Its unauthorized to say that silence equals a command of God.

[- DRA -]

Wow, did God not give us logic to use? When I think of the Bible being silent I think of something that is NOT talked about at all. Such as... Should a microphone be used in the worship service. The bible does not speak of it, it is silent. OT to NT-- Was it okay, in early church times, for a person to touch a person with leprosy because the NT does not forbid it? Would he still be at danger of contracting the disease? God gave us logic to use

Rather than logic, I believe you have presented the difference between specific and generic authority. An example of specific authority is discussed in Hebrews 7:13-17 & 8:4. The word "teach/preach" in Mark 16:15, Matthew 28:19, 2 Timothy 4:2. Although the command is specific to teaching the gospel of Christ, the "how" is a general command (no specifics are given). Thus, various means of teaching or using expediences (those things that aid or assist in doing what is authorized - 1 Cor. 6:12) to help teach are generically authorized.

As far as the O.T. writings are concerned, for sure we can learn from those writings today, but it is NOT our law for us to follow (Romans 15:4).

 

[crawfish]

If so, then let me ask you this: When you worship and you sing and play an instrument, do you have any part of the song where only instruments are playing and there's a pause in the singing? If so, then you are using instruments in that part with no singing, thus equalling the use of gopher wood and non gopher wood.

I have a friend that goes to a church where they use instruments in their worship. He claims there's nothing wrong with using instruments because he's singing too. Well, he invited me to church with a few weeks ago, and they had long instrumental openings and instrumental only sections during the songs. This meant that people weren't singing but still playing instruments and worshiping in a way that God did not command, thus substituting (even if only for 15 seconds at a time) instruments for singing.

Do you have a problem with songs that have parts where only one group sings (altos/tenors/etc)? Would you have a problem with someone singing a solo during church? Does the command to sing mean that each time a song is sung every person needs to be singing, or is it ok as long as you're singing most, or some, of the time? At my church we have a "worship team", and sometimes the first verse will be sung by a soloist and we all join in for the second verse (or the soloist sings the verse, we sing the chorus). We do not use instruments in my service. Is this wrong?

How about announcements? I don't recall any verses that authorize announcements during service, yet they're a part of pretty much every cofC service I've ever been to. Is it ok that we're doing something during service that isn't one of the "five parts of worship"?

 

[- DRA -]

So are you saying that if Noah had used gopher wood and another type of wood, that he would have been sinning because parts of the ship would have had no gopher wood on them?

If so, then let me ask you this: When you worship and you sing and play an instrument, do you have any part of the song where only instruments are playing and there's a pause in the singing? If so, then you are using instruments in that part with no singing, thus equalling the use of gopher wood and non gopher wood.

I have a friend that goes to a church where they use instruments in their worship. He claims there's nothing wrong with using instruments because he's singing too. Well, he invited me to church with a few weeks ago, and they had long instrumental openings and instrumental only sections during the songs. This meant that people weren't singing but still playing instruments and worshiping in a way that God did not command, thus substituting (even if only for 15 seconds at a time) instruments for singing.

Also, you say that no one ever mentions the use of ropes and hammers and nails and such, even though God was silent on them. Let me clearify please: A hammer, nails, and rope are, I imagine, neccessary in order to build a boat (having never built one myself, but simply using common sense). Therefore, in order fo the gopher wood to be made into a boat, Noah would need to use a hammer, nails, rope, tar, etc. But in order to sing, instruments are not neccessary. I can sing without playing guitar, but I can't build a boat without my nails.

I apologize for the long post and I hope you read it, and I apologize cause I know you didn't want this to turn into an IM discussion., but I was already here, so...

First, hope your bad haircut grows out and corrects itself.

Second, you bring up interesting points. Some of us have been involved in numerous thread discussing instrumental music in the past. Obviously, some are looking past the points made in Genesis 6 and realize the implications of specific authority and how it should be applied to instrumental music. One thing that is being overlooked is that God generally authorized Noah to "build" in Genesis 6, but did not generally authorize "music" in Eph. 5:19, nor in Col. 3:16. In fact, God specified what to do (sing), what to sing (psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs), what is accomplished when we sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (speaking to one another - Eph. 5:19; teaching and admonishing one another - Col. 3:16), and where the melody should come from (your heart - Eph. 5:19 - not the mechanical instrument of music).

Think of the story of Jonah. God told Jonah to "go" to Nineveh (1:2). Jonah went - but NOT to Nineveh. Therefore, he did part of what God said, but did not go to the specific city God told him to go to. Therefore, was God pleased by Jonah's partial obedience? Unless I'm badly mistaken, God didn't specifically say, "Jonah, you are forbidden to go to Tarshish." In fact, we would say that God was silent about Tarshish. Therefore, we (and our friends that we study with) must decide whether or not going to Tarshish was acceptable when God said go to Nineveh. Just threw this in for free. You see, this issue isn't about IM at all. It's really about a lot of Bible stories and what we should learn (Romans 15:4) from them to follow in the footsteps of the faithfull - avoiding the way of the disobedient.

 

[crawfish]

First, hope your bad haircut grows out and corrects itself.

Second, you bring up interesting points. Some of us have been involved in numerous thread discussing instrumental music in the past. Obviously, some are looking past the points made in Genesis 6 and realize the implications of specific authority and how it should be applied to instrumental music. One thing that is being overlooked is that God generally authorized Noah to "build" in Genesis 6, but did not generally authorize "music" in Eph. 5:19, nor in Col. 3:16. In fact, God specified what to do (sing), what to sing (psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs), what is accomplished when we sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (speaking to one another - Eph. 5:19; teaching and admonishing one another - Col. 3:16), and where the melody should come from (your heart - Eph. 5:19 - not the mechanical instrument of music).

Think of the story of Jonah. God told Jonah to "go" to Nineveh (1:2). Jonah went - but NOT to Nineveh. Therefore, he did part of what God said, but did not go to the specific city God told him to go to. Therefore, was God pleased by Jonah's partial obedience? Unless I'm badly mistaken, God didn't specifically say, "Jonah, you are forbidden to go to Tarshish." In fact, we would say that God was silent about Tarshish. Therefore, we (and our friends that we study with) must decide whether or not going to Tarshish was acceptable when God said go to Nineveh. Just threw this in for free. You see, this issue isn't about IM at all. It's really about a lot of Bible stories and what we should learn (Romans 15:4) from them to follow in the footsteps of the faithfull - avoiding the way of the disobedient.

That's a bad metaphor because the instruction to Jonah was specific. Was Jonah to "assume" a particular mode of travel? Could he not use a camel because camels were not authorized by scripture but walking or riding a donkey was?

 

[Splayd]

Jesus was NOT authorized to be a Levitical priest; rather, He was a priest after the order of Melchizedek.

That is such a weak argument. Of course Jesus wasn't authorised to be a "Levitical" priest.

For sure, it didn't seem to be such a mess to Noah. He did as God instructed.

No it didn't and we have no evidence that he approached the situation according to your understanding either.

Just for interest sake, would you categorize the man of God in 1 Kings 13 as being entangled in "legal mumbo jumbo"?

How about Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10?

 

[Splayd]

As far as the O.T. writings are concerned, for sure we can learn from those writings today, but it is NOT our law for us to follow (Romans 15:4).

BUT only the bits you agree with right? The bits that support your position show us "principals" and the parts that don't were nailed to the cross. Right?

 

[Splayd]

The difference is with "instead of" - no gopherwood is used and "in addition to" means gopherwood plus some other wood is used, the two are not equivalent. We are talking about the ark, not parts of it.

You seriously think this is an adequate counter to my point?

If Noah made an ark out of "gopherwood and pine" then he made it out of "gopherwood and pine". If he made it out of "gopherwood", then he made it out of "gopherwood". Every place he uses pine, he necessarily uses it instead of gopherwood. There simply isn't a need to look any deeper into this.

 

[- DRA -]

"Where the BIBLE speaks, we speak; and where the BIBLE is silent, we are silent."

I guess the question is, "who decides whether the Bible is silent or whether it speaks on specific issues?"

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (KJV)

And, the same passage in the NASV says,

"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth."

The Koine Greek word for study or be diligent means to make haste (use speed) and to apply oneself.

 

[- DRA -]

Isn't part of the problem here that an over-empahsis is placed on what happens for an hour or so on Sunday morning? (or Sunday night) Yet...often times the same strict regulations are not even considered in daily life?

Not at all. The silence of the Scriptures isn't just a study about instrumental music (which I assume you are referring to), but about the way we view/interpret/apply Scripture period. Frankly, once a person allows themself the liberty of deviating from one particular passage of Scripture, then they will do the same with others.

Ever studied Matthew 4:5-7? In a nutshell, the devil quotes Psalm 91:11-12. Jesus then quotes Deuteronomy 6:16. Closely consider the context of Deuteronomy chapter 6. It is silent about jumping from the top of the temple. However, Jesus applied that passage to that very situation. Was His use of Scripture correct or incorrect? If correct - which I assume we agree that it was - then it gives us an aspect of silence that must be considered for us to understand how to correctly apply biblical principles. Give it some thought.

 

[- DRA -]

The difference is with "instead of" - no gopherwood is used and "in addition to" means gopherwood plus some other wood is used, the two are not equivalent. We are talking about the ark, not parts of it.

I have some questions:

Does the specifying of one thing in and of itself preclude anything else?

Could God have specified another wood as well as gopherwood? Question: does the act of specifying one thing in and of itself prohibit anything else?

If "yes" this means that because God specified gopherwood, therefore He could not have also specified pine if He wanted and said " Build an ark of gopherwood and pine"?

If "no" then what does the prohibiting?

Is it that it because God only specified one thing (gopherwood) that it excluded another things (other woods) being used?

Put another way: is it because God was silent about other woods and commanded gopherwood, that makes gopherwood the only acceptable wood?



Refrus

Frankly, I'm not sure at all where you are coming from nor where you are going.

Why not consider what the point made in Hebrews 7:13-17 & 8:4? See if it doesn't answer the questions you ask.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Think of the story of Jonah. God told Jonah to "go" to Nineveh (1:2). Jonah went - but NOT to Nineveh. Therefore, he did part of what God said, but did not go to the specific city God told him to go to. Therefore, was God pleased by Jonah's partial obedience? Unless I'm badly mistaken, God didn't specifically say, "Jonah, you are forbidden to go to Tarshish." In fact, we would say that God was silent about Tarshish. Therefore, we (and our friends that we study with) must decide whether or not going to Tarshish was acceptable when God said go to Nineveh. Just threw this in for free. You see, this issue isn't about IM at all. It's really about a lot of Bible stories and what we should learn (Romans 15:4) from them to follow in the footsteps of the faithfull - avoiding the way of the disobedient.

That's a bad metaphor because the instruction to Jonah was specific. Was Jonah to "assume" a particular mode of travel? Could he not use a camel because camels were not authorized by scripture but walking or riding a donkey was?

Note carefully what I said. I did not say that God specified the mode of travel that Jonah was to use. I focused on the city that God told him to travel to. Nineveh was specified. God was silent about Tarshish. However, Jonah went there and did not obey nor please God. Agree?

As for the mode of travel, no specific instructions were given, therefore Jonah could choose the means that was available to him. Would you agree, or would you speak on God's behalf and restrict Jonah to a particular mode?

 

[crawfish]

Note carefully what I said. I did not say that God specified the mode of travel that Jonah was to use. I focused on the city that God told him to travel to. Nineveh was specified. God was silent about Tarshish. However, Jonah went there and did not obey nor please God. Agree?

As for the mode of travel, no specific instructions were given, therefore Jonah could choose the means that was available to him. Would you agree, or would you speak on God's behalf and restrict Jonah to a particular mode?

I doubt God would care if Jonah went to Tarshish if he then proceeded to Ninevah. However, God was SPECIFIC about where he wanted Jonah to go; he wasn't punishing him for going to Tarshish, he was punishing him for NOT going to Ninevah.

It's not a silence issue. It's an obedience issue.

 

[abadhaircut]

Do you have a problem with songs that have parts where only one group sings (altos/tenors/etc)? Would you have a problem with someone singing a solo during church? Does the command to sing mean that each time a song is sung every person needs to be singing, or is it ok as long as you're singing most, or some, of the time? At my church we have a "worship team", and sometimes the first verse will be sung by a soloist and we all join in for the second verse (or the soloist sings the verse, we sing the chorus). We do not use instruments in my service. Is this wrong?

How about announcements? I don't recall any verses that authorize announcements during service, yet they're a part of pretty much every cofC service I've ever been to. Is it ok that we're doing something during service that isn't one of the "five parts of worship"?

If someone was to use musical instruments in their worship and have a part that was instrumental only, it's completely different from having the altos or tenors or whatever each sing their own part and maybe each sing a part alone, because the command to sing is still being fulfilled. If one is playing a guitar and there is no singing, then the command to sing is not being fulfilled.

 

[crawfish]

If someone was to use musical instruments in their worship and have a part that was instrumental only, it's completely different from having the altos or tenors or whatever each sing their own part and maybe each sing a part alone, because the command to sing is still being fulfilled. If one is playing a guitar and there is no singing, then the command to sing is not being fulfilled.

The command to sing is being fulfilled in either case because everybody sings. Just not at that moment.

The logic ONLY makes sense if you're trying to justify yourself. Everybody else just scratches their head.

 

[- DRA -]

BUT only the bits you agree with right? The bits that support your position show us "principals" and the parts that don't were nailed to the cross. Right?

Where did this come from? Let's be mature. If I have made an error or mistake, point it out and we'll discuss it. The O.T. has many lessons that we can learn from (assuming that you do acknowledge what Romans 15:4 says).

As for Colossians 2:14, please explain what I misunderstand about that passage. Don't be silent about the matter.

 

[Loveaboveall]

Where did this come from? Let's be mature. If I have made an error or mistake, point it out and we'll discuss it. The O.T. has many lessons that we can learn from (assuming that you do acknowledge what Romans 15:4 says).

As for Colossians 2:14, please explain what I misunderstand about that passage. Don't be silent about the matter.

I have done much study on this subject and have remained silentD ) to avoid starting up trouble, but....

You bring up the subject of Col 2:14 Lets take a look at this verse and the surrounding verses for context.

Colossians 2:12-17 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; [And] having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

Just a few questions:

1) What is the handwriting of Ordinances that was against us and contrary to us?

2) What does it mean "Which are a shadow of things to come"?

3) What is the "meat, drink, holy days, new moons, and sabbaths"?

Is the Handwriting of Ordinances the whole old testament? Is ALL of the old testament against us and contrary to us? Would it not be better to view these verses as speaking of sacrafices and ordinances that God required of the Children of Israel that all pointed to Jesus? Would this not be a better interpretation of "shadow"?

It seems that the baby has been thrown out with the bath water when we assume that the "law" was the whole of all the writings before pentecost.

The answer to question #3 can be found in leviticus 23, and Exodus 29 and 30. All of these are related to the earthly priesthood and the sacrificial system setup at mt Sinai for the children of Israel that all pointed to Jesus. They were the shadow of things to come. When the "thing"(Jesus) came there was no further need for the shadow for the real was here. Basic type/antitype. My point being this only includes the things that pertained directly to Jesus and pointed to His coming.

Look at Galatians 3:10

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Paul quoted this from:

Deut 27:26 Cursed [be] he that confirmeth not [all] the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.

The Handwriting of Ordinances can be found in Exodus through Deuteronomy. Those things which were a type of Christ and were no longer needed because of His perfect sacrifice. Isn't that why the veil in the temple was torn from the top down, signifying the end of the sacrifices that all pointed to Jesus?

Just some thoughts on the subject of Colossians 2, which hopefully will stimulate some discussion.

 

[Loveaboveall]

Maybe we can discuss the issue raised above at this thread that Splayd started.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=35780314#post35780314

 

[Everlasting]

The only reason a person would have to use justification in the presence of judgement, is in the presence of man's judgement. Putting ourselves into rememberence includes alot of things, including God doesn't have time for he said, and she said. I doubt there will be much bargaining or listening to explainations about who's is right, and who's wrong in His presence. We all know that the world puts us in position to sin. But if continuing and finding ways to praise God, through continual repentance doesn't clear the hurdle, no one person is entitled to a personal opinion, about another's trial of faith. Each person's walk of faith includes how much iniquity their soul can bear, and no one is above chastening . Charity in the world does not include putting high gloss on someone else's damnable sins, and attaching them to the greatest convenient/inconvenient struggles of our time. When God has had enough of someone, the wisdom imparted from the Word should lead us to the right conclusion. Holding steadfast in our convictions, until His Glorious Appearing.

Amen and Amen


Bible Inspired Author



Moon Over Key Biscayne
booksandmore.4t.com
bn.com

 

[RefrusRevlis]

You seriously think this is an adequate counter to my point?

If Noah made an ark out of "gopherwood and pine" then he made it out of "gopherwood and pine". If he made it out of "gopherwood", then he made it out of "gopherwood". Every place he uses pine, he necessarily uses it instead of gopherwood. There simply isn't a need to look any deeper into this.

Hmm, are you saying a boat with gopherwood and pine contains no gopherwood?

Do the scriptures say "build an ark out of only gopherwood?

Refrus

 

[cremi]

Not at all. The silence of the Scriptures isn't just a study about instrumental music (which I assume you are referring to), but about the way we view/interpret/apply Scripture period. Frankly, once a person allows themself the liberty of deviating from one particular passage of Scripture, then they will do the same with others.

Ever studied Matthew 4:5-7? In a nutshell, the devil quotes Psalm 91:11-12. Jesus then quotes Deuteronomy 6:16. Closely consider the context of Deuteronomy chapter 6. It is silent about jumping from the top of the temple. However, Jesus applied that passage to that very situation. Was His use of Scripture correct or incorrect? If correct - which I assume we agree that it was - then it gives us an aspect of silence that must be considered for us to understand how to correctly apply biblical principles. Give it some thought.

Actaully, IM was only one of several "issues" I was thinking of when I made that statement.