SeaBass;1886609
The condition Eph 5 is that [B said:
everyone[/B] must sing to obey the command to be filled with the spirit. If one person (or group) sings and I do nothing, then not only am I not obeying the command to be filled with the spirit, I am not reciprocating the action. It's impossible to have just one person singing while everyone else does not and fulfill Eph 5:18,19.
The participle 'singing' is plural meaning all are to sing.
Again, that's just an assertion on your part. The sources you cited don't support your view. It would be hard to find a source that directly addresses that. I did ask a retired Greek professor who'd been reading Greek for decades about it. His understanding of the language is that individuals taking turns singing solos could also be described with the language in the passage.
If there are 20 people, and each sings a psalm, in turn, then they fulfill the requirement.
You are treating the passage as if it is something that each individual must obey every time there is a church gathering. The passage doesn't even specify a church meeting or say that every believer has to do this every time.
"speaking to yourselves" is reflexive where the subject does the action to himself, he sings to himself.
Sorry, bro. The word translated 'yourselves' is plural. I've got an interlinear open in another tab.
It is reciprocal meaning the action of singing is exchanged among people. So one not only sings to himself but also to others within the time frame of the song being sung. The language makes ALL participants, NONE are observers. Again, the command is to sing NOT to sit and listen.
Taking turns singing solos fits the bill.
But notice if you apply this legalistic reasoning that if it says sing, it can't mean something else, to listening, then you get a problem. Because we are to go to church and 'exhort one another.' So if we use your 'logic' then we are only allowed to exhort at church, but no one is allowed to listen to what other people are saying. Of course, there are scriptures that would imply that this interpretation is wrong. But the ones I'm thinking of have to do with prophecy, and they go against your church tradtion.
"Yourselves" is heautou not allelon.
Lk 2:15 " as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another (allelon)."
Allelon can give the idea one was speaking then another responded, each person speaking is a separate event.
Now prove that Heautou cannot. The Greek expert I conferred with disagreed.
Lk 23:28 "...but weep for yourselves (heautou)..."
Mt 3:9 "...And think not to say within yourselves (heautou).."
So you think if they aren't weeping at the same time, they aren't weeping? Or if they aren't saying within themselves at exactly the same time, they aren't saying wthin themselves?
It sounds like you are deadest on arriving at a certain conclusion when you read the Bible rather than approaching the Bible with an intention to study and learn what it says, at least on this issue.
{quote]
Heautou carries the idea of a collective action...not one weeps now and another weeps later and another weeps at some other time. Heautou in Eph 5:19 is collective in action...all sing collectively together, not one singing now, one singing later and another singing at some other time.
(Gene Frost)[/quote]
Are you quoting? You aren't using quotation marks, so I can't tell if you are citing or quoting or what.
1 Cor 14:26 you did not prove that this requires singing, it can be reading. You're making an assumption here so that argument fails for it is based upon an assumption.
Ephesians and Colossians speak of 'speaking to yourselves' in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. So those verses don't mention singing either. Why do you allow singing in church at all? If something has to be specifically authorized in New Testament scripture (post Pentecost? Pre-book-of Revelation?) why allow any singing?
Your whole argument is based on the idea that something isn't allowed if it is not specifically authorized. (of course, suff your church does gets a free pass.) Where does New Testament scripture specifically authorize that doctrine? Or are you relying on Nadab and Abihu in the Old Testament, while forbidding going to the OT to legitimize instrumental music?
It is also assumed that the psalms were being sung/read solo.
That's because every 'one' of you hath a psalm. The passage is about individual activities. Do you think Paul is saying they should all speak in tongues at the same time? Btw, do you think the church should allow either scenario or just have the preacher preach?
As stated before 1 Cor 14:26 would not contradict Eph 5:18,19 that requires each person to sing in order to obey the command to be filled with the spirit.
You are the one creating the contradiction where it doesn't exist by assuming.
1. Ephesians 5 is exclusively about congregational singing.
2. That if Ephesians 5 is about or allows for congregational singing, that another verse can't allow for solos.
I get it. You probably go to a church that doesn't have solos and may teach against them. And you probably think your church has a good handle on the truth unlike other churches, and it's hard for you to think your church or church experience can be wrong or not portray the whole reality of New Testament church experience. That approach keeps a lot of people from believing and accepting what the Bible teaches on a number of issues.
Silence does forbid. In instituting the Lord's Supper, Christ was silent about milk and peanuts, so does His silence in forbidding such actually include them? Hardly.
Why would milk and peanuts be forbidden? You do know that Jews ate lamb or goat for the Passover don't you, along with other food. We don't take peanuts to remember the Lord's body, but why would it be a sin to eat them together during the love feast?
The law of inclusion and exclusion is used throughout the bible. The logic behind this means God did not have to make long list of things HE did not want, that is, God did not have to specifically forbid everything He did not want, He could just include what He did want and that excludes everything else. Example God told Noah to use gopher wood. The inclusion of that specific wood also excluded all other types woods that was not gopher. God did not have to make a long lists of all the wood He did not want, but just name the one He did want and that automatically excludes all other types of wood. The idea that if God did not specifically forbid it means it is allowable is a horribly bad argument.
We could ask the team who found that wood structure up on Ararat if there was any other wood. If Noah hammered on a cedar peg for a coat hanger, I wouldn't consider that a violation if he'd built the ark according to God's specs. Since God doesn't rebuke or punish Noah for violating his instructions, this isn't really a good example.
But I notice you feel free to go to the OT for this sort of thing and not for musical instruments. Why is that? You use the OT if it supports your church tradition, but not if it contradicts it.