourselves a name. Their strategy is much more uniting in that sense, although, they too, are an offshoot, and being the "nameless church" has, in itself, become a doctrine of sorts, and they certainly know who is "in" and who is "out" of their little group.


You seem to grasp the logic that just because the early church met in homes, does not mean that the church in the modern era must do the same, even though NOTHING in the New Testament commands building physical buildings for churches. Why then do you not grasp the same logic regarding musical instruments? The early church could not afford monetarily, nor the time to practice and perfect musical worship, when they were often imprisoned for their faith. It was clearly a matter of convenience. They met when and where they could, and it was all rather unorganized.

You didn't answer me about head coverings. Paul was quite clear. What is your rationalization for that?

Craig, Have you heard the restoration/reformation argument? If we restored it to the standard that is found in the new testament then we are the new testament church that Christ established and therefor not an offshoot. If we have named the Church after Christ the founder then we have only identified us as Christs followers. The Church then that follows Christ. As a matter of fact we didn't name the church. We took our name from the book of Romans. The churches of Christ salute you. Romans16:16 We are not following anyone else. Campbell only pointed out the obvious errors. We don't call ourselves the Campbell Church. Just like Martin Luther didn't want his name on any Church. People did that.

You can actually say that the Christian Church split from the Church of Christ because they wanted to bring in musical instruments. That's what happened after all. Bringing in musical instruments is an idea of men. That is clear. That is why it is easy for me to sing with confidence.

Two thoughts on head coverings are 1.The hair is the covering. 2. It was a localized tradition.

Concerning the old testament and being under it.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 1 Corinthians 13:10
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. Romans 15:4

The old testament is for us to learn history and the nature of God. We are not under any of the old law. The verse I posted earlier clearly shows that if we try to keep part of it then we are to keep all of it. Clearly we are not under the old (imperfect) law because the new law under Christ is perfect.

We are judged on our heart and we are also judged on our obedience. We are judged on our attitude and whether or not we follow the rules God has set up for us. Rules that keep us happy healthy and on the path to be with him.

Again lots of things aren't prohibited in worship. They don't have to be. They can't be actually. What would the bible be full of if those were the guidelines? Well, don't swing incense, don't let dogs in, don't carve images, don't, don't don't etc etc etc. It's not possible. Surely you've heard the term speak where the bible speaks, be silent where the bible is silent.

You never seem to address my logic that he commanded singing, and that he didn't command playing instruments. It does make sense that singing would be pleasing right? And it does make sense to you that he didn't command instruments right?

One more thought on the old testament, the nature of God, and adding to God's prescribed methods of worship. Remember Nadab and Abihu?

Lev 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. 2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

hey, points to neanderdoode for not coming back with angst!
well done, whether we think you're right , wrong or whatever.

It's easy! I am just coming from the right heart. I want to share what I have learned through prayerful study. I actually posted in the other tumultuous threads a while back that if we can just be civil we can throw opinions, scriptures, and facts back and forth then we can each think on these things. But thanks for noticing

The old testament is for us to learn history and the nature of God. We are not under any of the old law.

You are slightly mistaken in this. You seem to be trying to extend this to mean that we are not to follow any of the Old Testament, as you mentionedm it is a good history book.

This is a misunderstanding of Christ's offering on the cross.

The Old Testament did not suddenly become only useful as a history book. What we are freed from is very specifically, the Law of Moses, which consisted of 613 rules and regulations that the Israelites were commanded to follow. It does not, in any way, mean that we are to suddenly not take counsel at all in the Old Testament as a whole.

Christ's freeing us from the law, did not in any way, for example, make the Psalms suddenly useless.


These verses are not suddenly invalid...


"Clap your hands, all you nations; shout to God with cries of joy." (Psalms 47:1)

"Sing for joy to God our strength; shout aloud to the God of Jacob! Begin the music, strike the tambourine, play the melodious harp and lyre." (Psalms 81:1-2)

"Shout for joy to the LORD, all the earth, burst into jubilant song with music; make music to the LORD with the harp, with the harp and the sound of singing, with trumpets and the blast of the ram's horn -- shout for joy before the LORD, the King." (Psalms 98:4-6)

"Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet, praise him with the harp and lyre, praise him with tambourine and dancing, praise him with the strings and flute, praise him with the clash of cymbals, praise him with resounding cymbals." (Psalms 150:3-5)


Additionally, you are not quite addressing my pointing out the hypocrisy of this stance.

Does your church have hymnals? A song leader? (clearly, cause I saw you there doing a fine job of it. LOL)

The New Testament is also "silent" on hymnals and song leaders. Should we not then assume that since these are not "commanded" that we should avoid them as well?

The fact is, that you probably enjoy being a worship leader, and clearly, you would no longer be one there, if you challenged this position of your church.

It is very sad, when the Bible can be read to understand that God himself, gave us the ability to create musical instruments, had an entire tribe of the "chosen people" fulfill the role of using such instruments in service, and just because the early church was too poor and too busy to include instruments in church services, now we cannot honor God in church, with the musical instruments he himself blessed us with?

Especially sad, is the person who may be mute, but could still make an offering of music through an instrument. Sure, god hears our hearts, but this person is excluded from sharing publicly with brothers and sisters, because of a legalistic attitude, which is hypocritical and not applied to all aspects of worship.

Don't you think it is possible, that someone merely didn't feel that instruments were truly religious offerings, and so he formed a whole new religion out of his personal disdain?

I actually went to a church that believed that anything with a beat was of the devil, because allegedly, Africans worshipped demons in this way. So all rhythms or beats were necessarily evil.

Our Heavenly Father must be so miserable with such pettiness, in the guise of higher worship. Christ's disciples ate with unwashed hands, BEFORE Christ had died. Not because God gave them a special dispensation, but because God looks upon the heart. These men were putting everything on the line for the testimony of Christ, their hearts were right. Washing their hands was a sign of committment to OTHERS, not to God, who knew their hearts already. Similarly, applying new laws to yourself, is merely an exercise for show, and has NOTHING to do with your soul, or God's ability to know it.

Revelations has several examples of musical instruments being used to worship God in heaven. How then is the use of musical instruments suddenly NOT appropriate here? We could honor God with musical instruments in the Old Testament, and we can worship God with musical instruments in the FUTURE in Heaven. Just not here, right? And you think this makes sense?

Jesus told the story of the prodigal son, clearly a parable of God welcoming his lost children back into the fold. Musical instruments were used in celebration, in the "father's house" (church). Why would Christ mislead us like this? If musical instruments were really not appropriate in the father's house, why would Christ include them?

You claim "silence" as some sort of admonition, and yet there is MORE evidence that instruments are appropriate tools for worship, than there is supposed "silence" on the matter.

Rightly dividing the word of truth?

I don't see that happening with your organization.

You claim to be freed from the law, yet you have enslaved yourselves to all new laws, and not even laws of God, but laws made of man, through sloppy biblical study, or more likely, simply personal disdain, or ego.

After all, I get to be better than you, when I follow some "law" that you aren't following.

That is the legalism that caused the Jewish people to send Jesus to death and reject him as Savior. Is it not possible that many New Testament churches, are repeating this horrible mistake, with their own brand of legalism?

I would truly like to sit and have a beer with Paul and Craig, (sasparilla for my friend Paul) I am sure that despite out diff, and opinions we could have an awsome conversation on Religion and walk out friends. Bravo Gentlemen.

Sounds good to me. Jesus drank wine after all, though many pastors like to lie to their congregations about this fact.

Sorry, couldn't help myself!

The fact is, that you probably enjoy being a worship leader, and clearly, you would no longer be one there, if you challenged this position of your church.

Actually that is another example of how we are the original church. We follow the scriptural examples and commandments - meaning if I came to the elders (scripturally qualified leaders) with a scripture that contradicted what we do they would change it. I've seen it happen.

Additionally, you are not quite addressing my pointing out the hypocrisy of this stance.

Does your church have hymnals? A song leader? (clearly, cause I saw you there doing a fine job of it. LOL)

The New Testament is also "silent" on hymnals and song leaders. Should we not then assume that since these are not "commanded" that we should avoid them as well?

This again is an example of tools that help us with the "decently and in order" commandment. 1 Corinthians 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

If I asked you to paint the walls in my house and do a good, neat job that would require certain tools.

You would need a ladder (the song book) and a paint brush (the microphone) If you decided to do relief carvings on the walls that would be the piano.

Then you wouldn't be painting you would be carving.

You claim "silence" as some sort of admonition, and yet there is MORE evidence that instruments are appropriate tools for worship, than there is supposed "silence" on the matter.

Yet there is no evidence that instruments were used in the Church that Christ established. None. It is in the old testament, just like poligamy, and other things God "winked at" (tolerated)

And Craig you never adressed the soundness of he asked for singing, we sing, it makes sense.

By your reasoning we could add burgers and fries to the Lords Supper, we could add Hot rods doing smoky burnouts in the parking lot. It's not prohibited right?

The fact still remains that if you follow the new testament pattern you can know you are pleasing to God. Otherwise it's up in the air. The old testament according to the 2 verses I posted is "for our earning" I am quoting there. So I know that is right.

The Nadab and Abihu strange fire story is a clear example of man thinking he knows what God wants .... and being wrong.

Since God is not the author of confusion, and since he gave us his clear written will, why not just follow it? That is exactly what we do when we sing without instruments. It could not be clearer to me.

Yet another clear example of man not being able to guess the will of God is numbers 15:3

And will make an offering by fire unto the LORD, a burnt offering, or a sacrifice in performing a vow, or in a freewill offering, or in your solemn feasts, to make a sweet savor unto the LORD, of the herd or of the flock:

Burnt hair a sweet savour? Wow, who would have thought that burning hair would smell good? Well apparently it did to God.

That's why we follow what he asked.
Now those are several scriptural examples of why we sing and why we don't add instruments. It seems like that should be enough.

Now here are a few of my personal theories as to why he didn't ask for musical instruments in worship.
1. Some churches might get holier than though attitude because they can afford a bigger better instrument
2. Some people may get lazy and hide behind the playing of instruments
I know I've been to churches where they all sang in unison. Laying back behind the organ.
3. perhaps God prefers to enjoy his "handywork" over ours. maybe he is proud of the human voice, and the human ability to vocally harmonize.

Those are just my personal thoughts on the matter.

You claim to be freed from the law, yet you have enslaved yourselves to all new laws

You can live by faith, walk in the light, do things with the right heart, and follow the clear instructions on life, and worship. I happen to believe you must. Otherwise it's all opinion - a fallible man's opinion. And yes I am enslaved to the law. I am enslaved to Christ. I am a willing slave or servant.

1 Corinthians 7:22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.

I would truly like to sit and have a beer with Paul and Craig, (sasparilla for my friend Paul) I am sure that despite out diff, and opinions we could have an awsome conversation on Religion and walk out friends. Bravo Gentlemen.

Sounds good to me. Jesus drank wine after all, though many pastors like to lie to their congregations about this fact.

Sorry, couldn't help myself!

I am sure we all would talk and share and remain friends. We are good people after all. We are all sharing our views from the right heart!

OK Craig I too can't help myself. Wine was translated from 3 words. Just like love was translated from 4 words. The 3 words for wine meant fermented grape juice or what we call wine, unfermented grape juice, and even grapes still on the vine! One thing we know about Christ is that he was sinless. Therefore he never tempted any man. Jesus is God right? Well.....

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Since he could not tempt us would he have served alcohol to the wedding party? We all know alcohol lowers inhibitions or tempts us. And why was it that they asked why they "Saved the good wine till last?" The good wine was the freshest or least fermented. And since Jesus had just made it I think that further indicates it was fresh and not fermented.

And before anybody tries the "one glass of wine a day is good for the body" Lets not forget that the exact same benefits are found in unfermented wine or grape juice. The same benefits with none of the hangups, temptations, lowered inhibitions and *gulp* bad example.

*Ducks for cover*

Ah yes he did serve wine, new wine is less or not fermented. Wine sans alchohol spoils. The point behind the wine is water is contaminated. The best wine of the house was fuly fermented and therfore a healty drink like true beer is good for the body.Old wine is vinigar as offered to Jesus on the cross. Satin tempts man. Not man. Not Jesus. All temptation is of satin. satin is the origin, mankind is the vessel of transport or the transformer if you will. Even the original sin we bear as mankind is from satin. satin sucks and Jesus kicked his ass for us.
Here I stand on the edge of the lake of fire flipin satin off cause I know in the end through Jesus, I WIN! The rest is a history discusssion and truly irrelevent.