When They Had Sung A Hymn

[Binaca Chugger]

Matthew 26:30 clearly speaks to the earliest church singing a hymn.  Ephesians 5:19 tells us to sing hymns.  Colossians 3:16 tells us to teach and encourage each other with hymns.  Historical documents from the first century testify of churches singing hymns.

Yet, the "Rock the Flock" crowd wishes us to believe that singing in church was a recent invention that happened during the middle ages by fringe groups of churches which primarily copied the music of the culture.  By this teaching, we are supposed to immediately agree that all music in church should match the popular styles of music in a sin-filled culture.

By the presentation of a couple of documents from the middle ages, are we really to ignore the account of Scripture and deny that Christ Himself sang hymns?  Are we supposed to believe that music in church is a human invention that must either be completely shunned or broadly accepted as any desire we have?  If we are going to use history as our guide, why not go back in history to the founding of the church, rather than the corrupt church?  Why not see what the founder of the church did and follow that as our guide?

 

[subllibrm]

Matthew 26:30 clearly speaks to the earliest church singing a hymn.  Ephesians 5:19 tells us to sing hymns.  Colossians 3:16 tells us to teach and encourage each other with hymns.  Historical documents from the first century testify of churches singing hymns.

Yet, the "Rock the Flock" crowd wishes us to believe that singing in church was a recent invention that happened during the middle ages by fringe groups of churches which primarily copied the music of the culture.  By this teaching, we are supposed to immediately agree that all music in church should match the popular styles of music in a sin-filled culture.

By the presentation of a couple of documents from the middle ages, are we really to ignore the account of Scripture and deny that Christ Himself sang hymns?  Are we supposed to believe that music in church is a human invention that must either be completely shunned or broadly accepted as any desire we have?  If we are going to use history as our guide, why not go back in history to the founding of the church, rather than the corrupt church?  Why not see what the founder of the church did and follow that as our guide?

Define hymn.

 

[Mathew Ward]

Matthew 26:30 clearly speaks to the earliest church singing a hymn.  Ephesians 5:19 tells us to sing hymns.  Colossians 3:16 tells us to teach and encourage each other with hymns.  Historical documents from the first century testify of churches singing hymns.

Yet, the "Rock the Flock" crowd wishes us to believe that singing in church was a recent invention that happened during the middle ages by fringe groups of churches which primarily copied the music of the culture.  By this teaching, we are supposed to immediately agree that all music in church should match the popular styles of music in a sin-filled culture.

By the presentation of a couple of documents from the middle ages, are we really to ignore the account of Scripture and deny that Christ Himself sang hymns?  Are we supposed to believe that music in church is a human invention that must either be completely shunned or broadly accepted as any desire we have?  If we are going to use history as our guide, why not go back in history to the founding of the church, rather than the corrupt church?  Why not see what the founder of the church did and follow that as our guide?

Define hymn.

Along with psalms and spiritual songs.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Matthew 26:30 clearly speaks to the earliest church singing a hymn.  Ephesians 5:19 tells us to sing hymns.  Colossians 3:16 tells us to teach and encourage each other with hymns.  Historical documents from the first century testify of churches singing hymns.

Yet, the "Rock the Flock" crowd wishes us to believe that singing in church was a recent invention that happened during the middle ages by fringe groups of churches which primarily copied the music of the culture.  By this teaching, we are supposed to immediately agree that all music in church should match the popular styles of music in a sin-filled culture.

By the presentation of a couple of documents from the middle ages, are we really to ignore the account of Scripture and deny that Christ Himself sang hymns?  Are we supposed to believe that music in church is a human invention that must either be completely shunned or broadly accepted as any desire we have?  If we are going to use history as our guide, why not go back in history to the founding of the church, rather than the corrupt church?  Why not see what the founder of the church did and follow that as our guide?

Define hymn.

Your request is never the argument given by the modernist.  The constant reference comes from Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven" which quite inaccurately proclaims that music was not used in churches until the middle ages and was then despised by the "church."  The modernist then smugly grins as if to have sealed the argument for modern music.  They proclaim either we should have no music, or their rendition of music and only an ignorant or a fool would dare to protest their conclusion.

I happen to see in Scripture that hymns, psalms and spiritual songs were a part of the service. 

 

[subllibrm]

Matthew 26:30 clearly speaks to the earliest church singing a hymn.  Ephesians 5:19 tells us to sing hymns.  Colossians 3:16 tells us to teach and encourage each other with hymns.  Historical documents from the first century testify of churches singing hymns.

Yet, the "Rock the Flock" crowd wishes us to believe that singing in church was a recent invention that happened during the middle ages by fringe groups of churches which primarily copied the music of the culture.  By this teaching, we are supposed to immediately agree that all music in church should match the popular styles of music in a sin-filled culture.

By the presentation of a couple of documents from the middle ages, are we really to ignore the account of Scripture and deny that Christ Himself sang hymns?  Are we supposed to believe that music in church is a human invention that must either be completely shunned or broadly accepted as any desire we have?  If we are going to use history as our guide, why not go back in history to the founding of the church, rather than the corrupt church?  Why not see what the founder of the church did and follow that as our guide?

Define hymn.

Your request is never the argument given by the modernist.  The constant reference comes from Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven" which quite inaccurately proclaims that music was not used in churches until the middle ages and was then despised by the "church."  The modernist then smugly grins as if to have sealed the argument for modern music.  They proclaim either we should have no music, or their rendition of music and only an ignorant or a fool would dare to protest their conclusion.

I happen to see in Scripture that hymns, psalms and spiritual songs were a part of the service.

Translation: "I can't define hymn."

 

[Mathew Ward]

Matthew 26:30 clearly speaks to the earliest church singing a hymn.  Ephesians 5:19 tells us to sing hymns.  Colossians 3:16 tells us to teach and encourage each other with hymns.  Historical documents from the first century testify of churches singing hymns.

Yet, the "Rock the Flock" crowd wishes us to believe that singing in church was a recent invention that happened during the middle ages by fringe groups of churches which primarily copied the music of the culture.  By this teaching, we are supposed to immediately agree that all music in church should match the popular styles of music in a sin-filled culture.

By the presentation of a couple of documents from the middle ages, are we really to ignore the account of Scripture and deny that Christ Himself sang hymns?  Are we supposed to believe that music in church is a human invention that must either be completely shunned or broadly accepted as any desire we have?  If we are going to use history as our guide, why not go back in history to the founding of the church, rather than the corrupt church?  Why not see what the founder of the church did and follow that as our guide?

Define hymn.

Your request is never the argument given by the modernist.  The constant reference comes from Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven" which quite inaccurately proclaims that music was not used in churches until the middle ages and was then despised by the "church."  The modernist then smugly grins as if to have sealed the argument for modern music.  They proclaim either we should have no music, or their rendition of music and only an ignorant or a fool would dare to protest their conclusion.

I happen to see in Scripture that hymns, psalms and spiritual songs were a part of the service.

And I wonder what genre of music they put these songs to?

They would not have been set to the baroque period but to their reliative culture.

As far as Rick Warren's book...never read it.

But defining those terms would helpful...

 

[subllibrm]

Q: please define your term.

A: Rick Warren is a booger head.

 

[Walt]

Matthew 26:30 clearly speaks to the earliest church singing a hymn.  Ephesians 5:19 tells us to sing hymns.  Colossians 3:16 tells us to teach and encourage each other with hymns.  Historical documents from the first century testify of churches singing hymns.

Yet, the "Rock the Flock" crowd wishes us to believe that singing in church was a recent invention that happened during the middle ages by fringe groups of churches which primarily copied the music of the culture.  By this teaching, we are supposed to immediately agree that all music in church should match the popular styles of music in a sin-filled culture.

By the presentation of a couple of documents from the middle ages, are we really to ignore the account of Scripture and deny that Christ Himself sang hymns?  Are we supposed to believe that music in church is a human invention that must either be completely shunned or broadly accepted as any desire we have?  If we are going to use history as our guide, why not go back in history to the founding of the church, rather than the corrupt church?  Why not see what the founder of the church did and follow that as our guide?

Interesting.

As I recall, until about the time of Isaac Watts, churches generally sang Psalms or other Scripture.

But tradition isn't an authority.

 

[Ransom]

As I recall, until about the time of Isaac Watts, churches generally sang Psalms or other Scripture.

Reformed churches did that.  But other Protestant churches such as Anglicanism and Lutheranism - and, of course, in the Roman church - have a long history of hymnody.

 

[T-Bone]

How did they ever sing hymns way back then before Fanny Crosby?

 

[subllibrm]

How did they ever sing hymns way back then before Fanny Crosby?

More importantly, why don't the old paths guys name their daughters Fanny? 

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Q: please define your term.

A: Rick Warren is a booger head.

I couldn't have said it better.

Your question was a red herring.  I did not discuss genre.  I am pointing out that the "Music in church only began to be used in the middle ages solely as adaptations of drinking songs" argument given by the modernist for "any genre goes" is an untruth either spoken in extreme ignorance or extreme deception.

 

[subllibrm]

Q: please define your term.

A: Rick Warren is a booger head.

I couldn't have said it better.

Your question was a red herring.  I did not discuss genre.  I am pointing out that the "Music in church only began to be used in the middle ages solely as adaptations of drinking songs" argument given by the modernist for "any genre goes" is an untruth either spoken in extreme ignorance or extreme deception.

You said hymns good, not hymns bad. So what is a hymn?

 

[NorrinRadd]

...
You said hymns good, not hymns bad. So what is a hymn?

AFAICT, it is a song of praise in honor of heroes, gods, God, etc.  I don't see anything there about style.

I see from 1 Cor. 14, Eph. 5, and Col. 3 that "psalms" are also recommended; presumably these would include those such as Psa. 149-150.

I also see from 1 Cor. 14, Eph. 5, and Col. 3 that "Spiritual songs" (or "singing with the Spirit") are recommended.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Q: please define your term.

A: Rick Warren is a booger head.

I couldn't have said it better.

Your question was a red herring.  I did not discuss genre.  I am pointing out that the "Music in church only began to be used in the middle ages solely as adaptations of drinking songs" argument given by the modernist for "any genre goes" is an untruth either spoken in extreme ignorance or extreme deception.

You said hymns good, not hymns bad. So what is a hymn?

Nope.

I said hymns, psalms and spiritual songs were sung in the early church and that Christ engaged in such singing.  Hence, the argument used by the modernist is null and void.  When presented, it is done out of Biblical ignorance or intent to deceive. 

 

[subllibrm]

Q: please define your term.

A: Rick Warren is a booger head.

I couldn't have said it better.

Your question was a red herring.  I did not discuss genre.  I am pointing out that the "Music in church only began to be used in the middle ages solely as adaptations of drinking songs" argument given by the modernist for "any genre goes" is an untruth either spoken in extreme ignorance or extreme deception.

You said hymns good, not hymns bad. So what is a hymn?

Nope.

I said hymns, psalms and spiritual songs were sung in the early church and that Christ engaged in such singing.  Hence, the argument used by the modernist is null and void.  When presented, it is done out of Biblical ignorance or intent to deceive.

You must prove that what is sung today is NOT a hymn, psalm or spiritual song or your argument is null and void.

 

[FSSL]

There was a variety of singing in the NT church. Variety is good!

 

[subllibrm]

Quick recap:

Jesus sang hymns (a term left  undefined in the OP).

Rock the flock (another undefined term) allegedly people say He didn't.

Carry on.

 

[sword]

I say, without reservation, what we sing & what we hear in church should honor God.

There are many styles of music that may fit that definition, and we are not going to agree on which is which.

I think it's up to each church and each person to make that decision for themselves.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Q: please define your term.

A: Rick Warren is a booger head.

I couldn't have said it better.

Your question was a red herring.  I did not discuss genre.  I am pointing out that the "Music in church only began to be used in the middle ages solely as adaptations of drinking songs" argument given by the modernist for "any genre goes" is an untruth either spoken in extreme ignorance or extreme deception.

You said hymns good, not hymns bad. So what is a hymn?

Nope.

I said hymns, psalms and spiritual songs were sung in the early church and that Christ engaged in such singing.  Hence, the argument used by the modernist is null and void.  When presented, it is done out of Biblical ignorance or intent to deceive.

You must prove that what is sung today is NOT a hymn, psalm or spiritual song or your argument is null and void.

Nope.

I am simply stating that the most common argument presented by the modernist is null and void.  In this thread, I have not attempted to define genres or define the music sung by Christ.  I have simply stated that the argument used is either totally ignorant of the Scripture, or intended to deceive.