Do Church of Christ Believe....

[jmacvols]

Again, you're drawing a non-existing distinction. Singing and playing is bad. Singing and reading is good.

Singing and playing is an addition, an alteration to what God said, one is no longer just singing.

Reading lyrics out of a book is an aid in singing, in doing what God said. I don't have the lyrics memorized. When one sings the lyrics he reads, he is still doing nothing more than what God asked, that is, sing. Reading alters nothing, because in the end he is just singing.

For the record, my dad agrees with you. It's causing no end to the discomfort between us that my congregation added an IM service a few months ago.

I have heard the arguments all my life. I grew up with the same biases you have. However, I cannot lie to myself that it all makes sense anymore. My parents aren't happy about it. My grandparents are probably rolling around in their grave.

So what happened to you?

But I have to be true to God, myself, logic, and common sense.

You not being true to God when you alter what He says. And how can you claim to use logic and common sense when you refuse to accept the difference between and aid and an addition?

 

[crawfish]

Singing and playing is an addition, an alteration to what God said, one is no longer just singing.

Reading lyrics out of a book is an aid in singing, in doing what God said. I don't have the lyrics memorized. When one sings the lyrics he reads, he is still doing nothing more than what God asked, that is, sing. Reading alters nothing, because in the end he is just singing.

Can I clap? Snap my fingers? Whistle? Twiddle my thumbs?

The only distinction is in your mind. It is NOT a distinction anyone would logically come up with on their own. Except, if you had no IM, those you just split from did, and you wanted to justify your position.

So what happened to you?

I let go of the biases I'd been raised with and looked at the issues for myself. I am a software architect - my position requires that I hold an overall view of large, complex systems, understanding how all the pieces fit together. That fits in with how I began to look at the issue - and it is far more than just IM. It is the tendency of the CofC to focus on the micro of scripture by word, phrase and verse, and to lose focus of the macro: the big picture of context using chapter, book and bible. The more I look into it, the more I realize that we have lost sight of the forest for the trees. We have sacrificed heart and grace for exactness.

Like I said, it causes problems in the home front. My brothers agree with me but haven't challenged it yet. My church of Christ just added an instrumental service; I have been forced to deal with it from that aspect. As much as I respect my parents and the memory of my grandparents (and my family's long history with the CofC/RM, going back many generations), I have to stand up for the truth.

You not being true to God when you alter what He says. And how can you claim to use logic and common sense when you refuse to accept the difference between and aid and an addition?

Our view of "common sense and logic" obviously differs. Honestly, I have talked about this with quite a few people and not a single person outside of the CofC has found our policies and justification of this logical. Are we just so blessed that God has provided us with the right viewpoint? Or are we deluding ourselves? It seems obvious to me the latter is true.

I do not dislike you, or the CofC. I am still a member and still attend a non-IM service. I am convinced that God's grace is great enough to span silly disagreements like this. My only issue with it is the opinion that it matters to God, and thus we are somehow more "right" than everybody else.

 

[Apollos1]

crawfish –

You seem disappointed in my last post to you. You mean that you do not want to continue our exchange in like fashion? What I would refer to as “kitchen talk”? You got back what you been giving.

You said - That's a lot of posting to not make a single point. If you're not going to respond to our challenges to YOUR interpretation of the scripture you have introduced, this conversation cannot be productive.
I have been responding. Your approach to discussion is too indirect to notice what I have been saying and to even say what you are thinking. It also shows some laziness – in my opinion.

You said - Problem is - you THINK you've introduced scripture that proves your point.
Ehh – I know I have shown that authority is needed and required. The lack of response… actual, true, direct response to the big “picture” of authority I have presented here reflects the lack of substance of your arguments. Who needs that?

You said - I have challenged your interpretation. You respond by asking me to post scripture to "prove my point", but have NEVER answered the challenges.
This is bogus. I answered everything you came up with and then some. Are you just trying to make yourself feel better about your lackluster reponses?
Example: I challenged your “interpretation” of Colossians 3:17 and how your got REFLECT out of it. I got paraphrase from you. I asked for a SPECIFIC word and definition for REFLECT and got ZIP! SO this response from you must be humor – but it ain’t funny.

You said - You go forward assuming that you're right and have no need to justify your interpretations - which is wrong, because the ENTIRE reason we're having this argument is because of your interpretation.
Odd, I used Acts 4:7 to “interpret” what it meant to do something in someone’s name and you have yet to respond to ACTS 4:7. I then offered you a word study on the SAME word for AUTHORITY – Greek “onoma”. What was your response? NADA. Is this more bad humor? You know crawfish, talk is cheap.

You say - I haven't bothered to quote OT scriptures because you'd just dismiss them anyway. In fact, you already have. I'll be more than happy to if you want. But first, will it really matter?
If I were as happy as you are with your lackluster responses, I would just hoard them and bring them out on Judgment Day. Why waste them now?
But YOUR position needed those scriptures because it was YOU and a couple of others doing some HEAVY rationalization saying you could “drag over” scriptures from the OT for NY disciples to use today. Even though I would have said that OT scriptures are invalid for NT disciples today, you may have sustained your point about IM in the OT. As it is, you have sustained nothing in reference to the OT use of IM. PJ did the same but he took it “on the chin” because he said he could, laughed about it, then got caught with his pantaloons down! You stood there just watching him flail about. I figure neither of you have anything to offer!

You said - The NT is absolutely, completely silent on the matter of IM.
This is why I know that YOU and all other IM proponents have no scripture and must go OUTSIDE of the NT or ignore it to get IM in your worship. But I agree with this so let’s move on!

You said - The logic that IM "adds" to worship in any way different than songbooks, four-part harmonies or microphones is so ridiculous as to be laughable.
I say laugh-up! If you can not see the difference between singing and playing (which you do because you have acknowledged a-capella music in this thread), that is, TYPES of music then you can not see through a ladder. SINGing any part – bass/tenor/alto/soprano does not change the TYPE of music. PLAYing is a different TYPE of music. Your thought is “music” of any type is okay because you do not appeal to scripture for your practices. (You never said if a Pope in Rome is okay. Just another point you have hidden from. Stack with those OT scriptures for IM – lol!).
I bet it would be okay with you to have ketchup with the Lord's Supper - wouldn't it?

You said - It's amazing that tradition can allow so many people to make that claim with a straight face.
There are too many people who claim to be in the coC that say IM is wrong – but have no clue as to why! I am not one of those. In counter, I am amazed at the number of people who claim to “follow” the Bible and ADD, INSERT, rationalize all manners of practices that the Bible mentions nothing about. Hey – is INFANT baptism okay?? How do you “feel” about that? Is that a different TYPE of subject to be baptized?

You said - I was really hoping you'd go into your interpretation of the Amos passage.
Why? I will never get yours and I know it. I won’t waste the time here.

You said - I'm disappointed you haven't. I'd be more than happy to give you mine.
Hey, that’s okay – I don’t need another paraphrase. I say stack that paraphrase with your OT scriptures authorizing IM and your answer about the Pope in Rome – lol!

You said - In a nutshell: my position on IM does not require an explicit scripture.
I would venture that none of your worship practices require scripture. Because you do not appeal to scripture none is needed at any other point – is it?

You said - I reject your view on silence; I reject your view on authority. Without those stances, your view on IM can hardly be sustained, and IM during worship CANNOT be wrong, in the same way that microphones, praise teams, songbooks, song leaders, four-part harmonies and overhead projections cannot. Prove the silence and authority positions and then we'll have something to talk about.
I dare say that you do not have a good view of how God deals with man and how He views His laws and word from the OT or the NT. I reject your NON-Biblical appeal to what you teach and practice.
I will say microphones, songs books, etc. do not change the TYPE of music in worship. Playin is still a TYPE of music God does not authorize. If God asked you today WHY you thought IM was acceptable in His worship, well… you have NOTHING to offer but rationalization. You tell God – “You did not say I couldn’t”!

You said - p.s. Here is the definition of "paraphrase". [noun 1.a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in another form, as for clearness; rewording] You don't seem to understand the concept. My use was the first item. Stop with the silly "reflecting" argument, it has no meaning.
I understand it and I can accept that definition. I don’t think you do. The problem with your paraphrase was that you WEREN’T paraphrasing - your meaning and the original meaning came out different. Therefore what you gave and what Slayd gave was NOT a paraphrase.
And the “reflecting” argument proves just that point. You say Colossians 3:17 says that disciples are to “reflect” Christ in their lives. While I agree with that principle, this passage is not saying that! That is why YOU can not give me the WORD in that passage that should be translated as “reflect” or similar. So yes, the “reflecting” argument has all the meaning in the world. It means YOU have no argument and no “paraphrase” – lol!

You said - pps. It is my nature to use my biting wit in posts. Feel free to ignore it. I apologize if I made anybody crack a smile. Haven’t felt the bite. But I love wit – can’t wait to see someone else’s.

 

[crawfish]

crawfish –

You seem disappointed in my last post to you. You mean that you do not want to continue our exchange in like fashion? What I would refer to as “kitchen talk”? You got back what you been giving.

All I want is a little logic.

I have been responding. Your approach to discussion is too indirect to notice what I have been saying and to even say what you are thinking. It also shows some laziness – in my opinion.

It's because I'm looking macro, you're looking micro. You want minuscule definitions of words, I want to view the passage in a larger context. We are at an impasse on this.

Ehh – I know I have shown that authority is needed and required. The lack of response… actual, true, direct response to the big “picture” of authority I have presented here reflects the lack of substance of your arguments. Who needs that?

You have done no such thing. Your interpretation of scripture has been challenged multiple times - yet rather than justify your position, you say "this word matches this other word, so they must mean the same thing". You completely ignore context. The way onoma is used in Acts 4:7 is contextually different than the way it is used in Col 3:17. I even posted that an alternate meaning for the word is "character", which fits the meaning of my paraphrasing (and the passage context) perfectly. IF that is the case, then the passage is NOT requiring authority for all things - it says instead that we must do all things knowing we represent the character of Christ.

Your attempts to ask for a translation to "reflect" are simply a way to lead the conversation out of uncomfortable territory. You knew what I meant; you've admitted that. You choose to not state why my contention is wrong.

If I'm lazy, then you're blind.

This is bogus. I answered everything you came up with and then some. Are you just trying to make yourself feel better about your lackluster reponses?
Example: I challenged your “interpretation” of Colossians 3:17 and how your got REFLECT out of it. I got paraphrase from you. I asked for a SPECIFIC word and definition for REFLECT and got ZIP! SO this response from you must be humor – but it ain’t funny.

This is an example of your tactic of avoidance. I stand by what I said.

Odd, I used Acts 4:7 to “interpret” what it meant to do something in someone’s name and you have yet to respond to ACTS 4:7. I then offered you a word study on the SAME word for AUTHORITY – Greek “onoma”. What was your response? NADA. Is this more bad humor? You know crawfish, talk is cheap.

Well, I just spelled it out for you. Now either speak up and tell me why I'm wrong, or shut up about the whole thing.

If I were as happy as you are with your lackluster responses, I would just hoard them and bring them out on Judgment Day. Why waste them now?
But YOUR position needed those scriptures because it was YOU and a couple of others doing some HEAVY rationalization saying you could “drag over” scriptures from the OT for NY disciples to use today. Even though I would have said that OT scriptures are invalid for NT disciples today, you may have sustained your point about IM in the OT. As it is, you have sustained nothing in reference to the OT use of IM. PJ did the same but he took it “on the chin” because he said he could, laughed about it, then got caught with his pantaloons down! You stood there just watching him flail about. I figure neither of you have anything to offer!

Asking for OT scripture when you don't want it is entirely different from asking us if we thought the "command" was carried over from the OT. I do not believe that to be the case. However: the OT passages pretty much prove that IM is NOT displeasing to God, and we cannot assume by His silence in the NT that it's all of a sudden changed. If you want some verses:

David told the leaders of the Levites to appoint their brothers as singers to sing joyful songs, accompanied by musical instruments: lyres, harps and cymbals.

And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.

Praise the LORD with harp: sing unto him with the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings.

There are many, many more. I'm not going to bother to post them all.

This is why I know that YOU and all other IM proponents have no scripture and must go OUTSIDE of the NT or ignore it to get IM in your worship. But I agree with this so let’s move on!

As we point out, the bible is silent on a great many things. You go OUTSIDE the scripture to justify some and criticize others for doing the same thing.

I say laugh-up! If you can not see the difference between singing and playing (which you do because you have acknowledged a-capella music in this thread), that is, TYPES of music then you can not see through a ladder. SINGing any part – bass/tenor/alto/soprano does not change the TYPE of music. PLAYing is a different TYPE of music. Your thought is “music” of any type is okay because you do not appeal to scripture for your practices. (You never said if a Pope in Rome is okay. Just another point you have hidden from. Stack with those OT scriptures for IM – lol!).
I bet it would be okay with you to have ketchup with the Lord's Supper - wouldn't it?

Your logic makes no sense to ANYONE outside of the non-IM CofC. It just goes to show that you can rationalize anything.

And no, I think ketchup on crackers is gross.

Seriously, where does the bible authorize unsalted crackers? I guess that's "pretty close" to unleavened bread, so I'm ok with it. I'm not going to dwell on the fact that their "breaking of bread" was more of a meal than we practice. A question: if you found yourself somewhere without access to the traditional bread/wine, would you a) skip it altogether, or b) take it with some other food, knowing the thought behind it was the same?

There are too many people who claim to be in the coC that say IM is wrong – but have no clue as to why! I am not one of those. In counter, I am amazed at the number of people who claim to “follow” the Bible and ADD, INSERT, rationalize all manners of practices that the Bible mentions nothing about. Hey – is INFANT baptism okay?? How do you “feel” about that? Is that a different TYPE of subject to be baptized?

Just because they rationalize doesn't mean that you don't.

Why? I will never get yours and I know it. I won’t waste the time here.

Yeah, I thought so.

Hey, that’s okay – I don’t need another paraphrase. I say stack that paraphrase with your OT scriptures authorizing IM and your answer about the Pope in Rome – lol!

If you must - the book of Amos is about social injustice. The passages I mentioned above are setting a scene of the opulent wealthy "practicing" their religion while not caring about the starving masses. A modern translation might capture the essence by having one of the participants say "let them eat cake!". The verse in question is provided for imagery; they appear religious, making music like David; they anoint themselves with oil to appear holy; but they do not care for the plight of the fallen (Joseph).

Feel free to rip it apart. Post your interpretation if you want. But you can't say I didn't reply.

I would venture that none of your worship practices require scripture. Because you do not appeal to scripture none is needed at any other point – is it?

My approach to scripture may be different, but my reverence for it is no less. Again, I look at scripture in a larger sense; words can only be seen in context of the verse; the verse, in context of the chapter. The chapter, in context of the book. The book, in context of the bible. A verse cannot mean something that its context does not allow.

You micromanage the scripture to the point you lose sight of this. I can't possibly see how you can interpret Col 3:17 the way you do if you read it in context of the scripture surrounding it. ONLY the alternate definition of onoma fits.

I dare say that you do not have a good view of how God deals with man and how He views His laws and word from the OT or the NT. I reject your NON-Biblical appeal to what you teach and practice.
I will say microphones, songs books, etc. do not change the TYPE of music in worship. Playin is still a TYPE of music God does not authorize. If God asked you today WHY you thought IM was acceptable in His worship, well… you have NOTHING to offer but rationalization. You tell God – “You did not say I couldn’t”!

I would say I have a much clearer view of how God views things, and the change from the OT to the NT. You would have God changing one set of laws for another. I would see God moving from a law-centered approach to a grace-centered approach.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

We are moving from a covenant that stressed strict adherence to the law, to a covenant focused on the heart.

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.

Christ's death and resurrection has removed the chains of sin and law. However, you would have us put the chains back on.

I understand it and I can accept that definition. I don’t think you do. The problem with your paraphrase was that you WEREN’T paraphrasing - your meaning and the original meaning came out different. Therefore what you gave and what Slayd gave was NOT a paraphrase.
And the “reflecting” argument proves just that point. You say Colossians 3:17 says that disciples are to “reflect” Christ in their lives. While I agree with that principle, this passage is not saying that! That is why YOU can not give me the WORD in that passage that should be translated as “reflect” or similar. So yes, the “reflecting” argument has all the meaning in the world. It means YOU have no argument and no “paraphrase” – lol!

You would have gotten farther telling me WHY my meaning was wrong. Now that I've fully justified my meaning, you can take it from there.

Haven’t felt the bite. But I love wit – can’t wait to see someone else’s.

Believe me, I bite my tongue FAR more often than not.

 

[Apollos1]

crawfish -

Good post - best you have given in the exchange between us.

At this point I am content to give you the last word as I am am content with my input. I also want to find time to start a thread on the need for Bible Authority - as mentioned to Slayd earlier.

However, if there is anything you need me to directly respond to - please ask. I will be happy to do that. I'll be around the "kitchen" somewhere...

 

[DerSchweik]

I've been a Christian some 26 years now and have not yet run into any who would make that case, though there are many who believe strongly on the topic, specifically that we should worship acapella only; but I have not heard such an extreme position where I have attended.

Speaking strictly for myself, I do not believe it should be a doctrinal issue. I do not think the Bible speaks that explicitly on the topic.

That having been said, I definitely PREFER congregational singing to instrumental music, primarily for these reasons:

Whenever I have attended worship services where instruments were employed, I felt the instruments "took over" the worship service such that they became the focus, a sort of "entertainment" that prohibited the congregation from participating themselves, let alone even hearing themselves.

But I am spoiled too - I attended a church where the singing was absolutely uplifting - 4-part harmony, good song leaders who knew what pitch to lead, good, spiritual songs that were fun and worshipful. I read music about as well as I read Russian, but I learned by being in a really good singing congregation and loved hearing the uplifted voices worshipping God to their fullest! Some of today's popular Christian songs are practically un-singable by a congregation, lending themselves more to accomplished, professional singers than regular people. And I've heard lyrics in some of today's modern songs that frankly, are just not scriptural or very worshipful.

I have also attended worship services where the song leader was a complete dud, the congregational singing about as dull as watching paint dry.

Good worship, in my opinion, requires the congregation be taught how to sing, requires spiritual, worshipful songs that are capable of being sung by a regular group of people, familiar songs that the congregation enjoys singing regularly, and a leader that is capable of leading the song worship without becoming its focus.

My primary problem with instrumental music, as I've experienced it today is that is has become the focus of attention, that the congregation is almost prevented from participating and instead relegated to viewing and hearing it as entertainment, the amplification so loud you can barely hear your own voice. I don't want to be entertained in worship! I want to participate with my fellow Christians in worshipping God without artifice, without amplification, without noise.

I prefer acapella, but acapella that is led properly, with a congregation that has learned how to sing (especially 4-part harmony), with songs that are known, easy to sing, and worshipful of our God.

Thus endeth the verbosity.