The "Five Steps"

[koscheiman]

Actually He just said "Feed my sheep".

yeah....but He said that to the first Pope, so the rest of us don't need to pay attention.........

The position of pope does not exist in the Bible it is a Catholic addition.

.....yeah......neither does President of the United States.

The President of the United States has nothing to do with the church and its structure. What exactly is your point?

Well, if you don't like that example, let's use songbooks, or church buildings, or long-term located preachers, or .....pick your favorite innovation that isn't mentioned in Scripture. Shall we also outlaw those because they aren't in Scripture?

You are talking about expedients not additions to the Scripture. We are commanded to sing a songbook is an aid to singing it does not add anything to the command. We are commanded to meet a church building aids in this it does not add anything to the command. Do you understand?

Yes, I understand just fine, thank you.

Our elders organize themselves with a chairman, whose "term" lasts three months at a time. This chairman isn't authorized in Scripture any more than the Pope. Since it appears that church organization is for the convenience of the church in question, it seems to me that the existence of the Pope per se, isn't a big deal.

Elders in the plural are authrized by Scripture. Having a chairman for decorums sake is not a bad idea so long as he is not lording over the other elders. A bishop over several churces is not found in Dcripture it is an inovation. The pope is likewise an innovation. The Scriptures say there is one head over the church Jesus the Christ, The creation of the position entiled pope creates two heads over the church this is not the Scriptural plan for the church. I believe the following is quite possibly referring to the pope:

Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
(2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 NKJV)

....and so, if you agree with the innovation, it's OK. But if you object to it, it isn't?

Cool by me.

I do not agree with any innovations or additions. An expedient is not an innovation or addition.

And, pray tell, who's decided this?

A rose by any other name.........

Must we have authority for everything we do in religion? Everything? What about the many things we do that the Bible does not mention? For example, where is our authority for church buildings, pews, lighting, carpet, television programs, songbooks, and communion trays?

Consider the case of Noah. He was instructed by God to construct a large wooden boat. God's instructions included such details as dimensions, type of wood, a door and window, and decks (Genesis 6:14-16). The principle of authority applied to Noah in the following fashion. He was authorized to build a boat, but not authorized to build an alternative mode of transportation (e.g., car, plane, or balloon). He was authorized to make the boat out of wood, but not authorized to make it out of some other material (e.g., plastic, steel, or fiberglass). He was authorized to use "gopher wood,

[DCR]

Picking and choosing what qualifies as an "innovation" and what qualifies as an "expedient" seems to be an exercise in opinion.

What I find interesting above is that he thinks that IM "supplements" singing or is "another form of music."  Yet, the other things listed only act as "tools" to aid the singing, therefore being "authorized as expedient ways."

But, this reasoning is purely subjective.  And, his conclusions about that are not soundly convincing.  These are his opinions, and this particular line of discussion is simply not stated in Scripture.  Scripture no more authorizes these so-called "tools" that we are allegedly authorized to use as expedients than it forbids the use of instrumental music in worship.

It appears that we get to selectively decide what it means to "add to His words" or "go beyond what is written."

[koscheiman]

Picking and choosing what qualifies as an "innovation" and what qualifies as an "expedient" seems to be an exercise in opinion.

What I find interesting above is that he thinks that IM "supplements" singing or is "another form of music."  Yet, the other things listed only act as "tools" to aid the singing, therefore being "authorized as expedient ways."

But, this reasoning is purely subjective.  And, his conclusions about that are not soundly convincing.  These are his opinions, and this particular line of discussion is simply not stated in Scripture.  Scripture no more authorizes these so-called "tools" that we are allegedly authorized to use as expedients than it forbids the use of instrumental music in worship.

It appears that we get to selectively decide what it means to "add to His words" or "go beyond what is written."

You are saying that if God commanded us to build a box that because He did not say what to build it out of or what to use to build it we are not authorized to use wood, hammer, nails, measuring tape, etc. These are all expedients in that they are not changing the command or adding to the command; we are still building a box.
This applies to the music of the church also. We are commanded to sing if we play we have changed the command. Yet a songbook is an expedient or aid to singing using a songbook is not another form of music. The same is true of trays and cups in order to serve the fruit of the vine and bread of the Lord's supper. Your statement, "it appears that we get to selectively decide what it means to "add to His words" or "go beyond what is written" is not true. We do not get to decide which commands to follow nor do we get to decide to change or add to commands.

[HRoberson]

Actually He just said "Feed my sheep".

yeah....but He said that to the first Pope, so the rest of us don't need to pay attention.........

The position of pope does not exist in the Bible it is a Catholic addition.

.....yeah......neither does President of the United States.

The President of the United States has nothing to do with the church and its structure. What exactly is your point?

Well, if you don't like that example, let's use songbooks, or church buildings, or long-term located preachers, or .....pick your favorite innovation that isn't mentioned in Scripture. Shall we also outlaw those because they aren't in Scripture?

You are talking about expedients not additions to the Scripture. We are commanded to sing a songbook is an aid to singing it does not add anything to the command. We are commanded to meet a church building aids in this it does not add anything to the command. Do you understand?

Yes, I understand just fine, thank you.

Our elders organize themselves with a chairman, whose "term" lasts three months at a time. This chairman isn't authorized in Scripture any more than the Pope. Since it appears that church organization is for the convenience of the church in question, it seems to me that the existence of the Pope per se, isn't a big deal.

Elders in the plural are authrized by Scripture. Having a chairman for decorums sake is not a bad idea so long as he is not lording over the other elders. A bishop over several churces is not found in Dcripture it is an inovation. The pope is likewise an innovation. The Scriptures say there is one head over the church Jesus the Christ, The creation of the position entiled pope creates two heads over the church this is not the Scriptural plan for the church. I believe the following is quite possibly referring to the pope:

Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
(2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 NKJV)

....and so, if you agree with the innovation, it's OK. But if you object to it, it isn't?

Cool by me.

I do not agree with any innovations or additions. An expedient is not an innovation or addition.

And, pray tell, who's decided this?

A rose by any other name.........

Must we have authority for everything we do in religion? Everything? What about the many things we do that the Bible does not mention? For example, where is our authority for church buildings, pews, lighting, carpet, television programs, songbooks, and communion trays?

Consider the case of Noah. He was instructed by God to construct a large wooden boat. God's instructions included such details as dimensions, type of wood, a door and window, and decks (Genesis 6:14-16). The principle of authority applied to Noah in the following fashion. He was authorized to build a boat, but not authorized to build an alternative mode of transportation (e.g., car, plane, or balloon). He was authorized to make the boat out of wood, but not authorized to make it out of some other material (e.g., plastic, steel, or fiberglass). He was authorized to use "gopher wood,

[zoonance]

Actually He just said "Feed my sheep".

yeah....but He said that to the first Pope, so the rest of us don't need to pay attention.........

The position of pope does not exist in the Bible it is a Catholic addition.

.....yeah......neither does President of the United States.

The President of the United States has nothing to do with the church and its structure. What exactly is your point?

Well, if you don't like that example, let's use songbooks, or church buildings, or long-term located preachers, or .....pick your favorite innovation that isn't mentioned in Scripture. Shall we also outlaw those because they aren't in Scripture?

You are talking about expedients not additions to the Scripture. We are commanded to sing a songbook is an aid to singing it does not add anything to the command. We are commanded to meet a church building aids in this it does not add anything to the command. Do you understand?

Yes, I understand just fine, thank you.

Our elders organize themselves with a chairman, whose "term" lasts three months at a time. This chairman isn't authorized in Scripture any more than the Pope. Since it appears that church organization is for the convenience of the church in question, it seems to me that the existence of the Pope per se, isn't a big deal.

Elders in the plural are authrized by Scripture. Having a chairman for decorums sake is not a bad idea so long as he is not lording over the other elders. A bishop over several churces is not found in Dcripture it is an inovation. The pope is likewise an innovation. The Scriptures say there is one head over the church Jesus the Christ, The creation of the position entiled pope creates two heads over the church this is not the Scriptural plan for the church. I believe the following is quite possibly referring to the pope:

Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
(2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 NKJV)

....and so, if you agree with the innovation, it's OK. But if you object to it, it isn't?

Cool by me.

I do not agree with any innovations or additions. An expedient is not an innovation or addition.

And, pray tell, who's decided this?

A rose by any other name.........

Must we have authority for everything we do in religion? Everything? What about the many things we do that the Bible does not mention? For example, where is our authority for church buildings, pews, lighting, carpet, television programs, songbooks, and communion trays?

Consider the case of Noah. He was instructed by God to construct a large wooden boat. God’s instructions included such details as dimensions, type of wood, a door and window, and decks (Genesis 6:14-16). The principle of authority applied to Noah in the following fashion. He was authorized to build a boat, but not authorized to build an alternative mode of transportation (e.g., car, plane, or balloon). He was authorized to make the boat out of wood, but not authorized to make it out of some other material (e.g., plastic, steel, or fiberglass). He was authorized to use “gopher wood,” but not authorized to use some other kind of wood (e.g., oak, poplar, or pine). He was authorized to utilize whatever tools and assistance were necessary to comply with God’s command (e.g., hammers, nails, saws, hired help).

Consider the Great Commission. God commanded His emissaries to “Go” (Mark 16:15). The Bible describes with approval inspired preachers going by a variety of means, including by chariot (Acts 8:31), by rope and basket (Acts 9:25), on foot (Acts 14:14), and by ship (Acts 16:11). Gathering together everything in the Scriptures pertaining to this matter, it becomes clear that the mode of transportation was optional. Therefore, the Bible interpreter is forced to conclude that every mode is authorized today (including, for example, television) as long as it does not violate some other biblical principle (e.g., the principle of stewardship).

This process of gathering biblical evidence and drawing only warranted conclusions is divinely mandatory for every human being (see 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1). We are under obligation to weigh the biblical data on every subject, and conclude only what God wants us to conclude. [For concise, definitive analyses of the principle of authority, see Warren, 1975].

The Bible enjoins upon us the act of assembling together for worship (e.g., Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 5:4; 11:17-18; Hebrews 10:25). But it is physically impossible for a plurality of individuals to assemble together without an assembly place. To obey the requirement to assemble, one must assemble somewhere. We have approved instances of the early church assembling together in a third-story room (Acts 20:8-9), in private residences, as well as in non-private settings (1 Corinthians 16:19; 11:22; cf. Acts 20:20). We are forced to conclude that the location is optional and authorized, as long as it does not violate other biblical principles (cf. John 4:21). Hence, the Scriptures authorize church buildings and the necessary furnishings (e.g., carpet, chairs, and lights).

The same may be said of songbooks. Christians are commanded to sing (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16), and to worship in an orderly manner (1 Corinthians 14:40). God wants us to sing the same song together (as opposed to singing different songs at the same time). Ways to comply with these stipulations would be to use songbooks, sheet music, or overhead projectors that give the entire assembly access to the same song at the same time. Therefore, all such tools are authorized as expedient ways to comply with the command to sing.

Instrumental music in worship is not authorized. While some people may think it qualifies as an expedient—an aid to their singing—it does not. It may drown out their singing, or so overshadow their singing that they think it sounds better, but in actuality a musical instrument merely supplements singing. It is another form of music in the same way that seeing and hearing are two distinct ways of perceiving. Seeing does not aid hearing; it supplements one form of perception/observation with another. Singing with the voice and playing on a mechanical instrument are two separate ways of making music. Singing is authorized because the New Testament enjoins it (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16). God has told us He wants us to sing. 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).

The Lord’s Supper is to be eaten when the church is assembled for worship (Matthew 26:29; Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:20). God wants each worshipper to partake of both the bread and the grape juice. How may this be accomplished? Containers or trays are necessarily required—unless grapes are hand carried to each person who would then squeeze the juice into his or her own mouth. We do have the account of Jesus instituting the Lord’s Supper and apparently using a single cup. However, the context makes clear that the container was incidental—representing a figure of speech known as “metonymy of the subject,” in which the container is put for the contained. The content of the cup—the juice—was what they were to drink, and upon which they were to reflect symbolically. We are forced to conclude that the manner of distribution of the elements of the Lord’s Supper is authorized as optional.

Reference:

Warren, Thomas B. (1975), When Is An “Example” Binding? (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).

So it was Thomas Warren who decided what to call the rose.  I really thought this rose was called that rose long before 1975.

[HRoberson]

Picking and choosing what qualifies as an "innovation" and what qualifies as an "expedient" seems to be an exercise in opinion.

What I find interesting above is that he thinks that IM "supplements" singing or is "another form of music."  Yet, the other things listed only act as "tools" to aid the singing, therefore being "authorized as expedient ways."

But, this reasoning is purely subjective.  And, his conclusions about that are not soundly convincing.  These are his opinions, and this particular line of discussion is simply not stated in Scripture.  Scripture no more authorizes these so-called "tools" that we are allegedly authorized to use as expedients than it forbids the use of instrumental music in worship.

It appears that we get to selectively decide what it means to "add to His words" or "go beyond what is written."

You are saying that if God commanded us to build a box that because He did not say what to build it out of or what to use to build it we are not authorized to use wood, hammer, nails, measuring tape, etc. These are all expedients in that they are not changing the command or adding to the command; we are still building a box.
This applies to the music of the church also. We are commanded to sing if we play we have changed the command. Yet a songbook is an expedient or aid to singing using a songbook is not another form of music. The same is true of trays and cups in order to serve the fruit of the vine and bread of the Lord's supper. Your statement, "it appears that we get to selectively decide what it means to "add to His words" or "go beyond what is written" is not true. We do not get to decide which commands to follow nor do we get to decide to change or add to commands.

This quote is an example of poor logic trains. We start off by stating the command is to sing, and then change the argument to be one dealing with types of music. 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. 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. It is patently clear that song books are not as necessary as nails. And so, our example falls on its face.
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).

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

[zoonance]

Picking and choosing what qualifies as an "innovation" and what qualifies as an "expedient" seems to be an exercise in opinion.

What I find interesting above is that he thinks that IM "supplements" singing or is "another form of music."  Yet, the other things listed only act as "tools" to aid the singing, therefore being "authorized as expedient ways."

But, this reasoning is purely subjective.  And, his conclusions about that are not soundly convincing.  These are his opinions, and this particular line of discussion is simply not stated in Scripture.  Scripture no more authorizes these so-called "tools" that we are allegedly authorized to use as expedients than it forbids the use of instrumental music in worship.

It appears that we get to selectively decide what it means to "add to His words" or "go beyond what is written."

You are saying that if God commanded us to build a box that because He did not say what to build it out of or what to use to build it we are not authorized to use wood, hammer, nails, measuring tape, etc. These are all expedients in that they are not changing the command or adding to the command; we are still building a box.
This applies to the music of the church also. We are commanded to sing if we play we have changed the command. Yet a songbook is an expedient or aid to singing using a songbook is not another form of music. The same is true of trays and cups in order to serve the fruit of the vine and bread of the Lord's supper. Your statement, "it appears that we get to selectively decide what it means to "add to His words" or "go beyond what is written" is not true. We do not get to decide which commands to follow nor do we get to decide to change or add to commands.

This quote is an example of poor logic trains. We start off by stating the command is to sing, and then change the argument to be one dealing with types of music. 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. 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. It is patently clear that song books are not as necessary as nails. And so, our example falls on its face.
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).

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

One has to recognize that these are human arguments and thus leave God out!   If God was to argue the point, then we would have His perspective.  All we have instead is a human being's perspective on the things of God and have the gall to thus claim to determine in His silence what He accepts and what He doesn't.  Scripture does address our ability to determine His ways.

[koscheiman]

Actually He just said "Feed my sheep".

yeah....but He said that to the first Pope, so the rest of us don't need to pay attention.........

The position of pope does not exist in the Bible it is a Catholic addition.

.....yeah......neither does President of the United States.

The President of the United States has nothing to do with the church and its structure. What exactly is your point?

Well, if you don't like that example, let's use songbooks, or church buildings, or long-term located preachers, or .....pick your favorite innovation that isn't mentioned in Scripture. Shall we also outlaw those because they aren't in Scripture?

You are talking about expedients not additions to the Scripture. We are commanded to sing a songbook is an aid to singing it does not add anything to the command. We are commanded to meet a church building aids in this it does not add anything to the command. Do you understand?

Yes, I understand just fine, thank you.

Our elders organize themselves with a chairman, whose "term" lasts three months at a time. This chairman isn't authorized in Scripture any more than the Pope. Since it appears that church organization is for the convenience of the church in question, it seems to me that the existence of the Pope per se, isn't a big deal.

Elders in the plural are authrized by Scripture. Having a chairman for decorums sake is not a bad idea so long as he is not lording over the other elders. A bishop over several churces is not found in Dcripture it is an inovation. The pope is likewise an innovation. The Scriptures say there is one head over the church Jesus the Christ, The creation of the position entiled pope creates two heads over the church this is not the Scriptural plan for the church. I believe the following is quite possibly referring to the pope:

Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
(2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 NKJV)

....and so, if you agree with the innovation, it's OK. But if you object to it, it isn't?

Cool by me.

I do not agree with any innovations or additions. An expedient is not an innovation or addition.

And, pray tell, who's decided this?

A rose by any other name.........

Must we have authority for everything we do in religion? Everything? What about the many things we do that the Bible does not mention? For example, where is our authority for church buildings, pews, lighting, carpet, television programs, songbooks, and communion trays?

Consider the case of Noah. He was instructed by God to construct a large wooden boat. God's instructions included such details as dimensions, type of wood, a door and window, and decks (Genesis 6:14-16). The principle of authority applied to Noah in the following fashion. He was authorized to build a boat, but not authorized to build an alternative mode of transportation (e.g., car, plane, or balloon). He was authorized to make the boat out of wood, but not authorized to make it out of some other material (e.g., plastic, steel, or fiberglass). He was authorized to use "gopher wood,

[marc]

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

[HRoberson]

Actually He just said "Feed my sheep".

yeah....but He said that to the first Pope, so the rest of us don't need to pay attention.........

The position of pope does not exist in the Bible it is a Catholic addition.

.....yeah......neither does President of the United States.

The President of the United States has nothing to do with the church and its structure. What exactly is your point?

Well, if you don't like that example, let's use songbooks, or church buildings, or long-term located preachers, or .....pick your favorite innovation that isn't mentioned in Scripture. Shall we also outlaw those because they aren't in Scripture?

You are talking about expedients not additions to the Scripture. We are commanded to sing a songbook is an aid to singing it does not add anything to the command. We are commanded to meet a church building aids in this it does not add anything to the command. Do you understand?

Yes, I understand just fine, thank you.

Our elders organize themselves with a chairman, whose "term" lasts three months at a time. This chairman isn't authorized in Scripture any more than the Pope. Since it appears that church organization is for the convenience of the church in question, it seems to me that the existence of the Pope per se, isn't a big deal.

Elders in the plural are authrized by Scripture. Having a chairman for decorums sake is not a bad idea so long as he is not lording over the other elders. A bishop over several churces is not found in Dcripture it is an inovation. The pope is likewise an innovation. The Scriptures say there is one head over the church Jesus the Christ, The creation of the position entiled pope creates two heads over the church this is not the Scriptural plan for the church. I believe the following is quite possibly referring to the pope:

Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
(2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 NKJV)

....and so, if you agree with the innovation, it's OK. But if you object to it, it isn't?

Cool by me.

I do not agree with any innovations or additions. An expedient is not an innovation or addition.

And, pray tell, who's decided this?

A rose by any other name.........

Must we have authority for everything we do in religion? Everything? What about the many things we do that the Bible does not mention? For example, where is our authority for church buildings, pews, lighting, carpet, television programs, songbooks, and communion trays?

Consider the case of Noah. He was instructed by God to construct a large wooden boat. God's instructions included such details as dimensions, type of wood, a door and window, and decks (Genesis 6:14-16). The principle of authority applied to Noah in the following fashion. He was authorized to build a boat, but not authorized to build an alternative mode of transportation (e.g., car, plane, or balloon). He was authorized to make the boat out of wood, but not authorized to make it out of some other material (e.g., plastic, steel, or fiberglass). He was authorized to use "gopher wood,

[zoonance]

warren is infallible.

[koscheiman]

Actually He just said "Feed my sheep".

yeah....but He said that to the first Pope, so the rest of us don't need to pay attention.........

The position of pope does not exist in the Bible it is a Catholic addition.

.....yeah......neither does President of the United States.

The President of the United States has nothing to do with the church and its structure. What exactly is your point?

Well, if you don't like that example, let's use songbooks, or church buildings, or long-term located preachers, or .....pick your favorite innovation that isn't mentioned in Scripture. Shall we also outlaw those because they aren't in Scripture?

You are talking about expedients not additions to the Scripture. We are commanded to sing a songbook is an aid to singing it does not add anything to the command. We are commanded to meet a church building aids in this it does not add anything to the command. Do you understand?

Yes, I understand just fine, thank you.

Our elders organize themselves with a chairman, whose "term" lasts three months at a time. This chairman isn't authorized in Scripture any more than the Pope. Since it appears that church organization is for the convenience of the church in question, it seems to me that the existence of the Pope per se, isn't a big deal.

Elders in the plural are authrized by Scripture. Having a chairman for decorums sake is not a bad idea so long as he is not lording over the other elders. A bishop over several churces is not found in Dcripture it is an inovation. The pope is likewise an innovation. The Scriptures say there is one head over the church Jesus the Christ, The creation of the position entiled pope creates two heads over the church this is not the Scriptural plan for the church. I believe the following is quite possibly referring to the pope:

Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
(2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 NKJV)

....and so, if you agree with the innovation, it's OK. But if you object to it, it isn't?

Cool by me.

I do not agree with any innovations or additions. An expedient is not an innovation or addition.

And, pray tell, who's decided this?

A rose by any other name.........

Must we have authority for everything we do in religion? Everything? What about the many things we do that the Bible does not mention? For example, where is our authority for church buildings, pews, lighting, carpet, television programs, songbooks, and communion trays?

Consider the case of Noah. He was instructed by God to construct a large wooden boat. God's instructions included such details as dimensions, type of wood, a door and window, and decks (Genesis 6:14-16). The principle of authority applied to Noah in the following fashion. He was authorized to build a boat, but not authorized to build an alternative mode of transportation (e.g., car, plane, or balloon). He was authorized to make the boat out of wood, but not authorized to make it out of some other material (e.g., plastic, steel, or fiberglass). He was authorized to use "gopher wood,

[koscheiman]

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.

[marc]

Then there's a higher standard than, "I and many that I know believe the book to be right on track and logical."

Like actual logic, for instance.

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[stevehut]

I found salvation without anyone else teaching me what the Bible says...and it wasn't some misguided faith either. In fact, before I even knew what a denomination was I was already filled with the spiritual love, joy, and peace that comes from God's truth.

Very good.

Then let's look at the question a different way:

Do you believe this should be the norm for a Christian conversion?