I find, that if I just sit down and watch, the world continues to run without me. On the other hand, I find that if I just stand up, I can run the world...
Dougie the Scriptures are not the living word. Christ is the living word who continues to breath through the Scriptures through the Spirit. "For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." The Scriptures are dead with the active Spirit.
Exactly what Colton wrote up there is, again, exactly what Paul is denying in 1 Cor 2. And is the point of my post. "You search the Scriptures, but..." you can't extract anything out of them by "our own minds" apart from God's leading. Thats why "No one can come to me unless my Father draws him."
In fact, Colton's comment is exactly why I wrote the post to begin with. To correct this prevalent understanding in the churches which leads to an improper understanding of what the Bible is and what its function is. Is the central guide our Spirit who uses the Bible as one of his tools? Or is our guide and source of "all truth" the Bible, with the Holy Spirit having some vague importance that can probably all be taken at this point to be in a passive role (having already deposited "all truth" in the first century)? Or, in short, is the center of our faith and everyday Christian living the "new covenant" or the "New Testament"?
I agree the New Covenant is different from the Old. I think christians tend to make the NT a lot more legalistic than it was intended to be. I agree that the Gospel is the power of God unto Salvation. All we have of the Gospel is what is written for our learning. On that note, all Scripture, not just the NT is inspired by God an profitable. I don't think the Spirit miraculously gives us knowledge of the Gospel, I believe we have to read it from the Scriptures. However, my big gripe is that the hermeneutic of direct command, approved example, and necessary inference has been misapplied. Obviously if the church is given a direct command by God it needs to be followed. There has always been dire consequensces for disobeying a direct command from God. However, I have a problem with treating examples and necessary infernces the same as commands. There really aren't a lot of direct commands given to the church. But again, my gripe is that an example (any examples we have in the NT of the church) is simply an application of either a law or a principle that had already been taught. If that law is written in the Gospels we too should follow it, but we should have the freedoms to follow laws and principles laid out in the entire Bible (not just the NT) and you can't do that if you treat the examples themselves and necessary inferences as "law" that are exhaustive and restrictive
We are told to hold fast to the traditions that the church was taught either by word or epistle. So as far as that goes we have a duty to search the Scriptures to find out what those were and to hold fast to them because of that command
I agree that the Spirit works in the kingdoms of men, works in our lives, and guides us into all truth as we read his Gospel. Without a doubt. I would not say that the Spirit is not active in our lives and in this world. I'm just saying that I don't think the Spirit gives me knowledge of the truth miraculously while im sitting on my couch...
A church building is an expedient, an expedient is a means to an end. A church building is a means to an end to what? Assemble? I'm wondering what kind of assemble are we using for the expedient of the building. Is it the command to not forsaking the assembling of the saints only? That command was probably referring to meeting on the first day of the week to break bread. So if that is our case, then authority for classrooms is questionable.
Or is the expedient to the examples of christians assembling other than on the first day of the week? If so why don't we have authority for a building for those purposes (purposes other than direct worship to God)? i.e. fellowship?
Comments?
Would it not be true that for people who do not know how to read music, that instruments would be an expedient, a means to an end of singing? Could not instruments be an aid to singing? If not why not? How is a powerpoint an aid to preaching and instruments not an aid to singing? I could ask, "if instruments aren't an aid to singing then what are they?" And you could answer, "A distraction." Well when you turn on your radio or ipod to listen to songs, and your singing along to it, would you classify the music as distracting? I doubt it. what would you describe it as?
Several people I know condemn even listenting to Christian music with instruments because it is "empty, vain, and therefore sinful". My question is, if you are condemning christian (spiritual) music, are you not condoning wordly (secular) music in its place? How does this fit with Col 3 "set your mind on things above and not on the things of the earth"?
Comments?
In Eph 5:19, is not the point that your heart should accompany your singing? Does the fact that there are instruments or not have anything to do with whether your heart is accompanying your singing? Even in a secular sense, if your trying to be the next American Idol, you won't win if your heart isn't in it. The fact that there are instruments involved doesn't change that. So obviously the fact that instruments are present doesn't negate the fact that your heart is accompanying your singing.
Comments?
We are so enammered by the letter of the law that we can't even applaud (a form of praise) at a baptism because we don't have a direct command, approved example, or necessary inference of applauding. And because of that it is not excluded, just not included, and therefore not authorized, and therefore vain (sinful). Basically saying that the NT is an exhaustive list of approved forms of praise, and anything outside of that is vain and therefore sinful.
Is this really what the NT is teaching? Does the NT teach this? We take examples from the OT where God had given them direct commands either by booming voice or legal documents, and try to apply it to the NT. Seeing that the NT is not written out in legal code, we use the case of authority to make it one, saying that everything is either authorized, or not authorized, sinful or lawful. Is that really what the NT teaches?
I'm not saying that there aren't commands given. And I'm not saying we shouldn't follow the traditions that the early church was given, either by Word or epistle. I'm just questioning our use of the hermeneutic of direct command, approved example, and necessary inference. Not that it is wrong, just misapplied.
When I can no longer applaud God or offer praises to him because that particular form of praise is not listed in the NT, I find it hard to be able to freely follow passages like Col 3, and Rom 12.
Again, it seems like our bodies can only be living sacrifices in as much as there is a direct command, approved example, or necessay inference to authorize it. Was this the intent of the NT writers?
Organized teaching necessitates a classroom or meeting place: that is authority from necessary inference. While it is true there has to be a meeting place, I would not say that necessarily authorizes a classroom or building. I would treat it as an expedient. Piano Kevin and Jeremy Jones argue classrooms are not authorized in every case, hence they are an expedient.
Suppose there is a house devotional singing, and your throat gets dry and you get up for a drink. Now your having a drink while every one else is singing. When you take a drink, you are (NOT fulfilling the command to sing) in the same way that if your playing a trumpet you are (NOT fulfilling the command to sing).
James 5:13 says, "Is anyone cheerful, let him sing psalms." Never mind that psalms were often put to music, do we treat that as a command in the same way we do Eph 5:19? If so you are (NOT fulfilling the command to sing) from that passage any time your cheerful and not singing.
Doug, your drink argument is really not logical. It is a fallacy argued from absudrdity. What I was saying is if someone is that obviously, if someone is playing with others singing, not all are singing. Therefore, some are not fulfilling the command to sing.
And if you can tell me a way to fulfill the command to sing while playing a trumpet, I'd sure like to know it. I was in band and believe me, it's not possible.
Just a quick comment about that. When there is singing going on, does everyone have to be sing or otherwise be guilty of not obeying the command? Could I not just sit and listen to what is being sung and be edified? We are told to speak to one another and to TEACH one another. In how many classrooms do teachers say, "I'm suppose to teach you so you need to talk while I'm talking?" If I am correct in understanding you, I think you believe that everyone must sing all the time. Why don't we apply that to other "one another" passages? Do we have to be hospitable to one another at the same time? Is that even possible? When Jesus told his disciples to wash one another's feet, did that mean they had to do it at the same time?
I say this just to make the point that just because someone isn't singing at a certain time, does NOT mean they are neglecting to fulfill the "command" to sing.
Dougie, what's your definition of "exhaustive"? I think you are misusing that word, but I'm just curious to hear what you mean by "exhaustive list". Maybe the NT is an exhaustive list, just not as long as you would normally see an exhaustive list to be.
I do believe the NT gives an exhaustive list as far as what a congregation can do as far as acceptable forms of praise. The OT gave a same type of list. This "applauding" God, I'm not sure if I would disagree with that, but would question why another form of praise listed in the NT would not be as good or obviously better than that. I'm just not sure what you mean by that.
And as far as the James question, I'll look into it more. I think the purpose of that passage is really to discuss the different sides of emotions that we as Christians can have. Sometimes we are in sorrow and are struggling. Sometimes we are very high spiritually. Take it a step further than your question? Can you sing when you are sorrowful? Can you pray when you are joyful? I like you question, maybe we could all explore that passage further? As far as I would say, that passage is just listing one of the reasons why we sing...and that is to express joy.
I want to say something about what "Kevin" said last. You can't teach if everyone's talking at the same time. That's disorderly, and the bible talks about doing everything in order. Singing together I think is a pretty clear concept. Different things are done in different ways.
I am posting what I said on Slaveof Jesus's blog here:I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but I got to the point where someone asked why Instrumental music is not an aid but an addition while powerpoint is an aid. So, I am respoding to that because I thought it was a good question. I just want to put this out there, though I'm sure it's probably been mentioned. We are commanded to teach. Powerpoint is a form of teaching. We are commanded to sing. Instrumental music is NOT a form of singing. So...Is it okay for someone to play an instrument in worship while everyone else is singing? Is the instrumentalist too concerned about playing the right notes in their instrument, and/or unable to sing while they playing? Now...I was thinking about that as well to see what they counter-argument might be. I have a CD with Jonny Cash singing hymns. He is strumming his guitar very lightly in the background. He is singing, and doing so with his heart as I should assume because otherwise I'm judging the intent of his heart, and can't fairly do that. If someone plays guitar to keep the church together and in tune, helping the tempo stay steady, much like a song leader does, while singing, is that wrong? I would be inclined to think it's not because the instrumentalist is following God's command, and doing so in spirit, with the proper intent. I think however, once you add instruments into worship services, it opens up all kinds of issues that lead to sin, such as , instrumentalists that can't sing at the same time, so they are given a job by the church to play, and thus don't ever sing. The potential is very likely, (I know this as a musician) to be more concerned about the notes, etc. I see the wisdom in drawing the line to keep instruments from entering for that purpose. However, I would not say that all circumstances with instrumental music are sin...I leave that up to God and the insrumentalists/people participating to decide on the judgment day, and say lets continue to discuss it so everyone can understand the seriousness of the issue from both perspectives. Those are my thoughts
I just think it doesn't make ANY sense that any time I hear "spiritual" music playing that I HAVE to sing along. I can sit and listen and be edified. Just like I can READ the psalms. Those were meant to be sung and yet, we read them. Personally, that's why I don't have any problems, scripturally, with listening to a group sing (chorus, quartet, etc.) I would never REPLACE congregational singing because I think it has tremendous benefit, but I just don't understand where some people get the idea that everyone has to be singing at the same time. I mean, even lots of songs that we sing are "call and response" type songs where the women sing 1 part and the men sing the second part. Is that wrong? Is it wrong to sing "Holy, Holy, Holy" where you add a part (Soprano, Alto, etc.) with each additional verse.
I definitely see the danger of our singing to God becoming a "performance" to be seen by men (although our singing is more to each other than to God anyways.) The focus should never be about the individual, always the message and the heart it is sung with.
I think you're right about that Kevin, and I understand your point now a little better. I guess the difference in that and not singing because you're playing an instrument is because with instruments you are focusing less on the words and more in the music aspect. Even though that is possible to do without instruments as well, I think adding instruments puts you in real danger of putting importance on the musical quality and less on the meaning of the words. I would feel uncomfortable not singing in worship, though I know sometimes due to sickness and throat issues there can be exceptions. But to purposefully add another aspect of music into it that would require someone to concentrate on the music aspect is more likely (though not always) to take away from the meaning. It's very dangerous and unwise especially in a situation where the group are gathered together and you start assigning people to play and they are stuck in that position and never are able to sing.
But I suppose the purpose of this discussion is not whether it's wise or not, but whether it's a sin. I think I made myself clear on where I think it becomes sin.
I too have a hard time seeing how its a sin if every one isn't singing, or singing at the same time. I just don't see that as Paul's point of that passage. And while it is true that powerpoint is form of teaching, it is an aid. A classroom is NOT a form of teaching but is an aid to teaching by providing a meeting place for all ages. IM is not a form of singing, but it is an aid to singing, as mentioned above with the Johnny Cash illustration
And the further we explore the aid vs. addition concept, the further we drift from scripture. Don't we see that whenever instrumental accompaniment is discussed, the scriptures get mistreated?
We start with a handful of verses that mention the word "sing", forget about what those verses actually say within their context, and end up debating whether or not we have to all sing at the exact same time, whether or not we can clap, and which specifics constitute an "aid", and which constitute an "addition".
See how far from the scriptures your have to go to condemn this? It profits nothing!
I think we can at least see the wisdom in staying away from it, understanding the contoversy it causes and division...but, I must admit, I didn't realize until recently the circles the argument can get into. I still see the benefit of keeping instrumental music out of the church, but don't think it can necessarily be regarded as sin. It becomes an endless dispute, which profits nothing, as you said. I wonder how often there are splits within the church over matters like this.
Ok...well we can discuss that. My main problem was it seemed like more than just questioning. Let's question it, study it, and see what happens. Maybe you are right, maybe I'm right...either way though, God is truly the one who is right.
the problem is that we cannot have a direct command, necessary inference, or approved example for every activity we do in our lives. Obviously christian living is just as important as worship and assembling. So why do we require it for worship and assembly activities? we need to apply the pattern the same way for both is what I'm saying. Currently, I don't see how you could claim that we do.
Well, lets try and get away from the "Church of Christ". Let's just use the Bible. Honestly, as strange as this sounds. I wish we could just start over as a church. Go back, read the NT, study it, and see what we are to do. I too question many things that we do. I'm on the other side though, I question things we do that might be additions. So you and I both agree, we have inconsistencies.
true, you read it once, and you get something from it. You read it again, the next day, and its not necessarily same old thing you read yesterday. Thats what I meant.
(Hi, Dougie! Yeah, I knew you were in TN. Doing the whole air traffic controller thing, right? How's it going? I'm still in Fla. I like it here--good people.)
Dougie, Praise God! I am sincerely glad to hear that our brethren are preaching on authority. I am sorry that you seemed to discount my entire article because it did not fit your personal experience. I would disagree with your conclusion. For example, in my 1st Corinthians class my sophmore year at FC, only 10 students out of 50 had heard of CENI. That's only 20%. Also the number of people that actually have a handle on the topic of authority are very few, (at least in my experience). For example, how many people who have supposedly been taught about authority understand expedients, aids, the law of universality, or the law of exclusion? Not many, sir. Not many at all. I think your conclusion that people are rejecting this because they find some many "inconsistencies" comes from your general approach or opinion to the topic of authority. No offense, but it seems that most people don't know about authority and by ignorance are subject to some people's claims that there are glaring inconsistencies and end up throwing it out without a proper investigation
well that's not good, people definstely need to investigate and study. I'm not at Florida College any more, so all I know is what I see at the churches I attend. And at the churches authority has been a topic of preaching from the pulpits
About your thoughts on Eph. 5:19 not being a command. The phrase "addressing one another..." is not the command, you are right. What is the command? Rather than be filled with wine, be filled with the Spirit (v.18). How does one do that? The answer is verse 19. Colossians 3 though I think is more straightforward. The context talks about how we are live as God's chosen ones. The whole passage is a list of things we ought to do as Chrstians. Again, the command is "to let the word of Christ dwell in you richly"...one way we do that is by singing.
Like I said on the other blog, Ephesians and Colossians do not exclude instruments. However, the point is they don't include them. I will never say they are excluded, only not included. I am curious as to your differing thoughts for either side, care to share?
Also, the parellelism you are wondering about between our command to sing and Nadab and Abihu is simply this. God told them what type of sacrifice to make. He didn't go into detail about which other kinds of sacrifices were unacceptable. He just said, do it this way. Similarly, in the NT, He tells us to sing. He doesn't go into detail..you can't use a guitar or piano. He just says to sing. Therefore, based on what happened in the OT when someone did something not explicity commanded as wrong...but at the same time not authorized, would it not be a reasonable assumption that singing is the only acceptable form of NT music for worship?
As far as worshipping with someone that believes in instrumental music I will say this. I do believe use of them in the worship is unauthorized. I do believe even listening to that type of contemporary worship music is in vain because it is empty. I also do believe that teaching that it is ok would be a problem in the scripture. But as long as it is neither taught nor practiced, I see no problem with Josh having thoughts. Teaching it as truth brings on bigger problems.
The Nadab and Abihu story, like any OT story where God specifically said do something one way, and they did it another (Moses struck the rock) and disobeyed, had consequences. Those consequences were in direct violation of God's booming voice or direct command written in legal form correct? I just don't see that being a good parallel to apply to Eph 5:19. Comments?
Evening listening to contemporary worship music is vain and therefore sinful: well if its helping your set your mind on things above and not on things of the earth, it is in accordance with Col 3, how could it be in vain?
Doug, we will not agree on this, until we agree on Scriptural authority. You and Josh are treading on some dangerous grounds... to use some of the Scriptures as you have have opened the door to give people all kinds of license to sin. Scary stuff...
Amy, Paul commands two things in Gal 5. One is to defend Christian liberties and not let them go. Two, he commands to use liberties, not as a way to indulge one's own flesh, but to serve others. Sin does not happen as a result of givng people back their liberties, but as a result of selfish people using liberties for their own belly. I assure you neither I nor Dougie have that motive. And, Amy, if you follow the discussion on my blog, it has a great deal to do with authority. I argue for general authority and I play by the rules, as far as I know. While I appreciate your words of caution, they are no substitute for an argument.
