Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: roo_ster on June 05, 2009, 01:17:35 AM
-
This thread is a continuation of a thread drift in Politics Place:
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=19753.0
Specifically, it is in answer to MechAg94's post:
Looking at the 2nd definition of "fundy" above, those things fit pretty close with the non-denominational church I grew up with. It was and still is likely the exact opposite of what a charismatic church would be. You show up, sit down, shut up, and listen to the pretty technical sermon for 45 minutes. Sing a few songs on Sundays. Smiley
What do y'all mean when you call your Lutheran Church "confessional"? Does that mean you confess to priests or just that you believe in confessing sins to God? Just curious.
In a nutshell:
A confessional denomination/church/synod/whatever adheres to a written digest of basic doctrine. The digest ("confession") does not supersede scripture, but is in accord with it and faithful to it. Think some of the old-school, basic statements of orthodoxy like the Apostles & Nicene Creeds. It is much more binding and rigorous than a "What We Believe" tab on a church's web page.
To drive the point home, it is confessional not in the "I regret what I did and I ask forgiveness" sense, but in the "I confess that this is true to the Bible and what I believe" sense. Confession as in having remorse and asking forgiveness for sin is a different topic...one addressed in the digest (See Book of Concord below).
An example of a non-confessional denomination would be Southern Baptists. There is some general agreement as to doctrine, but it is much more fluid. I recall that the SBs tried to write down a set of core beliefs at one convention and there was a big hullabaloo by the theological liberals. An even more non-confessional denomination would be some of the charismatic churches, where some sermons look more like debates between two ministers who are trying to get at what they believe or advocate their particular view.
And, of course, some outwardly confessional denominations are so in name only, after having gutted their confessions of faith of any meaning.
The Lutheran compilation of all these confessions is known as the Book of Concord. Other confessional denominations will have their own digests.
http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/TrigBOC.pdf
http://www.bookofconcord.org/intro.php
Here is the latest published version, with additional resources like maps, timelines, context, etc (50% off for the month of June!):
http://cph.org/cphstore/Category.asp?find%5Fcategory=97615&find%5Fdescription=June+Sale+%96+50%25+off+Concordia%3A+The+Lutheran+Confessions&find%5Fpart%5Fdesc=lutheran+confessions
There are also several other English translations freely downloadable from the web, but the linked one on sale is probably the most accessible due to the contextual materials.
The Book of Concord contains documents which Christians from the fourth to the 16th century A.D. explained what they believed and taught on the basis of the Holy Scriptures. It includes, first, the three creeds which originated in the ancient church, the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. It contains, secondly, the Reformation writings known as the Augsburg Confession, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, Luther's Small and Large Catechisms, and the Formula of Concord.
The Catechisms and the Smalcald Articles came from the pen of Martin Luther; the Augsburg Confession, its Apology, and the Treatise were written by Luther's co-worker, the scholarly Phillip Melanchthon; the Formula of Concord was given its final form chiefly by Jacob Andreae, Martin Chemnitz, and Nickolaus Selnecker.
A couple of confessional Lutheran-oriented websites:
http://www.confessionallutherans.org/
http://www.steadfastlutherans.org/
One last note:
I think the most diametrically-opposed sort of church/denomination would be the "emerging" or "emergent" church movement, which seems to be very much defined most by what they are not, rather than what they are. A DFW example of this would be http://www.journeydallas.com/. Their "Core Values" page seems all "how" and no "what." (http://www.journeydallas.com/core-values.html) "How" can be very significant, but "how" without a "what" is not worth a hoot. FTR, I went there for a while, but I was definitely the odd an out in just about every way imaginable. Nice folks, though.
-
One thing that puzzles me is the difference the Lutherans draw between confessing and professing. What's the deal there?
-
Thanks jfruser. I figured I was out of luck after getting the other thread locked. :)
The church I grew up with is most definitely not liberal. The current pastor doesn't include as much fire and brimstone stuff, but he is still pretty conservative and sticks to the scripture pretty good. Here is the link. I am never very good at describing my own faith. http://www.berachah.org/Doctrinal%20Statement.htm
-
To add to this, most of my relatives I grew up with were Baptist. My grandfather was the deacon in the local First Baptist Church and taught the adult Bible study. He wasn't liberal at all and believed in daily study of the scripture. However, most of the pastors that came through were liberal so I can certainly understand a bit about what you are talking about.
-
To add to this, most of my relatives I grew up with were Baptist. My grandfather was the deacon in the local First Baptist Church and taught the adult Bible study. He wasn't liberal at all and believed in daily study of the scripture. However, most of the pastors that came through were liberal so I can certainly understand a bit about what you are talking about.
Ahhh... you've discovered the problem with calling someone "Baptist".
jfruser was specifically talking about the Southern Baptists. Within the Southern Baptist denomination, there are a few liberal pastors and theologians, but the majority of the denomination is more fundamental.
However, there are MANY different Baptist denominations, such that simply calling someone "Baptist" does not give you a good idea of their theology.
I am currently attending a Southern Baptist church (VERY conservative) and I grew up in a Regular Baptist Church (seriously, the denomination was General Association of Regular Baptist Churches GARBC) which is a conservative denomination.
However, American Baptist (for example) is a very liberal denomination.
As an illustration of the problem defining "Baptist", below is Wiki's list of Baptist denominations ONLY in the United States (there are many more across the world):
Alliance of Baptists
American Baptist Association
American Baptist Churches
Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America
Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
Baptist Bible Fellowship International
Baptist General Conference
Baptist Missionary Association of America
Central Baptist Association
Christian Unity Baptist Association
Conservative Baptist Association of America
Continental Baptist Churches
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
Enterprise Association of Regular Baptists
Evangelical Free Baptist Church
Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship
Fundamental Baptist Fellowship Association
Fundamental Baptist Fellowship of America
General Association of Baptists
General Association of General Baptists
General Association of Regular Baptist Churches
General Conference of the Evangelical Baptist Church, Inc.
General Six-Principle Baptists
Independent Baptist Church of America
Independent Baptist Fellowship International
Independent Baptist Fellowship of North America
Institutional Missionary Baptist Conference of America
Interstate & Foreign Landmark Missionary Baptist Association
Landmark Baptists
Liberty Baptist Fellowship
Macedonia Baptist World Missions
Mainstream Baptist Network
National Association of Free Will Baptists
National Baptist Convention of America, Inc.
National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.
National Baptist Evangelical Life and Soul Saving Assembly of the U.S.A.
National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
National Primitive Baptist Convention of the U.S.A.
New Testament Association of Independent Baptist Churches
North American Baptist Conference
Old Regular Baptist
Indian Bottom Association of Old Regular Baptists
Old Time Missionary Baptist
Original Free Will Baptist Convention
Progressive National Baptist Convention
Reformed Baptist
Regular Baptist
Roger Williams Fellowship
Separate Baptist
Separate Baptists in Christ
Seventh Day Baptist General Conference
Southern Baptist Convention
Southwide Baptist Fellowship
Sovereign Grace Baptists
Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists
United American Free Will Baptist Church
United American Free Will Baptist Conference
United Baptists
Unregistered Baptist Fellowship
World Baptist Fellowship
Worldwide Baptist New Testament Missions
-
A confessional denomination/church/synod/whatever adheres to a written digest of basic doctrine. The digest ("confession") does not supersede scripture, but is in accord with it and faithful to it. Think some of the old-school, basic statements of orthodoxy like the Apostles & Nicene Creeds. It is much more binding and rigorous than a "What We Believe" tab on a church's web page.
Sounds similar to the 7th day adventists, who have a sub-book of principles and doctrines written by a church founder that they maintain is not authoritative or part of the Word but is profitable for instruction all the same.
-
Creed, Confession, or Catechism. These are all just the traditions of men that are bound on the followers of those men. What did Jesus say about following the traditions of men, when he denounced the Jewish High Priests and their disciples? It was not a favorable pronouncement he made regarding them. Likewise when Paul the Apostle denounced some of the members of the church for following after specific ministers, and denominating themselves on the basis of which preacher they followed.
All of these doctrines (traditions) of men separate one denomination from another, when Jesus and the Apostles called for unity in following the teachings of God. Why is it that men can not just follow the Bible without adding to or taking away from what it teaches, or in some other way perverting the message. The practice of perverting the word, adding to it, or taking away from it is condemned. Emphasizing particular aspects while minimizing others is just a way of achieving what is soundly condemned, and incurring the wrath of God at judgment.
-
One of Many, I see the truth in your post. But I'm not sure what can be done about it.
I can choose a church organization that agrees with you/us, but we can see the inconsistency there.
I could abstain from affiliations with church organizations altogether (which I did do until recently), but then there is the bit about our being called to commune with each other.
Another option would be to start my own church, an option which I have actually considered at least somewhat.
-
Why is it that men can not just follow the Bible without adding to or taking away from what it teaches, or in some other way perverting the message.
Because we are human and have free will. Besides even if man followed the Bible perfectly, it was written by men and therefore is as flawed as man is. Unless of course you would content that God was working directly through the men that wrote it and negating their free will.
Perhaps it would be better to stick to the core principle of being good to others and doing good in the world rather than arguing over the details?
-
Ahhh... you've discovered the problem with calling someone "Baptist".
jfruser was specifically talking about the Southern Baptists. Within the Southern Baptist denomination, there are a few liberal pastors and theologians, but the majority of the denomination is more fundamental.
However, there are MANY different Baptist denominations, such that simply calling someone "Baptist" does not give you a good idea of their theology.
I am currently attending a Southern Baptist church (VERY conservative) and I grew up in a Regular Baptist Church (seriously, the denomination was General Association of Regular Baptist Churches GARBC) which is a conservative denomination....
I spent my teen years at a G.A.R.B. church in Western Michigan.
-
Because we are human and have free will. Besides even if man followed the Bible perfectly, it was written by men and therefore is as flawed as man is. Unless of course you would content that God was working directly through the men that wrote it and negating their free will.
Perhaps it would be better to stick to the core principle of being good to others and doing good in the world rather than arguing over the details?
Is that really the "core principle" of the Bible?
-
Is that really the "core principle" of the Bible?
Ok I'm admittedly a tad rusty there maybe it would have been better to say "the core principle of Jesus teachings" Which I believe was to love God and thy neighbor as you would yourself.
-
Which I believe was to love God and thy neighbor as you would yourself.
OT, I think it's really annoying when people use archaic language for no particular reason.
-
OT, I think it's really annoying when people use archaic language for no particular reason.
Zounds! Thou dost vex me with a great tribulation as thou complaineth!
-
Ok I'm admittedly a tad rusty there maybe it would have been better to say "the core principle of Jesus teachings" Which I believe was to love God and thy neighbor as you would yourself.
O.K. That will work for my interperetation (one of 6 billion varying opinions I'm sure), even extending it as far as to believe that Jesus' teachings were in conformance with the rest of what modern Christians call "The Bible" with the caveat that Jesus didn't stop with those two points, but made them into a rather large umbrella regarding personal behavior..."On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” -continued thought in 1 John 5 "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. This is love for God: to obey his commands."
And yes, "fundamentalists" believe that God worked directly through the physical authors of the Bible.
-
Is that really the "core principle" of the Bible?
Once you strip away all the frippery, this is what's left: "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
IMNSHO, that pretty much covers it.
-
And yes, "fundamentalists" believe that God worked directly through the physical authors of the Bible.
Catholics believe that they (Gospel writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were inspired by God.
-
Once you strip away all the frippery, this is what's left: "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
IMNSHO, that pretty much covers it.
Is the "loving God and keeping his commandments" part "frippery" to your NSHO?
-
Confessions and such help nail things down and put them in order. They clarify/summarize some things. I think the Westminster Catechism cites verses for pretty much every thing mentioned. Otherwise, you have major issues with old vs. new testament vs present society (among other things). Must all men wear beards? Women wear head coverings and avoid makeup?
My folks leave churches very soon after or just before a preacher leaves. In every case. No preachers in my family, but the folks do like to teach classes... I've been members of three Southern Baptist churches and two 'reformed' churches. One of the reformed churches split from the other. The original church is pretty good and solid. The other is... weird. If you're familiar with some of the shenanigans of the CREC, you've got a good idea of the weird church. Back to Southern Baptist once again, for the simple reason that they'll leave you alone. When they feel like making insults, they have the courtesy to do it behind your back. :laugh:
-
Is the "loving God and keeping his commandments" part "frippery" to your NSHO?
After being raised a Southern Baptist and then getting out in the world and seeing how humans act toward each other I consider the Golden Rule to be the paramount Commandment and the best way for people to get along in the world. The Book in its entirety boils down to that. The rest is window dressing. If anyone gets more than that out of it, fine. Personal beliefs are just that and all are welcome to their own.
-
Back to Southern Baptist once again, for the simple reason that they'll leave you alone. When they feel like making insults, they have the courtesy to do it behind your back. :laugh:
If that ain't the damn truth...
-
d The rest is window dressing.
O.k. I'll take that as a "yes"
-
I have little experience with those religious organizations since I grew up with a non-denominational Church. I simply didn't care about what those other groups thought. My pastor always said that Christians do themselves a great service by simply staying quiet and focusing on learning doctrine. Put your focus on God and not on other people. When you focus on other people, it is difficult to avoid comparing yourself to them and developing arrogant standards of relative righteousness rather than sticking with God's standards.
I have no problem with the Golden Rule and think it is a good way to live, but IMO, that is a result of the Christian way of life as much or more than a goal. I don't think you can dismiss any one part of the Bible without losing lessons that will help you at some point. Basic humility in your thinking and approach to others is almost a prerequisite to actually practicing the Golden Rule in your life.
-
Baptists
As makattak showed, there are quite a few different associations out there...and he didn't even go into the few groups descended from the anabaptists.
Creed, Confession, or Catechism. These are all just the traditions of men that are bound on the followers of those men. What did Jesus say about following the traditions of men, when he denounced the Jewish High Priests and their disciples? It was not a favorable pronouncement he made regarding them. Likewise when Paul the Apostle denounced some of the members of the church for following after specific ministers, and denominating themselves on the basis of which preacher they followed.
All of these doctrines (traditions) of men separate one denomination from another, when Jesus and the Apostles called for unity in following the teachings of God. Why is it that men can not just follow the Bible without adding to or taking away from what it teaches, or in some other way perverting the message. The practice of perverting the word, adding to it, or taking away from it is condemned. Emphasizing particular aspects while minimizing others is just a way of achieving what is soundly condemned, and incurring the wrath of God at judgment.
Any single believer with the cognitive ability to organize their thoughts will have developed some sort of systematized doctrine after reading the Bible as more than a historical document. Any group of like-minded believers with cognitive ability will also develop some sort of doctrine they find mutually agreeable. Some of these groups will go so far as to record their thoughts. This is not some sort of evil process that separates us from each other & God, it is just the way humans wrap their minds around complex concepts. It is the use of one's reason and one's faith.
Even "non-confessional" churches practice this:
Southern Baptist Convention: http://www.sbc.net/bfm/default.asp
American Baptist Association: http://www.abaptist.org/general.html
Interdenominational or "Nondenominational" Churches: http://amazingloveministries.net/ , http://www.cintlc.org/
I am at a loss to understand the hostility to collecting the concepts of the Bible and writing them down. Creed, confession, doctrine, affirmation of faith, witness...whether it stays silent in one's mind, is spoken in public, or written down, the concepts still exist. Wishing them away or calling them by another name does not change their nature.
Frankly, it seems to be a rejection of the reason portion of "faith & reason" to take issue with the systematic study and documentation of the concepts found in the Bible.
My pastor always said that Christians do themselves a great service by simply staying quiet and focusing on learning doctrine. Put your focus on God and not on other people. When you focus on other people, it is difficult to avoid comparing yourself to them and developing arrogant standards of relative righteousness rather than sticking with God's standards.
Wise pastor.
I have no problem with the Golden Rule and think it is a good way to live, but IMO, that is a result of the Christian way of life as much or more than a goal. I don't think you can dismiss any one part of the Bible without losing lessons that will help you at some point. Basic humility in your thinking and approach to others is almost a prerequisite to actually practicing the Golden Rule in your life.
Yup.
-
Sounds similar to the 7th day adventists, who have a sub-book of principles and doctrines written by a church founder that they maintain is not authoritative or part of the Word but is profitable for instruction all the same.
Very different views on things. But, I suppose yes.
The Lutheran confessions can be found in the book of concord.
Creed, Confession, or Catechism. These are all just the traditions of men that are bound on the followers of those men. What did Jesus say about following the traditions of men, when he denounced the Jewish High Priests and their disciples? It was not a favorable pronouncement he made regarding them. Likewise when Paul the Apostle denounced some of the members of the church for following after specific ministers, and denominating themselves on the basis of which preacher they followed.
All of these doctrines (traditions) of men separate one denomination from another, when Jesus and the Apostles called for unity in following the teachings of God. Why is it that men can not just follow the Bible without adding to or taking away from what it teaches, or in some other way perverting the message. The practice of perverting the word, adding to it, or taking away from it is condemned. Emphasizing particular aspects while minimizing others is just a way of achieving what is soundly condemned, and incurring the wrath of God at judgment.
Traditions are fine, so long as they are in line with scripture and neither contradict it nor add things as necessary that are not found in scripture. Needing a Priest to talk to God or make intercession, alcohol in any way is evil, needing to worship on Sunday, this contradicts and/or adds to scripture. The confessions found in the Book of Concord do not add to or go against scripture in any way. Neither does our Catechism. They explain how we view scripture and our faith, which is all strait from scripture.
Scripture interprets scripture is the traditional Lutheran view, and conservative/confessional Lutherans still agree with it.
-
One thing that puzzles me is the difference the Lutherans draw between confessing and professing. What's the deal there?
Neither I nor my pastor knows of any significant distinction, here, or any Lutherans who spend time on splitting that hair.
This is the first I've ever heard of a distinction between confessing
and professing. Like you, the words sound synonymous to me.
The only distinction I could think of is that "con," meaning "with,"
and "pro" meaning "in favor of," confession is more of a corporate act
- we speak together, we confess the Creed, etc. - versus profession
being more individualistic - I profess my faith. But, again, I know
of no Lutherans to spend any time on this.
-
The problem is one of scriptural authority for the teachings and practices that are done in the name of Christ. Scriptural authority is found in direct commands from Christ or the Apostles, approved examples by Christ and the Apostles and Disciples, and NECESSARY inferences. It is this last category that causes a great many problems. Another problem is the inability of people to recognize the difference between SPECIFIC authority, and GENERIC authority. Some people have the notion that if the scripture does not forbid something, it is permissible to do that thing, while others believe that one can only do what has been directly stated as acceptable by the scripture.
Scripture teaches us that the Christians in the time of the Apostles gathered together in church on every first day of the week to worship. That is approved example, in addition to the command to take the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week. The Christians were also commanded to lay by in store on the first day of the week. How then can anyone justify a practice of NOT attending worship services on the first day of every week, and claim to be following the teachings of God?
The scripture tells Christians to study the scripture, to pray, and to sing and make melody in their hearts. How does that become authorization for pianos or organs or even rock band performances? How does the command to sing translate into having a choir that most people listen to, instead of participating in the singing themselves. When did entertainment become the primary purpose of the worship service, instead of obeying God and glorifying God by the obedience?
Christians are each considered to be a priest, and the high priest is Jesus Christ. There is no mention in the new testament of a separate priestly class that people must seek out to intercede for them, or to hear their confessions. Christians are told to confess their sins to one another, to the church, not to a special confessor that will hide their shame and make it easier to continue living in sinful practices. The scripture does not authorize selling indulgences, or buying one's relative out of purgatory. Christians are taught that there is only one spiritual father, and only God is to be called Reverend.
There are many practices, taught by many denominations, that are in clear violation of what is taught in the scripture. Why are those practices accepted by the members of those denominations? The members are ignorant of what the scripture teaches, because they have been taught that the scripture is too difficult for the common person to understand, and they need a specialist to explain to to them. Thus the doctrines of men and the denomination of the church, instead of the unity in obedience to God.
-
The scripture tells Christians to study the scripture, to pray, and to sing and make melody in their hearts. How does that become authorization for pianos or organs or even rock band performances? How does the command to sing translate into having a choir that most people listen to, instead of participating in the singing themselves. When did entertainment become the primary purpose of the worship service, instead of obeying God and glorifying God by the obedience?
While I sympathize with some of the concerns expressed in this paragraph, it seems you are making up man-made rules that simply can't be found in scripture. If the Bible contains a "command to sing," then it would be silly not to expect instrumental accompaniment. And since I don't recall any law against using musical instruments, your point of view is an argument from silence. You are also missing at least one scriptural verse that condones musical instruments in worship.
But as I said, I sympathize. I have always understood a choir to be a group that leads the singing, not a bunch of people that do your singing for you.
-
That is approved example, in addition to the command to take the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week.
I remember the bit about the Lord's Supper, but I don't remember anything about how or when it should be done.
-
one,
Obviously your opinion isn't likely to change so I won't attempt it.
Simply put, by insisting on your understanding of Scripture and what is allowable as the only "correct one", you are in fact creating a personal doctrine.
"Some people have the notion that if the scripture does not forbid something, it is permissible to do that thing, while others believe that one can only do what has been directly stated as acceptable by the scripture."
As a Protestant believer, in the absence of clear scriptural prohibition what is allowable, the "allowability" of any action can rationally and spiritually only be determined by that individual through prayer. It is not then the place of others to dictate or challenge; to do so is to be legalistic and cause them to stumble. That isn't what the fathers of the church died for.
-
As a Protestant believer, in the absence of clear scriptural prohibition what is allowable, the "allowability" of any action can rationally and spiritually only be determined by that individual through prayer. It is not then the place of others to dictate or challenge; to do so is to be legalistic and cause them to stumble. That isn't what the fathers of the church died for.
I have to agree to some extent at least. If the Bible does not forbid something then for what reason would you add additional prohibitions and under what authority? That is one small disagreement I have with Baptists. However, you shouldn't flaunt your freedoms or allow yourself to become a distraction/stumbling block to other believers. That is the subject of a set sermons I am in the middle of now.
-
Oh I definitely agree.
My current church is non-denom evangelical.
We have a great band and use contemporary worship music, and have no prohibition on dancing or drinking (in moderation of course). That is knowledge you get up front and the whys and wherefores are explained every so often in sermons (and explicitly in doctrine classes), don't like it, don't join.
However, the pastors generally don't drink or dance in public around town as a large number of church members do come from traditions that eschew both and they don't want to unnecessarily cause affront.
Like Paul, they willingly personally restrict what they feel is allowable behavior for the sake of their flock. That is a duty we all have, to, out of love and respect, not cause others to stumble simply to assert our personal faith-based "rights".
Takes a mature and confident faith.
-
I have to agree to some extent at least. If the Bible does not forbid something then for what reason would you add additional prohibitions and under what authority? That is one small disagreement I have with CERTAIN Baptists. However, you shouldn't flaunt your freedoms or allow yourself to become a distraction/stumbling block to other believers. That is the subject of a set sermons I am in the middle of now.
Fixed that for you.
Again, you're conflating the Baptists you have experience with with all Baptists. You'll find Baptists have a wide range of beliefs. Many are legalistic. Not all are, though.
-
As a Protestant believer, in the absence of clear scriptural prohibition what is allowable, the "allowability" of any action can rationally and spiritually only be determined by that individual through prayer. It is not then the place of others to dictate or challenge; to do so is to be legalistic and cause them to stumble. That isn't what the fathers of the church died for.
Very much agreed.
While it is OK to say that alcohol can lead to drunkenness so I will not consume alcohol so as not to overstep and offend God is fine, saying God therefor says no alcohol is not. While promoting worship on Sunday to glorify Christ as that is the day he rose from the grave is fine and well, trying to state it must be done on Sunday is not.
It is often a fine line between tradition or devotion, and adding onto scripture. That fine line can often be as simple as saying something is good, versus something is needed.
-
While I sympathize with some of the concerns expressed in this paragraph, it seems you are making up man-made rules that simply can't be found in scripture. If the Bible contains a "command to sing," then it would be silly not to expect instrumental accompaniment. And since I don't recall any law against using musical instruments, your point of view is an argument from silence. You are also missing at least one scriptural verse that condones musical instruments in worship.
But as I said, I sympathize. I have always understood a choir to be a group that leads the singing, not a bunch of people that do your singing for you.
It seems that you are trying to play both sides of the authority issue. You claim to be IGNORANT of the command to sing, then you say it would be SILLY (to God or to man - who decides if it is silly?) not to accompany singing with musical instruments, THEN you claim to be aware of a scriptural verse authorizing musical instruments. The ONLY authorization of musical instruments in worship was under the Law of Moses - the New Testament (the covenant of Christ which made the old Law of Moses obsolete) never authorized instruments other than the voice and the HEART. That is not a matter of being silly to man, it is a matter of obedience to God.
-
Most of you seem to lack understanding of the difference between generic and specific authority.
If I tell my son to go to the grocery store and pick up some food for supper, that command is generic in that I did not specify which grocery store, but specific in that it excludes any other type of store. That command is generic in that food was specified, but specific that other items are excluded. Generic authority is inclusive, while specific authority is exclusive. My son could go to any grocery store he chose, and buy any type of food he liked, and be in compliance with that command, as long as he got the food back home in time for supper to be prepared. If he decided to go to a liquor store and buy beer and pretzels, and didn't return in time for supper, he would be violating the command on several aspects: going to an unauthorized store; buying unauthorized beverage; getting back late for supper.
How hard is it to understand such a basic principle?
When both command and approved example indicate the first day of the week, why do people decide that only means one Sunday a year? Approved example shows that the pattern was every Sunday. When the scripture says to sing and make melody in your heart, why do people think that includes various musical instruments. Sing is specific in that it excludes instruments, and generic in that it doesn't specify what the style is. Another part of the command tells us Spiritual Songs, Hymns, and Psalms. These are types of music, not how they are presented. It does not inform us to whether the singing is done by chanting, in four part harmony, with sheet music or song books, all together or in rounds, etc. It does tell us to sing and make melody in our hearts, not to make melody with musical instruments. That command is to all Christians that gather in worship, not just a select few that have more pleasing voices.
-
A confessional denomination/church/synod/whatever adheres to a written digest of basic doctrine. The digest ("confession") does not supersede scripture, but is in accord with it and faithful to it
It says "this is how we understand scripture and the world". If someone claims Christianity but chokes on the ancient ecumenical creeds, he needs to be questioned very closely.
From long residence in the "Three Forms of Unity" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Forms_of_Unity) world, here's one I favor: Heildelberg Catechism (http://www.ccel.org/creeds/heidelberg-cat.html). Short, and the first question hits you between the eyes like a sledge hammer.
Question 1.
What is thy only comfort in life and death?
Answer.
That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him.
The Lutheran confessions can be found in the book of concord.
Reformed are a bit more scattered. The above mentioned "Three Forms of Unity" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Forms_of_Unity) and the Westminster Standards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Standards).
The scripture tells Christians to study the scripture, to pray, and to sing and make melody in their hearts. How does that become authorization for pianos or organs or even rock band performances? How does the command to sing translate into having a choir that most people listen to, instead of participating in the singing themselves. When did entertainment become the primary purpose of the worship service, instead of obeying God and glorifying God by the obedience?
Net grep "regulative principle of worship" (http://www.google.com/search?q=regulative+principle+of+worship&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a). These questions have been asked for a long time.
We have a great band and use contemporary worship music, and have no prohibition on dancing or drinking (in moderation of course).
I've said elsewhere that the only thing that seems to restrain evangelical worship is good taste and good sense, and the memory of what was. Good taste and good sense can't be trusted these days, and memory goes hazy. Is it OK to say the American Pledge of Allegiance during worship? (They do at my church, but wow, talk about a mixed message.) Ditch the sermon for a skit? There are questions of conscience to consider -- is it right to bind someone to something that God does not command?
-
You claim to be IGNORANT of the command to sing,
No I did not. Come to think of it, though, I'm not sure there is one.
then you say it would be SILLY (to God or to man - who decides if it is silly?) not to accompany singing with musical instruments,
Never said that, either. I said it would be silly not to expect some musical accompaniment to be used, at some point, especially as God's Word already condoned it. I didn't say that unaccompanied singing was silly.
THEN you claim to be aware of a scriptural verse authorizing musical instruments. The ONLY authorization of musical instruments in worship was under the Law of Moses - the New Testament (the covenant of Christ which made the old Law of Moses obsolete) never authorized instruments other than the voice and the HEART.
And where does scripture teach that instrumental music is unacceptable under the new covenant? What is it about the new covenant that favors a cappella, or makes instruments suddenly unacceptable?
You may interpret scripture that way, if you like, it just seems rather ironic that you started with a lecture on the evils of human traditions.
-
My religion can beat up your religion?
Either you believe in and follow the Bible or not. Everything else is semantics.
-
Ain't it grand? =D
-
never authorized instruments other than the voice and the HEART. That is not a matter of being silly to man, it is a matter of obedience to God.
Did it say not to add instruments? Did it command against them? To say that God doesn't want instruments in church because he does not specifically say so is adding to scripture. No where in scripture does it say to not do so. No where in scripture does it tell us exactly how to conduct a worship service. If it did, it would be another thing to add to it.
I've said elsewhere that the only thing that seems to restrain evangelical worship is good taste and good sense, and the memory of what was. Good taste and good sense can't be trusted these days, and memory goes hazy. Is it OK to say the American Pledge of Allegiance during worship? (They do at my church, but wow, talk about a mixed message.) Ditch the sermon for a skit? There are questions of conscience to consider -- is it right to bind someone to something that God does not command?
Good points. In just about every instance I have seen a church use a "contemporary" worship, the message almost immediately seems to go down as well.
-
A lot of the "traditional" hymns of the nineteenth and twentieth century are hinky, too. Choose carefully.
-
A lot of the "traditional" hymns of the nineteenth and twentieth century are hinky, too. Choose carefully.
Just had my first glass of rum....I thought that read kinky at first....
-
A lot of the "traditional" hymns of the nineteenth and twentieth century are hinky, too. Choose carefully.
Oh gosh yes. Sappy camp meeting revivalist songs, a lot of them. Here's one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_All_the_Saints) from that time range I do like a lot, though (with the Vaughan Williams tune).
I have seen a church use a "contemporary" worship, the message almost immediately seems to go down as well.
My point, by the way, with the bit you quoted from me, is that there is, as far as I can tell, in American low church evangelicalism, no theology of worship. Nothing that restrains, like I said, other than good taste, good sense and a vague memory of how things went when you were a kid. Nobody knows why things are done. Things degenerate into a show, into entertainment.
Get me going and I'll generate an good rant. Could you guess?
-
You guys are complimicated, you make ma brain hurt.
-
as far as I can tell, in American low church evangelicalism, no theology of worship. Nothing that restrains, like I said, other than good taste, good sense and a vague memory of how things went when you were a kid. Nobody knows why things are done. Things degenerate into a show, into entertainment.
I don't quite see how the last sentence follows from the earlier bits. Aren't good taste and good sense enough, as long as things are done "in a fitting and orderly way" (1 Cor. 14:40)?
-
You guys are complimicated, you make ma brain hurt.
Would you like to hear about Federal Vision too? :laugh:
-
as far as I can tell, in American low church evangelicalism, no theology of worship. Nothing that restrains, like I said, other than good taste, good sense and a vague memory of how things went when you were a kid. Nobody knows why things are done. Things degenerate into a show, into entertainment.
Agreed. Unfortunately most church leadership in a lot of the church bodies think it's what gets butts in the pews.
-
Would you like to hear about Federal Vision too? :laugh:
Why am I afraid to ask?
-
Why am I afraid to ask?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Vision
In the circles of people who don't have to look up the definition on Wikipedia, it seems polarizing. People who are against it really seem to enjoy mentioning how much they are against it. :laugh:
FWIW: the ex-pastor of the 'weird church' was involved in thinking up Federal Vision.
-
Would you like to hear about Federal Vision too? laugh
AAAAAAaaaaaa!!!!
<runs screaming away>
Why am I afraid to ask?
Because it's a subtle divergence. In my own current neck of the woods, it would have no traction at all. "Covenant?" -- whoosh, right over the head. Every time it comes up in something I read, I have to look it up.
the ex-pastor of the 'weird church' was involved in thinking up Federal Vision.
Which weird church was that?
-
Which weird church was that?
Church #3. It split from another 'reformed' church (church #4)... a split so jovial that the elders of church #4 referred to #3 church pastor publicly as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing'. The people at #3 are a touch (heh) clannish. And the church is fond of church discipline, knowing financial affairs of congregation, etc... among their oddities was the habit (whether taught or no, couldn't say) of members marrying young, only marrying other church members, and staying in the area raising hordes of kiddies. Practically all of 'em did it (that tactic nearly allowed them to keep the church building at the church they split from). They seemed to object to evangelism, too. Just a strange group of people.
-
(the covenant of Christ which made the old Law of Moses obsolete)
[law_n_gospel]Be careful tossing out the OT, as it contains not only law but gospel, too. While the former may show up my failings, I am awfully fond of the latter.[/law_n_gospel]
From your posts, it seems you have a systematic approach to the properly understood (by your lights) concepts presented in the Bible.
Keep at it and someone might get the idea that you are fomenting doctrine. ;)
-
Romans 14 is worthwhile to contemplate regarding matters neither commanded nor forbidden by Scripture
***
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' "[a] 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.
19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.
22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
-
Church #3. It split from another 'reformed' church (church #4)... a split so jovial that the elders of church #4 referred to #3 church pastor publicly as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing'. The people at #3 are a touch (heh) clannish. And the church is fond of church discipline, knowing financial affairs of congregation, etc... among their oddities was the habit (whether taught or no, couldn't say) of members marrying young, only marrying other church members, and staying in the area raising hordes of kiddies. Practically all of 'em did it (that tactic nearly allowed them to keep the church building at the church they split from). They seemed to object to evangelism, too. Just a strange group of people.
Moscow, Idaho?
(the covenant of Christ which made the old Law of Moses obsolete)
[law_n_gospel]Be careful tossing out the OT, as it contains not only law but gospel, too. While the former may show up my failings, I am awfully fond of the latter.[/law_n_gospel]
Absolutely astonishing to come upon this conversation in a place like APS.
What's next, mono vs. bi covenantalism? Covenant of works in Eden and it's republication at Sinai? The manifold ungospelish muddle of classic and pop dispensationalism?
-
(sort of) on the topic, this article made me laugh, because I had a youth pastor who referenced "Stryper"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryper
and compared Christian lyrics combined with rock/roll music to a woman "stripping for Jesus"
***
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/05/nevada.prostitute.wedding/
Hookers for Jesus founder, Christian rocker wed in Vegas
(CNN) -- She was a call girl working the streets of Sin City. He's a guitarist in a heavy metal band. They found commonality in their Christian faith and Friday evening, the two were married in a Las Vegas, Nevada, ceremony broadcast live via the Web.
Annie Lobért, who founded Hookers for Jesus, and musician Oz Fox of the Christian band Stryper said their "I do's" at the Church of South Las Vegas in front of an applauding crowd and an audience on the Internet. The wedding had been widely touted on several Christian Web sites.
Lobért, 41, walked up to the stage in a white strapless gown, gloves and veil. Earlier this week, she wrote on her MySpace blog: "I am getting married. It's about time."
She had worked as a prostitute for 11 years, making as much as $500 an hour. She said she hit rock bottom when she overdosed on cocaine and everything went black, according to an ABC interview posted on her Web site. She asked Jesus to help her and became what many jokingly call a "porn-again Christian."
Lobért says her mission now is to save the souls of women who sell their bodies. She often spends time at night on Las Vegas streets handing out Bibles to prostitutes and seeking to convince them there is a better way to make a living.
-
Moscow, Idaho?
Texarkana, AR, first listing.
http://www.crechurches.org/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=36
Very pally with Wilson and co. The pastor in question had to leave due to his son getting involved in the drug trade while teaching at DW's school, and is now at Nacogdoches, TX. Said pastor is the CREC moderator, last I checked.
-
There are opposing aspects to the scriptural authority question.
One aspect says that anything that is not specifically prohibited by scripture is permissible.
Another aspect says that only that which is specifically required is permissible,
The group that allows anything that is not specifically prohibited by scripture, sets up councils of men to formulate doctrines that will be followed by the practitioners of that faith. Since there is such a huge area of "silence of the scripture", just about anything can be condoned by a group of people.
The group that allows only that which is specifically required by scripture, sets up councils of men to formulate doctrines that will be followed by the practitioners of that faith. Since there is such a huge area of "silence of the scripture", just about anything can be condemned by a group of people.
Most popular religions fall into the category that allows anything that they do not perceive as specifically condemned. They are usually described to be "liberal".
The few relatively unpopular religions that follow the idea of strict compliance with a few (and only the) specifically required commands found in scripture, are typically referred to as "fundamentalist" in a derogatory manner.
There are some religious groups that do not allow control of doctrine by any council or board of control. They follow the Biblical pattern of autonomous local control of the church. These churches determine among the local members what doctrine they believe and practice. Some fall into the liberal category, and others into the fundamentalist category. These churches are collectively referred to as non-denominational.
The lack of understanding of scriptural authority is the reason there are so many different faiths among those that purport to follow Christ. The problem is that some men like to have power and glory, and they set themselves up as rulers over the church, with doctrines that entice people into following their teaching. This is known as "tickling the ears" of the followers, and is a case of the cart going before the horse. People want to be allowed to do something that is opposed by the religion they were exposed to as a child, so they go "church shopping" until they find a doctrine that lets them continue doing whatever they want, and allows them to salve their conscience by claiming to be following the will of God. In this way people justify adultery, abortion, and many other practices that are condemned in the Bible. If they can't find a church that allows them to do what they want, they just start their own church and create their own doctrine. That is why there are upward of 15,000 different denominations with doctrines of their own making that claim to be "Christian".
Christ and the Apostles said that there is "ONE Faith", not many faiths. The only logical conclusion that can be reached is that the majority of doctrines that are being taught are in conflict with the doctrine of Christ. How does a person determine whether the doctrine they follow is true? The answer is found by personally studying the scripture, and questioning every doctrine to see if it agrees with what was given by the Christ and the Apostles. In order to do that, people must be able to understand the principles of Biblical authority.
Direct Command, Approved Apostolic Example, and Necessary Inference. Nothing can be an Expedient that violates a command or approved apostolic example. It is critical to success to understand the concept of Generic and Specific Authority. These are not mutually exclusive to each other, as I demonstrated with my example concerning sending my son out to obtain food. If an interpretation results in one passage of scripture conflicting with a different passage of scripture, then one or both of those interpretations is incorrect. The Holy Scripture does not contradict itself. God is the God of truth, and can not contradict himself.
With thousands of opposing doctrines being taught by different denominations, the only thing that we can be sure of is that God does not approve. He gave one doctrine, not many. He told people to follow Him, not whatever man tickles their ears. He told people to obey God, not the lusts that they are tempted with.