The "Five Steps"

[zoonance]

So there is no standard for what is logical except what people think?  Interesting.

Not true the entire Bible is a book of logic our God is a God that is logical He is not an irrational Being.

Would Warren call Him a Being?

[koscheiman]

You have demonstrated no such thing all you have done is express your opinion of Warren.

Here you go, again....If you'd like, you can address the following and demonstrate what's wrong with it. I've broken it up into "points," in an attempt to make it easier for you.....

1. We start off by stating the command is to sing, and then change the argument to be one dealing with types of music.

2. Based on that switch, we begin to argue acceptable types of music even though music isn't under consideration in the passage.
At the same time, we attempt to justify using song books because we can use nails to build a box. Again, a failure in our logic chain.

3. It may well be that a nail is absolutely necessary to build a box (it isn't, but for the sake of argument, we'll grant it for now), but it is clear that a song book is not at all necessary for singing since the first church didn't have song books.

4. It is patently clear that song books are not as necessary as nails. And so, our example falls on its face.

5. But, as to song books being "expedient," I would argue that a piano can be just as expedient for keeping folks on tune and learning the melody of a song as a song book can be for learning the words and/or melody (for those who can actually read musical annotations - something not required for either salvation or being in the Church).

6. And so the argument in the above post actually justifies pianos as expedients to the same extent that it justifies song books.

Your logic is flawed. The command is to sing and singing is a type of music. Music is under consideration because singing is a type of music. The fact that one uses nails (or screws or glue) in order to build the box that was commanded (hypothetically) is the same concept as using songbooks (or pitch pipes or amplification sytems or a song director) in order to fufill the command to sing. An instrument of music is played which obviously is not the samething as sing. Singing is a type of music as is playing an instrument. Playing an instrument is not an expedient it is an addition to the command to sing. It is quite possible the early church used the book of Psalms to sing from as well as hymns (which could be written down or memorized) they also sang spiritual songs which were given directly by the Holy Spirit.

[DCR]

You have demonstrated no such thing all you have done is express your opinion of Warren.

Here you go, again....If you'd like, you can address the following and demonstrate what's wrong with it. I've broken it up into "points," in an attempt to make it easier for you.....

1. We start off by stating the command is to sing, and then change the argument to be one dealing with types of music.

2. Based on that switch, we begin to argue acceptable types of music even though music isn't under consideration in the passage.
At the same time, we attempt to justify using song books because we can use nails to build a box. Again, a failure in our logic chain.

3. It may well be that a nail is absolutely necessary to build a box (it isn't, but for the sake of argument, we'll grant it for now), but it is clear that a song book is not at all necessary for singing since the first church didn't have song books.

4. It is patently clear that song books are not as necessary as nails. And so, our example falls on its face.

5. But, as to song books being "expedient," I would argue that a piano can be just as expedient for keeping folks on tune and learning the melody of a song as a song book can be for learning the words and/or melody (for those who can actually read musical annotations - something not required for either salvation or being in the Church).

6. And so the argument in the above post actually justifies pianos as expedients to the same extent that it justifies song books.

Your logic is flawed. The command is to sing and singing is a type of music. Music is under consideration because singing is a type of music.

Is there even any evidence that God respects the distinctions you make between "types of music," or is that issue only an invention out of the minds of men?  Concerning ourselves over "types of music" seems to be a non-biblical.

The fact that one uses nails (or screws or glue) in order to build the box that was commanded (hypothetically) is the same concept as using songbooks (or pitch pipes or amplification sytems or a song director) in order to fufill the command to sing. An instrument of music is played which obviously is not the samething as sing. Singing is a type of music as is playing an instrument. Playing an instrument is not an expedient it is an addition to the command to sing. It is quite possible the early church used the book of Psalms to sing from as well as hymns (which could be written down or memorized) they also sang spiritual songs which were given directly by the Holy Spirit.

So, you acknowledge the early church singing from the book of Psalms.

How interesting that so many of those psalms endorse the use of instruments.  That alone should make you think.

[larry2]

An interesting change in music seems to be man's doing. The Psalms were written in pen without annotation of notes, bars, or scales to be followed, and Gregorian Chants became popular later with such thinking.

Psalm 81:1  <<To the chief Musician upon Gittith, A Psalm of Asaph.>> Sing aloud unto God our strength: make a joyful noise unto the God of Jacob.
2  Take a psalm, and bring hither the timbrel, the pleasant harp with the psaltery.
3  Blow up the trumpet in the new moon, in the time appointed, on our solemn feast day.
4  For this was a statute for Israel, and a law of the God of Jacob.

I wonder if the harp had only one string, and was not allowed to be plucked when they sang their chants, if in fact that's the way they sang. I reckon we'll just have to ask our residing experts on how to sing.

Then comes real wickedness, and though certain men prohibit the harp to be played with singing, they allow annotation in music books; alas, and oh the shame of it.      They have turned a straight and simple Psalm into something that might even cause dancing.   
These were just my misguided thoughts.    For those old enough to remember it; next thing you know, they'll be having pool right here in River City.

In Jesus' name - larry2

[Barabbas]

You have demonstrated no such thing all you have done is express your opinion of Warren.

Here you go, again....If you'd like, you can address the following and demonstrate what's wrong with it. I've broken it up into "points," in an attempt to make it easier for you.....

1. We start off by stating the command is to sing, and then change the argument to be one dealing with types of music.

2. Based on that switch, we begin to argue acceptable types of music even though music isn't under consideration in the passage.
At the same time, we attempt to justify using song books because we can use nails to build a box. Again, a failure in our logic chain.

3. It may well be that a nail is absolutely necessary to build a box (it isn't, but for the sake of argument, we'll grant it for now), but it is clear that a song book is not at all necessary for singing since the first church didn't have song books.

4. It is patently clear that song books are not as necessary as nails. And so, our example falls on its face.

5. But, as to song books being "expedient," I would argue that a piano can be just as expedient for keeping folks on tune and learning the melody of a song as a song book can be for learning the words and/or melody (for those who can actually read musical annotations - something not required for either salvation or being in the Church).

6. And so the argument in the above post actually justifies pianos as expedients to the same extent that it justifies song books.

Your logic is flawed. The command is to sing and singing is a type of music. Music is under consideration because singing is a type of music.

Is there even any evidence that God respects the distinctions you make between "types of music," or is that issue only an invention out of the minds of men?  Concerning ourselves over "types of music" seems to be a non-biblical.

The fact that one uses nails (or screws or glue) in order to build the box that was commanded (hypothetically) is the same concept as using songbooks (or pitch pipes or amplification sytems or a song director) in order to fufill the command to sing. An instrument of music is played which obviously is not the samething as sing. Singing is a type of music as is playing an instrument. Playing an instrument is not an expedient it is an addition to the command to sing. It is quite possible the early church used the book of Psalms to sing from as well as hymns (which could be written down or memorized) they also sang spiritual songs which were given directly by the Holy Spirit.

So, you acknowledge the early church singing from the book of Psalms.

How interesting that so many of those psalms endorse the use of instruments.  That alone should make you think.

Obviously scripture endorses singing ABOUT musical instruments ... just not using them. 

"When the TRUMPET of the Lord shall sound and time shall be no more, and the morning breaks..."   When the Roll is called up yonder

[HRoberson]

You have demonstrated no such thing all you have done is express your opinion of Warren.

Here you go, again....If you'd like, you can address the following and demonstrate what's wrong with it. I've broken it up into "points," in an attempt to make it easier for you.....

1. We start off by stating the command is to sing, and then change the argument to be one dealing with types of music.

2. Based on that switch, we begin to argue acceptable types of music even though music isn't under consideration in the passage.
At the same time, we attempt to justify using song books because we can use nails to build a box. Again, a failure in our logic chain.

3. It may well be that a nail is absolutely necessary to build a box (it isn't, but for the sake of argument, we'll grant it for now), but it is clear that a song book is not at all necessary for singing since the first church didn't have song books.

4. It is patently clear that song books are not as necessary as nails. And so, our example falls on its face.

5. But, as to song books being "expedient," I would argue that a piano can be just as expedient for keeping folks on tune and learning the melody of a song as a song book can be for learning the words and/or melody (for those who can actually read musical annotations - something not required for either salvation or being in the Church).

6. And so the argument in the above post actually justifies pianos as expedients to the same extent that it justifies song books.

Your logic is flawed. The command is to sing and singing is a type of music. Music is under consideration because singing is a type of music. The fact that one uses nails (or screws or glue) in order to build the box that was commanded (hypothetically) is the same concept as using songbooks (or pitch pipes or amplification sytems or a song director) in order to fufill the command to sing. An instrument of music is played which obviously is not the samething as sing. Singing is a type of music as is playing an instrument. Playing an instrument is not an expedient it is an addition to the command to sing. It is quite possible the early church used the book of Psalms to sing from as well as hymns (which could be written down or memorized) they also sang spiritual songs which were given directly by the Holy Spirit.

I was wondering when we were going to get here......

The context of the pericope to which you refer has to do with living a Christian life; of being guided by the Spirit. It is in this context that we are told to "sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs." It is in the subject of the songs that the import of the statement is to be found, not that we sing at all. The command (assuming we can use that word in this passage) is not to sing, but what to sing.

A simple review of the entire letter reveals that to be the case. "Be filled with the Spirit" but don't be drunk with wine. Sing songs of God, not songs of carousing. That is the important aspect of the passage, not singing per se. Whether we sing at all is irrelevant.

Just for the record, there were no "books," there were scrolls, and those were not personally held. There would have been no singers holding scrolls of psalms in church. They would have sung them by heart.

[s1n4m1n]

This from Warren:

Instrumental music is not authorized—not because Ephesians and Colossians exclude it or don’t mention it—but because no New Testament passage enjoins it. Nowhere does God inform us that He desires that we play on an instrument to Him. To do so is to “add to His words” (Proverbs 30:6) and to “go beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6).

So is Warren at odds with the typical CoC teaching that instrumental music is prohibited because singing is specified? You know, the whole generic and specific authority thing.

That's not to say that his rule isn't reasonable, at least on the surface. The rule appears to be: only those things are authorized that a New Testament passage enjoins. Is that correct?

[s1n4m1n]

You have demonstrated no such thing all you have done is express your opinion of Warren.

Here you go, again....If you'd like, you can address the following and demonstrate what's wrong with it. I've broken it up into "points," in an attempt to make it easier for you.....

1. We start off by stating the command is to sing, and then change the argument to be one dealing with types of music.

2. Based on that switch, we begin to argue acceptable types of music even though music isn't under consideration in the passage.
At the same time, we attempt to justify using song books because we can use nails to build a box. Again, a failure in our logic chain.

3. It may well be that a nail is absolutely necessary to build a box (it isn't, but for the sake of argument, we'll grant it for now), but it is clear that a song book is not at all necessary for singing since the first church didn't have song books.

4. It is patently clear that song books are not as necessary as nails. And so, our example falls on its face.

5. But, as to song books being "expedient," I would argue that a piano can be just as expedient for keeping folks on tune and learning the melody of a song as a song book can be for learning the words and/or melody (for those who can actually read musical annotations - something not required for either salvation or being in the Church).

6. And so the argument in the above post actually justifies pianos as expedients to the same extent that it justifies song books.

Your logic is flawed. The command is to sing and singing is a type of music. Music is under consideration because singing is a type of music. The fact that one uses nails (or screws or glue) in order to build the box that was commanded (hypothetically) is the same concept as using songbooks (or pitch pipes or amplification sytems or a song director) in order to fufill the command to sing. An instrument of music is played which obviously is not the samething as sing. Singing is a type of music as is playing an instrument. Playing an instrument is not an expedient it is an addition to the command to sing. It is quite possible the early church used the book of Psalms to sing from as well as hymns (which could be written down or memorized) they also sang spiritual songs which were given directly by the Holy Spirit.

I was wondering when we were going to get here......

The context of the pericope to which you refer has to do with living a Christian life; of being guided by the Spirit. It is in this context that we are told to "sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs." It is in the subject of the songs that the import of the statement is to be found, not that we sing at all. The command (assuming we can use that word in this passage) is not to sing, but what to sing.

A simple review of the entire letter reveals that to be the case. "Be filled with the Spirit" but don't be drunk with wine. Sing songs of God, not songs of carousing. That is the important aspect of the passage, not singing per se. Whether we sing at all is irrelevant.

Just for the record, there were no "books," there were scrolls, and those were not personally held. There would have been no singers holding scrolls of psalms in church. They would have sung them by heart.

I was going to mention something along the same lines but your comment is better. If there is a command here it is "to be filled with the Spirit".

And technically Paul doesn't tell us to "sing" but to "speak". Then he expands upon this "speaking" as "singing and making melody".

Ken

[DCR]

This from Warren:

Instrumental music is not authorized—not because Ephesians and Colossians exclude it or don’t mention it—but because no New Testament passage enjoins it. Nowhere does God inform us that He desires that we play on an instrument to Him. To do so is to “add to His words” (Proverbs 30:6) and to “go beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6).

So is Warren at odds with the typical CoC teaching that instrumental music is prohibited because singing is specified? You know, the whole generic and specific authority thing.

That's not to say that his rule isn't reasonable, at least on the surface. The rule appears to be: only those things are authorized that a New Testament passage enjoins. Is that correct?

I don't see a whole lot of difference.  Actually, I'm not even sure what distinction Warren is making between Eph/Col and the whole of the New Testament.  Obviously, the gist of the view is that the NT church is under the directives of the NT.  I've heard both views espoused... and usually in conjunction to complement the argument in that...

1) The NT nowhere "enjoins/authorizes" the use of IM in the NT church, and...
2) The NT church is simply commanded to sing per the Eph and Col passages.

So, those arguments usually go hand in hand.  Not saying that I support that line of reasoning.  But, this is how I've always observed it to be argued.

[DCR]

If there is a command here it is "to be filled with the Spirit".

I mentioned in another thread that I attended a lecture at Lipscomb on contrasting views on the Holy Spirit in the RM.  Apparently a book written by Z.T. Sweeney was very influential in advancing the "word only" view of the Spirit for Christians today.

Anyway, one radical interpretation over the years in some circles has been that none of the passages that refer to the Holy Spirit apply to modern day Christians, which assumed the view that the Holy Spirit only worked during the apostolic age... after which only the Bible was left for us.

This is a subject I've just started reading up on.

[s1n4m1n]

This from Warren:

Instrumental music is not authorized—not because Ephesians and Colossians exclude it or don’t mention it—but because no New Testament passage enjoins it. Nowhere does God inform us that He desires that we play on an instrument to Him. To do so is to “add to His words” (Proverbs 30:6) and to “go beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6).

So is Warren at odds with the typical CoC teaching that instrumental music is prohibited because singing is specified? You know, the whole generic and specific authority thing.

That's not to say that his rule isn't reasonable, at least on the surface. The rule appears to be: only those things are authorized that a New Testament passage enjoins. Is that correct?

I don't see a whole lot of difference.  Actually, I'm not even sure what distinction Warren is making between Eph/Col and the whole of the New Testament.  Obviously, the gist of the view is that the NT church is under the directives of the NT.  I've heard both views espoused... and usually in conjunction to complement the argument in that...

1) The NT nowhere "enjoins/authorizes" the use of IM in the NT church, and...
2) The NT church is simply commanded to sing per the Eph and Col passages.

So, those arguments usually go hand in hand.  Not saying that I support that line of reasoning.  But, this is how I've always observed it to be argued.

Maybe I'm seeing something that just ain't there. If I recall the example argument of specificity that if your Dad sent you to the store to buy milk your excluded from buying cookies. I guess that is the same as saying your Dad didn't authorized you to buy cookies.

Maybe it is better to look at this way:

1) Dad sent you to the store to buy milk, therefore cookies are excluded.

2) Dad did not authorize you to buy cookies.

[lancelot]

I guess I'm missing any kind of example of "Pray this prayer, asking Jesus into your heart, and you will be saved," in how the gospel was preached and how folks were told to respond to it in the Bible.

You won't find it.  Or the 5 Steps.  You will those who live by faith in Christ in the bible.

You may not find them listed specially as "five steps," but I would say that you'll find each of those five mentioned at one time or another in scripture.  


hearing the gospel?  yep it's in there.
believing?  yes... it's there
repenting?  yep... there again
confessing?  it's there.
baptism?  it's there

asking Jesus into your heart in a scripted prayer for salvation?  nope, can't find it.

 

I agree that you can't find the Sinner's Prayer.

But, find me one place where it is listed as the steps to salvation in one passage.  If you can't, it is a man made salvation formula.

I don't think it is too shocking that one could hear the gospel, mentally assent that Jesus is Christ and mentally assent that He rose from the dead, audibly repent, confess with their mouth, and be baptized, and not really have true faith.

Is it hearing that shouldn't be in the list?  Men can be saved without hearing the gospel?
Is hearing a manmade idea?

Lancelot

[blituri]

2  Take a psalm, and bring hither the timbrel, the pleasant harp with the psaltery.
3  Blow up the trumpet in the new moon, in the time appointed, on our solemn feast day.
4  For this was a statute for Israel, and a law of the God of Jacob.

Let me know when you plan to do that!  God commanded two silver trumpets which made SIGNALS and not music.

The later Shofars were all tuned to the same note by the High Priest and it was unlawful to make any changes. Now BLOW UP 120 of those playing ONE SOUND as in the dedication of Solomon's not commanded temple (acts 7) and you get the sounds of terrorism so that you worship by falling on your face.