For CCM? Please convince us FROM Scripture alone

[ALAYMAN]

We're comparing a lecture to the preaching of the Word?

Yes, they are, at least rsc2a explicitly did.  And when called on it, he buries his head, because even he knows how stupid that was.

Paul and Spurgeon wouldn't be popular these days. The primacy of preaching is surely gone in America. The people in America want to be entertained and it has crept into the Church. But the scripture has forth told such.

A+

 

[rsc2a]

We're comparing a lecture to the preaching of the Word?

Yes, they are, at least rsc2a explicitly did.  And when called on it, he buries his head, because even he knows how stupid that was.

No. We are comparing some sermons to a lecture. Admin (I believe) made this point explicitly. We are also pointing out the foolishness that is evident when people claim that the only way to hear the word preached is through a sermon.

You want to see message of Jesus preached and proclaimed mightily? Feed someone or put clothes on their back. These examples are straight from the mouth of Jesus.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

We're comparing a lecture to the preaching of the Word?

Yes, they are, at least rsc2a explicitly did.  And when called on it, he buries his head, because even he knows how stupid that was.

No. We are comparing some sermons to a lecture. Admin (I believe) made this point explicitly. We are also pointing out the foolishness that is evident when people claim that the only way to hear the word preached is through a sermon.

You want to see message of Jesus preached and proclaimed mightily? Feed someone or put clothes on their back. These examples are straight from the mouth of Jesus.

YeH Paul did a lot of that while wandering naked cold hungry and afflicted and others sent one and agaon unto his necessity.

 

[Just John]

We're comparing a lecture to the preaching of the Word?

Yes, they are, at least rsc2a explicitly did.  And when called on it, he buries his head, because even he knows how stupid that was.

No. We are comparing some sermons to a lecture. Admin (I believe) made this point explicitly. We are also pointing out the foolishness that is evident when people claim that the only way to hear the word preached is through a sermon.

You want to see message of Jesus preached and proclaimed mightily? Feed someone or put clothes on their back. These examples are straight from the mouth of Jesus.

YeH Paul did a lot of that while wandering naked cold hungry and afflicted and others sent one and agaon unto his necessity.

Or, we could use examples from the the life of Christ. His "sermons" were taught mostly not to large groups of assembled people for just such an occasion but rather in His interactions with small groups and individuals in real world situations along the way. And some of these "sermons" tell us something about "feeding the hungry and clothing the naked" or about taking care of the "widows and the orphans". "This is real religion".

The liberals want to ignore the gospel and the X'ers and sometimes Evangelical's want to ignore the individual physical needs. B.A.L.A.N.C.E.  In the same way "preaching" is not only behind a pulpit and "worshiping" is not just music.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

I guess that ends this. If your experience & discernment of the times out weighs mine and everyone elses there's no need to flame on. No hard feelings my good Christian bro.

And this is what makes worship relative to the individual. Different styles/venues influence people differently.

Thanks for pointing that out.

There is an inherent danger with this line of thought. If my worship is not feeling the way I want, I may be tempted to keep trying stimuli until I get the feeling I want  instead of examining my heart which is very likely the reason my worship is not producing the feeling I want.

If I get my heart right, my worship will be right and the stimuli won't be the prevailing factor.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

We're comparing a lecture to the preaching of the Word?

Yes, they are, at least rsc2a explicitly did.  And when called on it, he buries his head, because even he knows how stupid that was.

No. We are comparing some sermons to a lecture. Admin (I believe) made this point explicitly. We are also pointing out the foolishness that is evident when people claim that the only way to hear the word preached is through a sermon.

You want to see message of Jesus preached and proclaimed mightily? Feed someone or put clothes on their back. These examples are straight from the mouth of Jesus.

YeH Paul did a lot of that while wandering naked cold hungry and afflicted and others sent one and agaon unto his necessity.

Or, we could use examples from the the life of Christ. His "sermons" were taught mostly not to large groups of assembled people for just such an occasion but rather in His interactions with small groups and individuals in real world situations along the way. And some of these "sermons" tell us something about "feeding the hungry and clothing the naked" or about taking care of the "widows and the orphans". "This is real religion".

The liberals want to ignore the gospel and the X'ers and sometimes Evangelical's want to ignore the individual physical needs. B.A.L.A.N.C.E.  In the same way "preaching" is not only behind a pulpit and "worshiping" is not just music.

Small groups? Like the feeding of the....

 

[Mathew Ward]

We're comparing a lecture to the preaching of the Word?

Yes, they are, at least rsc2a explicitly did.  And when called on it, he buries his head, because even he knows how stupid that was.

No. We are comparing some sermons to a lecture. Admin (I believe) made this point explicitly. We are also pointing out the foolishness that is evident when people claim that the only way to hear the word preached is through a sermon.

You want to see message of Jesus preached and proclaimed mightily? Feed someone or put clothes on their back. These examples are straight from the mouth of Jesus.

YeH Paul did a lot of that while wandering naked cold hungry and afflicted and others sent one and agaon unto his necessity.

Or, we could use examples from the the life of Christ. His "sermons" were taught mostly not to large groups of assembled people for just such an occasion but rather in His interactions with small groups and individuals in real world situations along the way. And some of these "sermons" tell us something about "feeding the hungry and clothing the naked" or about taking care of the "widows and the orphans". "This is real religion".

The liberals want to ignore the gospel and the X'ers and sometimes Evangelical's want to ignore the individual physical needs. B.A.L.A.N.C.E.  In the same way "preaching" is not only behind a pulpit and "worshiping" is not just music.

Good post JJ...

 

[subllibrm]

We're comparing a lecture to the preaching of the Word?

Yes, they are, at least rsc2a explicitly did.  And when called on it, he buries his head, because even he knows how stupid that was.

No. We are comparing some sermons to a lecture. Admin (I believe) made this point explicitly. We are also pointing out the foolishness that is evident when people claim that the only way to hear the word preached is through a sermon.

You want to see message of Jesus preached and proclaimed mightily? Feed someone or put clothes on their back. These examples are straight from the mouth of Jesus.

YeH Paul did a lot of that while wandering naked cold hungry and afflicted and others sent one and agaon unto his necessity.

Or, we could use examples from the the life of Christ. His "sermons" were taught mostly not to large groups of assembled people for just such an occasion but rather in His interactions with small groups and individuals in real world situations along the way. And some of these "sermons" tell us something about "feeding the hungry and clothing the naked" or about taking care of the "widows and the orphans". "This is real religion".

The liberals want to ignore the gospel and the X'ers and sometimes Evangelical's want to ignore the individual physical needs. B.A.L.A.N.C.E.  In the same way "preaching" is not only behind a pulpit and "worshiping" is not just music.

Small groups? Like the feeding of the....

Obviously, you don't understand what the word "mostly" means.

 

[ALAYMAN]

No. We are comparing some sermons to a lecture.

See that word above in your excerpted quote in red?  That's an addition you just made.  It's your standard method of operation.  You modified your original statement because your original statement compared preaching to merely a lecture.  Sophistry, it's what you do.

  We are also pointing out the foolishness that is evident when people claim that the only way to hear the word preached is through a sermon.

Where did I make the claim that the "only way to hear the word preached is through a sermon"?  I didn't say that, but you insert convenient arguments into others mouths all the time, hoping they'll not notice your duplicity. 

Obviously, you don't understand what the word "mostly" means.

I don't have a bit of problem saying that our lives (salt and light) ought to match the verbal proclamation of the gospel, but as is often the case aroung here, people chase rabbits and squirrels incessantly.  The topic that is relevant to the recent discussion about music (CCM, remember ) is not whether we ought to worship Christ by our deeds in public ("preaching" loosely defined by y'all), but whether the corporate experience should be overly focused on producing emotions via music.  The fact that our discussion was explicitly about corporate/church worship by the body of believers is super-abundantly clear from posts 216,227,232,242-245,248,250-251,260,273,277,279,281-282,286,288,291,and 300-304.  Those posts are from maybe a dozen posters, including you and me.  So nobody, namely me, was talking about "preaching" the gospel only coming via the pulpit.  That is a red herring introduced by rsc2a, JJ, and you.

 

[ALAYMAN]

....... fact is... i don;t believe prerecorded music.. of any kind... has a place in church at all.... any more than prerecorded sermons or prerecorded prayers do......

Another interesting point of agreement.  I wouldn't say that the pre-recorded music is sinful, but that it's not preferrable.  Giving people the opportunity to use their talents to glorify God and play their instruments for him in a worshipful manner is the optimal choice.  In the same vein, I wouldn't want to sit in an auditorium and listen to a pre-recorded sermon, like some satellite mega-churches do, and call that optimal either.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

....... fact is... i don;t believe prerecorded music.. of any kind... has a place in church at all.... any more than prerecorded sermons or prerecorded prayers do......

Another interesting point of agreement.  I wouldn't say that the pre-recorded music is sinful, but that it's not preferrable.  Giving people the opportunity to use their talents to glorify God and play their instruments for him in a worshipful manner is the optimal choice.  In the same vein, I wouldn't want to sit in an auditorium and listen to a pre-recorded sermon, like some satellite mega-churches do, and call that optimal either.

I would agree with the term preferable. We at one time had no pianists and no talented song leader, so I led congregationals using canned hymns with the music only. The Lord has blessed, we now have three pianists, one accomplished, one who plays a limited repertoire well, and one who is learning. We rotate them all, allowing all three to use their talents for God's glory.

I do use canned music background music before and after the services, but preference again, I would rather use instruments, we just lack them at this time.

 

[ALAYMAN]

....... fact is... i don;t believe prerecorded music.. of any kind... has a place in church at all.... any more than prerecorded sermons or prerecorded prayers do......

Another interesting point of agreement.  I wouldn't say that the pre-recorded music is sinful, but that it's not preferrable.  Giving people the opportunity to use their talents to glorify God and play their instruments for him in a worshipful manner is the optimal choice.  In the same vein, I wouldn't want to sit in an auditorium and listen to a pre-recorded sermon, like some satellite mega-churches do, and call that optimal either.

I would agree with the term preferable. We at one time had no pianists and no talented song leader, so I led congregationals using canned hymns with the music only. The Lord has blessed, we now have three pianists, one accomplished, one who plays a limited repertoire well, and one who is learning. We rotate them all, allowing all three to use their talents for God's glory.

I do use canned music background music before and after the services, but preference again, I would rather use instruments, we just lack them at this time.

The last sentence describes something that is different beast altogether IMHO.  That sort of background music is completely appropriate, whether piped in, or played live.  The rest of what you said is completely understandable.  I'd liken it to having a woman on the mission field whose husband died.  It may require that she continue the work of teaching the new converts and missions work until a qualified man is able to be brought alongside her.

 

[subllibrm]

No. We are comparing some sermons to a lecture.

See that word above in your excerpted quote in red?  That's an addition you just made.  It's your standard method of operation.  You modified your original statement because your original statement compared preaching to merely a lecture.  Sophistry, it's what you do.

  We are also pointing out the foolishness that is evident when people claim that the only way to hear the word preached is through a sermon.

Where did I make the claim that the "only way to hear the word preached is through a sermon"?  I didn't say that, but you insert convenient arguments into others mouths all the time, hoping they'll not notice your duplicity. 

Obviously, you don't understand what the word "mostly" means.

I don't have a bit of problem saying that our lives (salt and light) ought to match the verbal proclamation of the gospel, but as is often the case aroung here, people chase rabbits and squirrels incessantly.  The topic that is relevant to the recent discussion about music (CCM, remember ) is not whether we ought to worship Christ by our deeds in public ("preaching" loosely defined by y'all), but whether the corporate experience should be overly focused on producing emotions via music.  The fact that our discussion was explicitly about corporate/church worship by the body of believers is super-abundantly clear from posts 216,227,232,242-245,248,250-251,260,273,277,279,281-282,286,288,291,and 300-304.  Those posts are from maybe a dozen posters, including you and me.  So nobody, namely me, was talking about "preaching" the gospel only coming via the pulpit.  That is a red herring introduced by rsc2a, JJ, and you.

I merely pointed out that IP's appeal to the feeding of the 5 thousand did not negate what JJ said about how Jesus "mostly" taught. No rabbit trails, just honed in on one specific point where IP blew it.

And I posted earlier that there is much teaching that must be done outside of the pulpit. That does not equate to me being opposed to pulpit ministry. I also stated that if given the option of only the word preached or the song service, I would choose the preaching.

So I never introduced any such thing.

It would help you and I a lot if you would stop overlaying my thoughts (well developed and cogent  ) with the banality that rsc2a regularly brings to the table.

 

[subllibrm]

I like canned spam. Canned church, not so much.

But I have no problem with the lady singer holding the microphone.  ;D

Ooh, that reminds me, we haven't talked about slide notes yet! I have no idea what they are or why they are bad but by golly someone out there says so. That is enough right there to start a donnybrook about it!

And Band-Aids. Someone pointed out that this thread has covered just about everything but we haven't talked about Band-Aids yet.

I am sure I will think of something else but that should be enough for now.  8)

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

There are seven words that have all but destroyed the concept of personal holiness.  It is the drop phrase of the luck-warm, the calling-card of the carnal, and the sound-bite of the backslidden.  These seven words are the most dangerous words a Christian can utter. 

"I don't see anything wrong with it." 


1.  It is dangerous because it starts with "I". Never start with yourself.  Always consider every thing in light of a HOLY God.

2.  It is dangerous because it is based on human sight.  "...don't see...".  The time of the Judges was a time of utter spiritual chaos and unspeakable acts done in the name of God.  What philosophy produced this sad chapter "...every man did that which was right in his own eyes." 

3.  It is dangerous because activity is deemed acceptable because of the perceived absence of a negative instead of the overwhelming presence of a positive.  "...anything wrong with it."  Carnal Christians always wish to put separated saints on the defensive by expecting us to prove what is "wrong" with their worldly activity and carnal compromise.  Sorry.  Nothing EVER should be accepted based on the absence of a negative.  Ball back in your court.  What is right with it?  How does it bring glory and honor to God?  Paul wrote under divine inspiration to the CARNAL church at Corinth:  1 Corinthians 10:31  Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

My experience is this:  carnality cannot be reasoned with.  I stand in awe at what a worldly Christian can rationalize as acceptable.  God's holiness is not only a forgotten concept, but one much despised.  Sad...

So...Rock Out!  Shimmy and shake for Jesus.  Swoon over your "Jesus is my Boyfriend" songs.  Beat your drums and dance around your golden calf.  Defend your shaggy guitar heroes as "good Christians".  Jam for Jesus.  Look down your nose at those who don't -- declare them "irrelevant" and "out dated".    Go for it!

Does the Bible contain commands and principles that guide us away from CCM?  Absolutely.  Am I inclined to argue these points on this forum.  Nope.  Pearls before swine....

This straw man illogic deserves a front page story in the Sword of The Lord!
Hallelujah....or as they say at the Old Fashioned, Old Paths Campmeeting....Halelewumager!

 

[rsc2a]

No. We are comparing some sermons to a lecture.

See that word above in your excerpted quote in red?  That's an addition you just made.  It's your standard method of operation.  You modified your original statement because your original statement compared preaching to merely a lecture.  Sophistry, it's what you do.

Great! So you'll be able to show anywhere in anything I've ever posted where I'm opposed to hearing a sermon in general? I'll be waiting...

Of course, if you'd like, I can point you to posts where I have defended traditional sermon giving.

  We are also pointing out the foolishness that is evident when people claim that the only way to hear the word preached is through a sermon.

Where did I make the claim that the "only way to hear the word preached is through a sermon"?  I didn't say that, but you insert convenient arguments into others mouths all the time, hoping they'll not notice your duplicity. 

But to state that the centrality of Christian corporate worship is anything other than the preached word stands against long-held evangelical Christian practice. - Alayman

The simple answer is that it is plain and obvious from a cursory reading of Scripture that the enormity of the occurrence of God's word (and the command to look to it for instruction) [in the context of preaching] in the life of the people of God far outweighs the usage of music in worship. - Alayman

But all things being equal, proper exposition of the word is the proper model in view here, not a Hyles-style abuse of Scripture in order to push a cotton-candy or hobby horse.  If it is a given that we are talking about sound exegesis and exposition, then I'd make a strong argument that the centrality of the word ought to be the emphasis. - Alayman

Want more?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]The last sentence describes something that is different beast altogether IMHO.  That sort of background music is completely appropriate, whether piped in, or played live.  The rest of what you said is completely understandable.  I'd liken it to having a woman on the mission field whose husband died.  It may require that she continue the work of teaching the new converts and missions work until a qualified man is able to be brought alongside her.
[/quote]

"The last sentence is a different beast altogether because of my own personal preferences. I don't value consistency or exegetical reasoning for my stance, solely basing my position my own biases and cultural preference. I find acceptable that which I like. If I don't like it, wholly unacceptable."

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Or, we could use examples from the the life of Christ. His "sermons" were taught mostly not to large groups of assembled people for just such an occasion but rather in His interactions with small groups and individuals in real world situations along the way. And some of these "sermons" tell us something about "feeding the hungry and clothing the naked" or about taking care of the "widows and the orphans". "This is real religion".

The liberals want to ignore the gospel and the X'ers and sometimes Evangelical's want to ignore the individual physical needs. B.A.L.A.N.C.E.  In the same way "preaching" is not only behind a pulpit and "worshiping" is not just music.

Small groups? Like the feeding of the....

Obviously, you don't understand what the word "mostly" means

I merely pointed out that IP's appeal to the feeding of the 5 thousand did not negate what JJ said about how Jesus "mostly" taught. No rabbit trails, just honed in on one specific point where IP blew it.

No, I do. Perhaps I should be more succinct in my posts. Just John made two unsubstantiated claims.

First of all, he claimed that Christs sermons were "taught mostly not to large groups", yet the word multitude/multitudes is used in connection with Christ roughly 80 times in the gospels. The vast majority of those references were in regards to times He ministered and taught.

Second of all, he claimed some of these sermons tell us about "feeding the hungry and clothing the naked" Specifically, the word hungry occurs twice in the gospels.
Mark 11:12  And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:
Luke 1:53  He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.
Naked? 7 times in ii
Matthew 25. In verse 40, an allusion is given to feeding and clothing.
Mark 14 is nothing to do with clothing others
John 21 is Peter getting caught by the Lord.

Just John's claims are not credible. Show me otherwise. He quoted James 1:27, then looped it back to the teaching of the gospels, specifically Christs teachings to small groups. That is not to say Christs teachings contradicted James, but that Just John is making an unsubstantiated claim.

So, where did Jesus teach to a small group "feed the hungry and clothe the naked"? or "take care of the widows and orphans"?

Scripture and verse please.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I merely pointed out that IP's appeal to the feeding of the 5 thousand did not negate what JJ said about how Jesus "mostly" taught. No rabbit trails, just honed in on one specific point where IP blew it.

And I posted earlier that there is much teaching that must be done outside of the pulpit. That does not equate to me being opposed to pulpit ministry. I also stated that if given the option of only the word preached or the song service, I would choose the preaching.

So I never introduced any such thing.

It would help you and I a lot if you would stop overlaying my thoughts (well developed and cogent  ) with the banality that rsc2a regularly brings to the table.

I thought your comment was towards the me, not IP.  My point about rabbit trails, and off course comments of JJ and rsc2a still stands.  Their references to sermons and preaching via good deeds was not what was being discussed.  Corporate worship (and CCM) was clearly the intent of the discussion.  Focus people, focus.

 

[ALAYMAN]

No. We are comparing some sermons to a lecture.

See that word above in your excerpted quote in red?  That's an addition you just made.  It's your standard method of operation.  You modified your original statement because your original statement compared preaching to merely a lecture.  Sophistry, it's what you do.

Great! So you'll be able to show anywhere in anything I've ever posted where I'm opposed to hearing a sermon in general? I'll be waiting...

Of course, if you'd like, I can point you to posts where I have defended traditional sermon giving.

  We are also pointing out the foolishness that is evident when people claim that the only way to hear the word preached is through a sermon.

Where did I make the claim that the "only way to hear the word preached is through a sermon"?  I didn't say that, but you insert convenient arguments into others mouths all the time, hoping they'll not notice your duplicity. 

But to state that the centrality of Christian corporate worship is anything other than the preached word stands against long-held evangelical Christian practice. - Alayman

The simple answer is that it is plain and obvious from a cursory reading of Scripture that the enormity of the occurrence of God's word (and the command to look to it for instruction) [in the context of preaching] in the life of the people of God far outweighs the usage of music in worship. - Alayman

But all things being equal, proper exposition of the word is the proper model in view here, not a Hyles-style abuse of Scripture in order to push a cotton-candy or hobby horse.  If it is a given that we are talking about sound exegesis and exposition, then I'd make a strong argument that the centrality of the word ought to be the emphasis. - Alayman

Want more?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]The last sentence describes something that is different beast altogether IMHO.  That sort of background music is completely appropriate, whether piped in, or played live.  The rest of what you said is completely understandable.  I'd liken it to having a woman on the mission field whose husband died.  It may require that she continue the work of teaching the new converts and missions work until a qualified man is able to be brought alongside her.

"The last sentence is a different beast altogether because of my own personal preferences. I don't value consistency or exegetical reasoning for my stance, solely basing my position my own biases and cultural preference. I find acceptable that which I like. If I don't like it, wholly unacceptable."
[/quote]

My statement was "Where did I make the claim that the "only way to hear the word preached is through a sermon"?   If you think the quoted excerpts you cited somehow prove that I was making the claim that a church sermon is the only way people ever hear a sermon then you have more severe reading comprehension issues than I thought.  Those excerpts state that in corporate worship the central (not "sole", that's a different word and different concept) emphasis should be the proclaimed word of God (the gospel).  See, that word "central" doesn't mean "sole".  Not only that, but merely because I stated that the sermon should be the "central" (see, there's that word again.  look it up in Websters.  It's synonym is not "sole") part of corporate worship, it did not mean what you asserted, namely, that sermons or "preaching" only exists in corporate worship.  I'd say nice try on your part, but it was really rather bland and predictable for you.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Why isn't anybody jumping on the evils of Amazing Grace?

It doesn't mention Jesus by name.

It extols praise on an inanimate object.

It is put to the tune of an old Irish pub song so it is associated with alcohol.

How is this not a Baptastic taboo?

Sm...

Amazing Grace is set to an old African slave melody.

Neither is true btw.

Amazing Grace was written in or around 1772. (Newton was converted around 1755) It was published in Olney Hymns in collaboration with William Cowper in 1779. Olney Hymns was typical of the hymnals of the day, words only, they sang hymns to any suitable tune that fit the metre. Our custom has only been around since the 1930's or so.

The tune "New Britian", which is what we sing it to today, is a folk tune of Irish or Scottish origin. The term bar music is a mistaken term that many have taken to understand as pub music, but it is not. Bar music is music written in bar form, as our hymnals all are. A specific set of measured beats per bar. In Britian, they use the term bar, here we may use measure. So many beats per measure.  Anyway, blah blah blah, but it is not pub music. Never was.