Churches of Christ with or without instruments, which is the right way to worship?
- Thread starter Shava
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
- I forgot to add this to the one I just sent to you, sorry. The use of Psallo (yallw) in Eph. 5:19.
- Over time psallo has gradually changed in meaning. It first meant "to touch, twang, strike strings." Next it meant "to touch or play strings of harp." Later it meant, "to sing with the harp." At last it meant, "to sing praises." (without any thought of any instrument of music). The only time in the LXX that psallo meant play was when the instrument was specified in the context; otherwise it meant to sing (LXX 150 B.C.). In the New Testament psallo is used four times. It meant
- "sing" Rom. 15:9; 1 Cor. 14:15; James 5:13
- "make melody or make music" in Eph. 5:19. The maker of the music or melody is to be the heart. No instrument is even considered here except the heart itself.
While some have abandoned the idea that psallo requires the use of an instrument, they today suggest that it permits the use of the instrument in Ephesians 5:19. If this were so, the first readers of the epistle of Ephesians and early churches did not know it. If Paul indeed was permitting the use instruments, we are at a loss to explain why early churches so adamantly and uniformly opposed them. Actually, no ancient writer ever made the argument that psallo and psalmos permitted the use of instruments is worship. In fact, George P. Slade in 1878 was the first ever to argue that psallo or psalmos permitted the instrument even if the instrument is not mentioned. Early Christians never understood the context of Ephesians or Colossians to demand or permit instruments.
The first rule of hermeneutics in the study of words is that a word does not and cannot mean what the author and the first readers did not understand it to mean. Whatever the words psalmos and psallo meant to them, it could not have demanded or permitted the use of instruments. The universal opposition to the use of instruments among the early church fathers makes it clear they understood the epistles of Ephesians and Colossians to teach vocal music only
- Angela hope all is well. I think this may help you to be up to speed with the word psalms and what it actually means for us, the reason I say this I feel you seem to not know the word has had an update and this may be why you're not seeing the true meaning of it now. The use of Psallo (yallw) in Eph. 5:19.
- Over time psallo has gradually changed in meaning. It first meant "to touch, twang, strike strings." Next it meant "to touch or play strings of harp." Later it meant, "to sing with the harp." At last it meant, "to sing praises." (without any thought of any instrument of music). The only time in the LXX that psallo meant play was when the instrument was specified in the context; otherwise it meant to sing (LXX 150 B.C.). In the New Testament psallo is used four times. It meant
- "sing" Rom. 15:9; 1 Cor. 14:15; James 5:13
- "make melody or make music" in Eph. 5:19. The maker of the music or melody is to be the heart. No instrument is even considered here except the heart itself.
Everett Ferguson said of psallo, "If the precise meaning of certain verses may be in doubt, what is clear is that an instrument did not inhere in the word psallo in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, dating 150-250 BC). Psallo could translate a word meaning ‘play’ (nagan), or a general word (zamar). The meaning which would cover all occurrences is ‘make melody.’ This could include making melody on an instrument, but in the preponderance of occurrences it clearly refers to making melody with the voice." F. F. Bruce said of psallo in Eph. 5:19, "Nor should the etymological force of the terms be pressed, as though psalmos inevitably meant a song sung to the accompaniment of a stringed instrument…while such plucking of the strings is the original sense of psallo…it is used in the NT with the meaning ‘to sing psalms.’" In confirmation of this view, the Greek Orthodox Church (who knows Greek better than anyone) has never used instruments of music in worship.
While some have abandoned the idea that psallo requires the use of an instrument, they today suggest that it permits the use of the instrument in Ephesians 5:19. If this were so, the first readers of the epistle of Ephesians and early churches did not know it. If Paul indeed was permitting the use instruments, we are at a loss to explain why early churches so adamantly and uniformly opposed them. Actually, no ancient writer ever made the argument that psallo and psalmos permitted the use of instruments is worship. In fact, George P. Slade in 1878 was the first ever to argue that psallo or psalmos permitted the instrument even if the instrument is not mentioned. Early Christians never understood the context of Ephesians or Colossians to demand or permit instruments.
The first rule of hermeneutics in the study of words is that a word does not and cannot mean what the author and the first readers did not understand it to mean. Whatever the words psalmos and psallo meant to them, it could not have demanded or permitted the use of instruments. The universal opposition to the use of instruments among the early church fathers makes it clear they understood the epistles of Ephesians and Colossians to teach vocal music only
If you would like to keep talking hypotheticals that have very little relevance to Scriptural principles, go for it. And aside from Mr. Fergusons mental calisthenics (See #165), the Greek definition for "psalms" in the Ephesians and Colossians verses includes instruments. If would like to keep referring to gopher wood and work schedules to try and refute a Bible full of reference to worshipping with instruments, go for it. But my shoulder and hamstrings hurt from shoveling dirt yesterday. I don't have it in me to keep stretching with you.
And for those of you keeping score, I got to work this morning at 7:40am, even though my boss told me to be in by 8.
Happy early-Sabbath,
Matt
And for those of you keeping score, I got to work this morning at 7:40am, even though my boss told me to be in by 8.
Happy early-Sabbath,
Matt
Hey, hope all is well. The establishment of the Church of Christ is 33 A.D. Do you feel that there can be more than one church and more than one way to worship when God says he built his church and the bible tells us how to worship in that church. If that be the case, how can there be but one church and since there's one way to worship how do you determine which church is the right church to attend?
Implications of the Greek Term Psallo
for Church Music [SIZE=+1]By David Pyles[/SIZE]
Though musical instruments are never mentioned in the Bible as being part of New Testament worship, many justify their use in the modern church by saying they are implicitly authorized by a Greek word used in connection with singing in the New Testament. We believe this argument is invalid, and we undertake to prove this is the case in what follows.
The Greek word in question is the verb psallo. Controversy over this term also extends to the related noun psalmos. The controverted occurrences of these words are in: Rom 15:9; 1Cor 14:15,26; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16 and Jas 5:13. Advocates of musical instruments in church worship commonly claim that the first means to sing a psalm or hymn with the accompaniment of musical instruments, and that the second refers to a composition to be sung in such manner. We believe these definitions would be correct for earlier forms of Greek, but they are not primary definitions in the common Greek of New Testament times, and are never the intended definitions in the New Testament itself. The meaning of psallo there is simply "to sing a hymn" or "to sing praises." The meaning of psalmos is simply "a psalm" or "a hymn." These conclusions are based upon several considerations:
1) While nearly all authorities on New Testament Greek offer definitions of psallo allowing the idea of musical accompaniment, the tendency of these authorities, especially the most reputable ones, is to affirm these are not the meanings in the New Testament; rather, they affirm the term there simply means "to sing a hymn" or "to sing praises."
In his comments on 1Cor 14:15, A.T. Robertson, one of the most highly acclaimed Greek scholars, explains the meaning of psallo thus: "...originally meant to play on strings, then to sing with an accompaniment, and here apparently to sing without regard to an instrument." Hence, Robertson is of the opinion that the word does not imply instrumental music in the New Testament. He explains that the meaning of the word changed through time.
All authorities seem to agree that the earliest meaning of the word, hundreds of years before the New Testament era, was to "pluck, twitch or twang," as in "pluck" a hair, or "twang" a bowstring, or "twitch" a carpenter's line. At this early stage, the word had no special association with musical instruments. Then, as Roberston explains, the word evolved so that its meaning became to touch or play the strings of a musical instrument. Afterward, it meant to sing in accompaniment with such an instrument. But yet later, in the common Greek of the New Testament period, Robertson and other authorities affirm that the idea of an instrument had been dropped, so that the word simply meant to sing a hymn or to sing praises. The commonalty in all definitions is the idea of vibrating a string or cord. Since the human voice is also created by such vibration, it is possible that the meaning of the term was transferred to the voice along these lines. Whatever the explanation of its etymology, there is absolutely no doubt that the term has experienced the indicated changes.
Joseph H. Thayer, generally thought to be unsurpassed among New Testament Greek lexicographers, states that in the New Testament psallo means "to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song." Hence, Thayer and Robertson, both eminent authorities, agree that psallo does not suggest musical accompaniment in the New Testament.
The same may be said of Vincent, whose comments on the use of psallo in two controverted verses are:
Several other Greek authorities also express the view that psallo in the New Testament simply means "to sing praises" or "to sing hymns." Vine says it, "denotes, in the N.T., to sing a hymn, sing praise." Bagster says, "in N.T. to sing praises," and this same definition is given individually by Perschbacher, Green, Wigrim, H.K. Moulton, and Mounce. J.H. Moulton and Milligan define it with, "in the N.T., as in Jas 5:13, sing a hymn." Abbott-Smith say of it, "in the N.T., to sing a hymn, sing praises." Bauer defines it to mean, "to extol by singing praises, to sing praises." Contopoulos says, "to sing, to celebrate." Kittel claims that psallo and the Greek word ado are synonyms, and defines the latter as "to sing." Of the 30 New Testament Greek authorities we considered, only four (i.e. Lampe, Robinson, Donnegan, and Yonge) define psallo in such a way as would necessitate musical instruments. The definite tendency was for the most reputable authorities to define the term as basically meaning "to sing."
for Church Music [SIZE=+1]By David Pyles[/SIZE]
Though musical instruments are never mentioned in the Bible as being part of New Testament worship, many justify their use in the modern church by saying they are implicitly authorized by a Greek word used in connection with singing in the New Testament. We believe this argument is invalid, and we undertake to prove this is the case in what follows.
The Greek word in question is the verb psallo. Controversy over this term also extends to the related noun psalmos. The controverted occurrences of these words are in: Rom 15:9; 1Cor 14:15,26; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16 and Jas 5:13. Advocates of musical instruments in church worship commonly claim that the first means to sing a psalm or hymn with the accompaniment of musical instruments, and that the second refers to a composition to be sung in such manner. We believe these definitions would be correct for earlier forms of Greek, but they are not primary definitions in the common Greek of New Testament times, and are never the intended definitions in the New Testament itself. The meaning of psallo there is simply "to sing a hymn" or "to sing praises." The meaning of psalmos is simply "a psalm" or "a hymn." These conclusions are based upon several considerations:
1) While nearly all authorities on New Testament Greek offer definitions of psallo allowing the idea of musical accompaniment, the tendency of these authorities, especially the most reputable ones, is to affirm these are not the meanings in the New Testament; rather, they affirm the term there simply means "to sing a hymn" or "to sing praises."
In his comments on 1Cor 14:15, A.T. Robertson, one of the most highly acclaimed Greek scholars, explains the meaning of psallo thus: "...originally meant to play on strings, then to sing with an accompaniment, and here apparently to sing without regard to an instrument." Hence, Robertson is of the opinion that the word does not imply instrumental music in the New Testament. He explains that the meaning of the word changed through time.
All authorities seem to agree that the earliest meaning of the word, hundreds of years before the New Testament era, was to "pluck, twitch or twang," as in "pluck" a hair, or "twang" a bowstring, or "twitch" a carpenter's line. At this early stage, the word had no special association with musical instruments. Then, as Roberston explains, the word evolved so that its meaning became to touch or play the strings of a musical instrument. Afterward, it meant to sing in accompaniment with such an instrument. But yet later, in the common Greek of the New Testament period, Robertson and other authorities affirm that the idea of an instrument had been dropped, so that the word simply meant to sing a hymn or to sing praises. The commonalty in all definitions is the idea of vibrating a string or cord. Since the human voice is also created by such vibration, it is possible that the meaning of the term was transferred to the voice along these lines. Whatever the explanation of its etymology, there is absolutely no doubt that the term has experienced the indicated changes.
Joseph H. Thayer, generally thought to be unsurpassed among New Testament Greek lexicographers, states that in the New Testament psallo means "to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song." Hence, Thayer and Robertson, both eminent authorities, agree that psallo does not suggest musical accompaniment in the New Testament.
The same may be said of Vincent, whose comments on the use of psallo in two controverted verses are:
Some think that the verb has here its original signification of singing with an instrument. This is its dominant sense in the Septuagint, and both Basil and Gregory of Nyssa define a psalm as implying instrumental accompaniment; and Clement of Alexandria, while forbidding the use of the flute in the agapae, permitted the harp. But neither Basil nor Ambrose nor Chrysostom, in their panegyrics upon music, mention instrumental music, and Basil expressly condemns it. Bingham dismisses the matter summarily, and cites Justin Martyr as saying expressly that instrumental music was not used in the Christian Church. The verb is used here in the general sense of singing praise. - Comments on 1Cor 14:15 The word means, primarily, "to pluck or twitch." Hence, of the sharp "twang" on a bow-string or harp-string, and so "to play upon a stringed instrument." Our word "psalm," derived from this, is, properly, a tune played upon a stringed instrument. The verb, however, is used in the New Testament of singing praise generally. - Comments on Jas 5:13
Then concerning the noun psalmos as used in Col 3:16, Vincent says, "A psalm was originally a song accompanied by a stringed instrument... The idea of accompaniment passed away in usage, and the psalm, in New Testament phraseology, is an Old Testament psalm, or a composition having that character."
Several other Greek authorities also express the view that psallo in the New Testament simply means "to sing praises" or "to sing hymns." Vine says it, "denotes, in the N.T., to sing a hymn, sing praise." Bagster says, "in N.T. to sing praises," and this same definition is given individually by Perschbacher, Green, Wigrim, H.K. Moulton, and Mounce. J.H. Moulton and Milligan define it with, "in the N.T., as in Jas 5:13, sing a hymn." Abbott-Smith say of it, "in the N.T., to sing a hymn, sing praises." Bauer defines it to mean, "to extol by singing praises, to sing praises." Contopoulos says, "to sing, to celebrate." Kittel claims that psallo and the Greek word ado are synonyms, and defines the latter as "to sing." Of the 30 New Testament Greek authorities we considered, only four (i.e. Lampe, Robinson, Donnegan, and Yonge) define psallo in such a way as would necessitate musical instruments. The definite tendency was for the most reputable authorities to define the term as basically meaning "to sing."
Hi,
An interesting thing is those that use IM go to great time and lengths to try and prove psallo means to pluck or twang and that sanctions playing instruments in worship to God. Yet in practice, they totally ignore the definition they are trying to prove by playing instruments (organ, piano, brass/woodwind instruments) that are not plucked/twang thereby undermining the credibility of their argument.
An interesting thing is those that use IM go to great time and lengths to try and prove psallo means to pluck or twang and that sanctions playing instruments in worship to God. Yet in practice, they totally ignore the definition they are trying to prove by playing instruments (organ, piano, brass/woodwind instruments) that are not plucked/twang thereby undermining the credibility of their argument.
SORRY, but that is not the case. A Psalmos is a SONG. A PSALMOS can be read, recited, sing or sung with an instrument. However, none of the Bible is METRICAL and sung means to cantillate which is metrical prose.
Psallo or Psalmos is NEVER used in the Bible or the Greek literature meaning SING a TUNE and PLAY a HARP. Psallo speaks only to things you can PLUCK with your finger but NEVER with a plecktron: you are forbidden by Psallo to use a guitar pick, blow a flute, beat on a drum, play a piano, play and organ. Psallo is a word DEDICATED to Apollo, Abaddon or Apollyon. It's FIRST meaning (also among the warrior Jews) is to PULL a bowstring to make it TWANG to send forth a SINGING arrow into a LITERAL heart. That is why Paul clearly commanded that we
SPEAK (opposite to poetry or music) that which is written for our learning.
BUT (Paul's antithesis) ODE (opposite speak) and PSALLO (warfare or ugly meaning) IN THE HEART which means KEEP it silent and maybe as the common expression was LET YOUR HEART-STRINGS SING which is the PRODUCE of speaking that which comes only from Christ in the prophets and apostles.
"The tabulation of musical passages "contains a rather disproportionate number of metaphorical sentences, where music or its instruments are not to be understood literally but are used as similies or rhetorical figures. The most celebrated of these poetical passages is Paul's glorification of love in I Cor. 13." (Interpreter's Dict of the Bible, Music, p. 466).
Psalmos also appears in the LXX as equivalent to the Hebrew word neginah. This Hebrew term is used to describe a wide variety of songs. Neginah is translated by psalmos in Lam 3:14 (song), in Lam 5:14 (music) and in Ps 69:12 (song). It is striking to observe that in the LXX translation of Lam 3:14 and Ps 69:12, psalmos, or its verbal form, is used for songs that are not only uninspired but are in fact the product of the wicked, even drunkards, who mocked God and His word. The Hebrew term neginah is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures of: the songs of the wicked, Job 30:9 (song); the inspired praise of God, Psalm 61 title (Neginah-a song performed on a stringed instrument); and the uninspired praise of the Lord composed by King Hezekiah, Is 38:20 (my songs)."
Psallo or Psalmos is NEVER used in the Bible or the Greek literature meaning SING a TUNE and PLAY a HARP. Psallo speaks only to things you can PLUCK with your finger but NEVER with a plecktron: you are forbidden by Psallo to use a guitar pick, blow a flute, beat on a drum, play a piano, play and organ. Psallo is a word DEDICATED to Apollo, Abaddon or Apollyon. It's FIRST meaning (also among the warrior Jews) is to PULL a bowstring to make it TWANG to send forth a SINGING arrow into a LITERAL heart. That is why Paul clearly commanded that we
SPEAK (opposite to poetry or music) that which is written for our learning.
BUT (Paul's antithesis) ODE (opposite speak) and PSALLO (warfare or ugly meaning) IN THE HEART which means KEEP it silent and maybe as the common expression was LET YOUR HEART-STRINGS SING which is the PRODUCE of speaking that which comes only from Christ in the prophets and apostles.
neginah was added later to define how to perform some psalms which were written for teaching or reciting "they DICTO (recited) A hymn and went out" until the same time next year in practice.
Psalms 61:0 To the chief Musician upon Neginah, A Psalm of David
H5058 negı̂ynâh negı̂ynath neg-ee-naw', neg-ee-nath' From H5059 ; properly instrumental music; by implication a stringed instrument; by extension a poem set to music; specifically an epigram:—stringed instrument, musick, Neginoth [plural], song
► H5059 nâgan naw-gan' A primitive root; prop to thrum, that is, beat a tune with the fingers; especially to play on a stringed instrument; hence (generally) to make music:—player on instruments, sing to the stringed instruments, melody, ministrel, play (-er. -ing).
Isaiah 23:16 Take an [1] harp, go about the city, thou harlot that hast been forgotten;
make sweet [2] melody [nagan],
sing many [3] songs, that thou mayest be remembered.
Isaiah 23:17 And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that the LORD will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth.
You are always restricted to a STRING or HAIR plucked with your FINGERS and never with a plectrum.
Psalms 61:0 To the chief Musician upon Neginah, A Psalm of David
H5058 negı̂ynâh negı̂ynath neg-ee-naw', neg-ee-nath' From H5059 ; properly instrumental music; by implication a stringed instrument; by extension a poem set to music; specifically an epigram:—stringed instrument, musick, Neginoth [plural], song
► H5059 nâgan naw-gan' A primitive root; prop to thrum, that is, beat a tune with the fingers; especially to play on a stringed instrument; hence (generally) to make music:—player on instruments, sing to the stringed instruments, melody, ministrel, play (-er. -ing).
Isaiah 23:16 Take an [1] harp, go about the city, thou harlot that hast been forgotten;
make sweet [2] melody [nagan],
sing many [3] songs, that thou mayest be remembered.
Isaiah 23:17 And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that the LORD will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth.
You are always restricted to a STRING or HAIR plucked with your FINGERS and never with a plectrum.
James 2:10 "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."
Gal 5:3 "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law"
The point of these verses is that if you go back to the OT law to find jutification for some thing, then you have an obligation to contend for the WHOLE law else you are guilty of ALL the law.
ANother interesting passage is in Rom 7:1-6.
In this passage, Paul makes an analogy between a woman who has two husbands with a person trying to keep both the Law of Moses and the NT gospel of Christ. If a woman already has a husband and yet marries another man then she is keeping two husbands at the same time and is an adulteress. Likewise one who is a Christian is married to Christ and His NT gospel. Yet if he trys to keep both the law of Moses and Christ's NT gospel at the same time, he is committing a type of spiritual adultery.
But Paul further explains that if the woman's husband be dead she is free from the law to be married to another man and is not an adulteress. Likewise, "ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another". When Christ died on the cross, He took the OT laws out of the way" Col 2:14 making men dead to those laws so men could become married to Christ and His NT gospel.
You have yet to prove heaven is a physical realm with physical musical instruments.
You have not proven that the harps are literal.
But if the harps are literal then there is just a liteal 144,000 to be in heaven, correct?
At the time Christ returns and the resurrection takes, place, after the judgment takes place and the goats are separated from the sheep, there will be no more marriage. No marriage in heaven will be taking place.
So you are saying people can use whatever elements they so choose on the Lord's Supper, and what Christ Himself instituted does not matter nor needs to be followed. You really kill all your credibilty with your arguments here, but to continue on....
If what is used does not matter, then why woud Paul condemn the Corinthians for corrupting the Lord's Supper?
In Col 3:17 it says "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus,..."
In the name of means by the authority of. If Christ instituted unleaven bread and fruit of the vine, who has the authority to change that, and where do they get the authority to make the change?
1 Cor 4:6 Paul said not to think beyond that which is written. Who has the authority to go beyond what is written in the bible concerning the elements instituted by Christ?
If one does not have to follow the bible when it comes to singing or the Lord's Supper, then one does not need to folow the bible when it comes to ANYTHING else. The bible is just a worthless, useless book.
We do know what Noah did.....
God: "Make thee an ark of gopher wood..."
"Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he" Gen 6:14,22
So if Noah made the ark of oak he would not have done as God commenaded him even though God did not specifically eliminate oak.
So even though Christ did not specifically authorize a particular mode of transportation/communication, they were allowed to use what ever mode was most expedient to them WITHOUT changing the command Christ gave them.
Likewise, using song leaders, song book, microphones, amplifiers, speakers etc are not specifically authorize either, but they are used expediently to carry out the command to sing WITHOUT changing that command God gave the church.
Therefore Noah using oak changes God's command says just as playing changes God's command.
S. hawkings would be allowed to sing the best way he was able to sing.
Gal 5:3 "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law"
The point of these verses is that if you go back to the OT law to find jutification for some thing, then you have an obligation to contend for the WHOLE law else you are guilty of ALL the law.
ANother interesting passage is in Rom 7:1-6.
In this passage, Paul makes an analogy between a woman who has two husbands with a person trying to keep both the Law of Moses and the NT gospel of Christ. If a woman already has a husband and yet marries another man then she is keeping two husbands at the same time and is an adulteress. Likewise one who is a Christian is married to Christ and His NT gospel. Yet if he trys to keep both the law of Moses and Christ's NT gospel at the same time, he is committing a type of spiritual adultery.
But Paul further explains that if the woman's husband be dead she is free from the law to be married to another man and is not an adulteress. Likewise, "ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another". When Christ died on the cross, He took the OT laws out of the way" Col 2:14 making men dead to those laws so men could become married to Christ and His NT gospel.
You have yet to prove heaven is a physical realm with physical musical instruments.
You have not proven that the harps are literal.
But if the harps are literal then there is just a liteal 144,000 to be in heaven, correct?
At the time Christ returns and the resurrection takes, place, after the judgment takes place and the goats are separated from the sheep, there will be no more marriage. No marriage in heaven will be taking place.
So you are saying people can use whatever elements they so choose on the Lord's Supper, and what Christ Himself instituted does not matter nor needs to be followed. You really kill all your credibilty with your arguments here, but to continue on....
If what is used does not matter, then why woud Paul condemn the Corinthians for corrupting the Lord's Supper?
In Col 3:17 it says "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus,..."
In the name of means by the authority of. If Christ instituted unleaven bread and fruit of the vine, who has the authority to change that, and where do they get the authority to make the change?
1 Cor 4:6 Paul said not to think beyond that which is written. Who has the authority to go beyond what is written in the bible concerning the elements instituted by Christ?
If one does not have to follow the bible when it comes to singing or the Lord's Supper, then one does not need to folow the bible when it comes to ANYTHING else. The bible is just a worthless, useless book.
We do know what Noah did.....
God: "Make thee an ark of gopher wood..."
"Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he" Gen 6:14,22
So if Noah made the ark of oak he would not have done as God commenaded him even though God did not specifically eliminate oak.
So even though Christ did not specifically authorize a particular mode of transportation/communication, they were allowed to use what ever mode was most expedient to them WITHOUT changing the command Christ gave them.
Likewise, using song leaders, song book, microphones, amplifiers, speakers etc are not specifically authorize either, but they are used expediently to carry out the command to sing WITHOUT changing that command God gave the church.
Therefore Noah using oak changes God's command says just as playing changes God's command.
S. hawkings would be allowed to sing the best way he was able to sing.
I agree that faith comes by hearing, Rom 10:17.
The issue is can one be saved without faith, that is, can one be saved by "grace alone"....saved by grace apart from faith? No.
Eph 2:8 makes it clear that salvation is by "grace through faith".
So grace without faith cannot save nor faith without grace save....it takes both God's grace and man's faith to be saved.
Rom 5:2 man's faith gives access to God's grace. So one without faith has no access to God's grace.
The issue is can one be saved without faith, that is, can one be saved by "grace alone"....saved by grace apart from faith? No.
Eph 2:8 makes it clear that salvation is by "grace through faith".
So grace without faith cannot save nor faith without grace save....it takes both God's grace and man's faith to be saved.
Rom 5:2 man's faith gives access to God's grace. So one without faith has no access to God's grace.
Eph 4:4,5 says there is ONE body and ONE faith. The idea that there are many bodies that consist of many contradicting faithS is corruption of man. I have heard men with PhDs from religious institutions that do not know how many one is. They think one equals thousands or some ever changing number.
The church of Christ does not teach one earns salvation. So you did not learn this from the church of Christ, so when you were a member of the church of Christ, what did you exactly learn?
What is truth? God's word or men's opinions?
The church of Christ does not teach one earns salvation. So you did not learn this from the church of Christ, so when you were a member of the church of Christ, what did you exactly learn?
What is truth? God's word or men's opinions?
.....
- Status