The following citation is taken from the "Signs of the Times" periodical for 1833 (see here - emphasis mine):
"Circular of the "Ministers and Messengers of the Baltimore Baptist Association, convened, according to appointment, at the Warren Church Meeting-House, on the 17th day of May, 1832.--to the several Churches they represent, send Christian Salutation.
As an Association, we have hitherto held fast to our principles, and to that form of sound words, which were formally adopted when we were constituted: nevertheless, it has been slanderously reported, and some have affirmed, that we have embraced the principles and the spirit of Antinomianism, soon after our last Anniversary Meeting in the city of Frederick, an article in the shape of a report found its way into the periodical print called the Religious Herald, in which we find the following remarkable words:
Many of the ministering brethren in this (Baltimore) Association do not believe that it is their duty to address the unconverted, or exhort sinners to repentance; they pass by them altogether. The great theme of their sermons is, the many valuable and glorious privileges of the Elect; who, according to their doctrine, believe against their will, and are kept in the way of righteousness without effort.
This article, in which our doctrine and practice are most palpably misrepresented, was soon after republished in the Christian Index accompanied with reflections of no friendly character, by a writer under the signature C.S.A.
Being thus summoned to the bar of the public by the officious meddlings of the above class of news-mongers, we shall, in self defence, and with a view of undeceiving a religious public, in this our circular epistle notice the several allegations embodied in the above report, under the following specifications:
1st. that many of our ministering brethren do not believe it to be their duty to address the unconverted, or exhort sinners to repentance.
They do, however, constantly preacheth the necessity of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and that both evangelical faith and repentance are the gifts of God, the produce of his blessed Spirit. Our ministers address the unconverted as sinners dead in trespasses and in sins; they prophesy to them as unto dry bones; they proclaim the truths of the Gospel, leaving the event with God, depending upon the influence of his Spirit to crown their labors with success, nor can they be led to entertain any other opinion."
Now, that is "primitive" or "old" Baptist doctrine! Those who call themselves "Primitive Baptists" today generally do not believe this. How then are they "primitive" or "original"?
Sunday, June 3, 2018
Friday, June 1, 2018
First Hardshells On Perseverance (1833)
In an article titled "Final Perseverance of the Saints" in "The Signs of the Times" periodical for April 10, 1833, (see here), we see further proof of what the first Hardshells believed about the perseverance of the saints and how it is exactly what is denied by today's Hardshells who now claim to believe in only "preservation" but not in "perseverance." We stand here in this blog for the genuine "primitive" teaching of the Baptists on this issue. In this article we have these words (All emphasis mine):
"All that can be fairly drawn from the word if, is this: If you persevere, that will prove the reality of grace: If after making a profession, you should afterwards fall away, that will prove you never had the grace of God in truth, notwithstanding all the profession you have made: as St. John argues, "They went out from us because they were not of us; for had they been of us they must needs have continued with us."
The article also says:
"If men have some natural awakenings and alarms of conscience, if they are outwardly reformed, and make a profession of religion, immediately, they are set down as believers, and should they afterwards fall from their profession it is vainly supposed by some that they are fallen from grace. How could they fall from that which they never had? This appears to be one of the prevailing errors of the present day. Preaching up reformation as if it was regeneration. I must insist upon it, that there may be reformation where there is no regeneration, but there can be no regeneration without reformation."
Notice that these first Hardshells were correct to understand that an "awakened" sinner is not necessarily a regenerated sinner. I have written much on this topic of "awakened sinners" already.
"All that can be fairly drawn from the word if, is this: If you persevere, that will prove the reality of grace: If after making a profession, you should afterwards fall away, that will prove you never had the grace of God in truth, notwithstanding all the profession you have made: as St. John argues, "They went out from us because they were not of us; for had they been of us they must needs have continued with us."
The article also says:
"If men have some natural awakenings and alarms of conscience, if they are outwardly reformed, and make a profession of religion, immediately, they are set down as believers, and should they afterwards fall from their profession it is vainly supposed by some that they are fallen from grace. How could they fall from that which they never had? This appears to be one of the prevailing errors of the present day. Preaching up reformation as if it was regeneration. I must insist upon it, that there may be reformation where there is no regeneration, but there can be no regeneration without reformation."
Notice that these first Hardshells were correct to understand that an "awakened" sinner is not necessarily a regenerated sinner. I have written much on this topic of "awakened sinners" already.
Thursday, May 31, 2018
William Fristoe On Preaching To Emotion
Elder William Fristoe, one of the first leaders of the Ketocton Association of Baptists, in his history of the churches of Virginia and of her oldest Association, wrote:
"It is a matter understood by us, that the great Creator endowed rational creatures with noble passions, and made them capable of sorrow, joy, love, hatred, desire, etc. and proper use of those passions ought to be exercised, when under the ministry of the gospel, or employed in divine contemplation, or otherwise; the understanding is enlightened and spiritual ideas possessed; it is no wonder the passions are raised while the heart glows with love to God and Christ, and everything sacred and divine; at such a time the conversation will be lively, and divine subjects will be conversed on intelligibly and with good sense; songs of praise will be offered up with true devotion, and an aspiring after perfection and the complete enjoyment of God; such a frame fits man to live or die. But for the passions to be overwhelmed by sound, and fabulous reports, by clash and noise, to the confounding of reason where the understanding remains uninformed and the person so exercised quite unable to give any rational account of himself, what discovery he had more than at other times, or why it was that he was wrought upon, is a great abuse of the passions, and although it may be a momentary satisfaction to seducers, to obtain such ascendency over their hearers, the consequence has often been very dreadful, and injurious to the souls of men; it is an invariable rule with many of us, to appeal to the scriptures for precedent or example, both in preaching and worship; for all is darkness, error, and confusion that stands opposed to the law and testimony."
I found, during my years with the "Primitive Baptists" that many of their preachers were able to stir the emotions of their hearers to a level where there were lots of tears, shouting, and laughing, and some of this was holy, as Fristoe points out, and the result of being moved by truth being received by the mind; however, too much preaching is geared to stirring the emotions without any real instruction in the things of God. Some preachers become skilled in how to stir the emotions and they do it because they know that stirring emotions is the sure way to gain popularity and a following with their brotherhood. Let us be sober.
"It is a matter understood by us, that the great Creator endowed rational creatures with noble passions, and made them capable of sorrow, joy, love, hatred, desire, etc. and proper use of those passions ought to be exercised, when under the ministry of the gospel, or employed in divine contemplation, or otherwise; the understanding is enlightened and spiritual ideas possessed; it is no wonder the passions are raised while the heart glows with love to God and Christ, and everything sacred and divine; at such a time the conversation will be lively, and divine subjects will be conversed on intelligibly and with good sense; songs of praise will be offered up with true devotion, and an aspiring after perfection and the complete enjoyment of God; such a frame fits man to live or die. But for the passions to be overwhelmed by sound, and fabulous reports, by clash and noise, to the confounding of reason where the understanding remains uninformed and the person so exercised quite unable to give any rational account of himself, what discovery he had more than at other times, or why it was that he was wrought upon, is a great abuse of the passions, and although it may be a momentary satisfaction to seducers, to obtain such ascendency over their hearers, the consequence has often been very dreadful, and injurious to the souls of men; it is an invariable rule with many of us, to appeal to the scriptures for precedent or example, both in preaching and worship; for all is darkness, error, and confusion that stands opposed to the law and testimony."
I found, during my years with the "Primitive Baptists" that many of their preachers were able to stir the emotions of their hearers to a level where there were lots of tears, shouting, and laughing, and some of this was holy, as Fristoe points out, and the result of being moved by truth being received by the mind; however, too much preaching is geared to stirring the emotions without any real instruction in the things of God. Some preachers become skilled in how to stir the emotions and they do it because they know that stirring emotions is the sure way to gain popularity and a following with their brotherhood. Let us be sober.
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
On "Time Salvation"
The following are some excerpts from "Chpt. 7 - Time Salvation - A Novel Idea" of my ongoing book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" (see here)
"Basically, religious secrets involve "special revelation" that the cult, and it alone, possesses. Christians have "special revelation"..."
"Their primary "secret" revelation concerns the doctrine they call "Time Salvation." You have to be trained in Hardshell "dogma" to know all that the words convey. What the Hardshells believe the terminology, "Time Salvation," represents would never cross the average Bible reader's mind. You have to hear it from a Hardshell to be introduced to and informed in the meaning of its theological “jargon.”"
"Hardshells take many "salvation passages," clearly dealing with eternal salvation and redemption, in a limited way and as dealing strictly with timely or earthly concerns. Why the necessity to do this? Because to interpret those salvation passages as dealing with eternal salvation would destroy their "anti-means," "Spirit Alone"teaching."
What the Hardshells have done, with their emphasis on the presumed many occurrences of timely deliverances in the Bible, is to take the occasional use of a word and make it the general meaning of the word, turning things about, upside down, topsy turvy. They do this in many areas of Bible interpretation. I will give some further examples, but first I will deal a little more with how they take the occasional use of the word "save"and make it predominate.
"It will become obvious to most who read this essay on Hardshellism, that these Hardshells, who have historically opposed any thing "new," i.e. "inventions," have themselves, ironically and hypocritically, introduced many new things under the Baptist and Christian name, at least in doctrine.
If one takes the word saved in mostly a timely sense, then one will, of course, do the same with those words that express the opposite idea of salvation, words like Perish Destruction, Damnation, etc. These words too must denote, not eternal punishment, something after this life, but only some temporal punishment. It is no wonder that the Hardshells have been plagued with the heresies of "No-Hellism" and "Universalism," violating such a simple rule of Bible interpretation. Rare and occasional usages of words cannot be made to be the regular use of them. The Hardshells do the same with the words Angel, Heaven, Hell The word does sometimes, occasionally, refer to human messengers, but the predominant meaning refers to that order of beings that are spirits, without bodies, of whom man is said to be "made a little lower." But, you listen to Hardshell sermons and the way they "spiritualize" and abuse all "hermeneutic rules" of sound Biblical interpretation, and you will see that they make angel to nearly always mean human messengers."
In the creation and invention of this "new" doctrine of "Spirit without the word" regeneration, several classes of scripture passages that teach regeneration through the word, had to be interpreted in a non-traditional way...Thus the Hardshell premise became this:anything that the gospel produces in the elect cannot be necessary for their "eternal" salvation When this is narrowed down, the only thing necessary for their "eternal" salvation or regeneration, was a belief in and love for a supreme being!""
"Hardshells see "evidence" of regeneration in the heathen's desire to worship anything! Therefore, Hardshells were forced into illogical, contradictory and unscriptural positions on the nature and necessity of "faith" for salvation."
"Whatever qualities the "faith" produced by the gospel had, the other kind of faith could not have. That became another premise to defend."
"Also, the "life" that a sinner receives in the new birth must be void of those things that the gospel produces.And again, narrowed down, this becomes a bare mystical principle of life, or some strange spiritual deposited "substance" that Hardshells generally call an "inner ability.""
"These are heretical views. In the new Hardshell vocabulary, "faith," "salvation," "regeneration," "new birth," "repentance," etc., all receive new and heretical definitions!"
"Basically, religious secrets involve "special revelation" that the cult, and it alone, possesses. Christians have "special revelation"..."
"Their primary "secret" revelation concerns the doctrine they call "Time Salvation." You have to be trained in Hardshell "dogma" to know all that the words convey. What the Hardshells believe the terminology, "Time Salvation," represents would never cross the average Bible reader's mind. You have to hear it from a Hardshell to be introduced to and informed in the meaning of its theological “jargon.”"
"Hardshells take many "salvation passages," clearly dealing with eternal salvation and redemption, in a limited way and as dealing strictly with timely or earthly concerns. Why the necessity to do this? Because to interpret those salvation passages as dealing with eternal salvation would destroy their "anti-means," "Spirit Alone"teaching."
What the Hardshells have done, with their emphasis on the presumed many occurrences of timely deliverances in the Bible, is to take the occasional use of a word and make it the general meaning of the word, turning things about, upside down, topsy turvy. They do this in many areas of Bible interpretation. I will give some further examples, but first I will deal a little more with how they take the occasional use of the word "save"and make it predominate.
"It will become obvious to most who read this essay on Hardshellism, that these Hardshells, who have historically opposed any thing "new," i.e. "inventions," have themselves, ironically and hypocritically, introduced many new things under the Baptist and Christian name, at least in doctrine.
If one takes the word saved in mostly a timely sense, then one will, of course, do the same with those words that express the opposite idea of salvation, words like Perish Destruction, Damnation, etc. These words too must denote, not eternal punishment, something after this life, but only some temporal punishment. It is no wonder that the Hardshells have been plagued with the heresies of "No-Hellism" and "Universalism," violating such a simple rule of Bible interpretation. Rare and occasional usages of words cannot be made to be the regular use of them. The Hardshells do the same with the words Angel, Heaven, Hell The word does sometimes, occasionally, refer to human messengers, but the predominant meaning refers to that order of beings that are spirits, without bodies, of whom man is said to be "made a little lower." But, you listen to Hardshell sermons and the way they "spiritualize" and abuse all "hermeneutic rules" of sound Biblical interpretation, and you will see that they make angel to nearly always mean human messengers."
In the creation and invention of this "new" doctrine of "Spirit without the word" regeneration, several classes of scripture passages that teach regeneration through the word, had to be interpreted in a non-traditional way...Thus the Hardshell premise became this:anything that the gospel produces in the elect cannot be necessary for their "eternal" salvation When this is narrowed down, the only thing necessary for their "eternal" salvation or regeneration, was a belief in and love for a supreme being!""
"Hardshells see "evidence" of regeneration in the heathen's desire to worship anything! Therefore, Hardshells were forced into illogical, contradictory and unscriptural positions on the nature and necessity of "faith" for salvation."
"Whatever qualities the "faith" produced by the gospel had, the other kind of faith could not have. That became another premise to defend."
"Also, the "life" that a sinner receives in the new birth must be void of those things that the gospel produces.And again, narrowed down, this becomes a bare mystical principle of life, or some strange spiritual deposited "substance" that Hardshells generally call an "inner ability.""
"These are heretical views. In the new Hardshell vocabulary, "faith," "salvation," "regeneration," "new birth," "repentance," etc., all receive new and heretical definitions!"
Monday, May 28, 2018
More Hard Nuts For Hardshells
On Being One Of The Sheep (John 10)
1. If one does not follow the shepherd (and his voice), is he a sheep?
2. What does it mean to follow Christ?
3. Is an unbeliever (non Christian) a follower of Christ?
4. What is meant by the statement "and a stranger will they not follow"?
On Total Depravity/Inability
1. What part of "the law," which is "spiritual" (Rom. 7:14), are lost sinners ("natural" and "dead") unable to understand?
2. What part of "thou shalt not kill, "thou shalt not steal," etc., are dead sinners not able to understand?
On Being One Of The Elect
1. Did God choose sinners to salvation "through belief of the truth" (II Thess. 2:13)?
2. Is election "unto obedience" (I Peter 1:2)?
3. Since election is "unto holiness" (Eph. 1:4), is faith in Christ necessary to holiness?
1. If one does not follow the shepherd (and his voice), is he a sheep?
2. What does it mean to follow Christ?
3. Is an unbeliever (non Christian) a follower of Christ?
4. What is meant by the statement "and a stranger will they not follow"?
On Total Depravity/Inability
1. What part of "the law," which is "spiritual" (Rom. 7:14), are lost sinners ("natural" and "dead") unable to understand?
2. What part of "thou shalt not kill, "thou shalt not steal," etc., are dead sinners not able to understand?
On Being One Of The Elect
1. Did God choose sinners to salvation "through belief of the truth" (II Thess. 2:13)?
2. Is election "unto obedience" (I Peter 1:2)?
3. Since election is "unto holiness" (Eph. 1:4), is faith in Christ necessary to holiness?
The Father Is Not The Son
The Apostle John began his gospel with these words:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was (the) God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made” (John 1:1-3).
It is very clear from this passage that "The Word (Logos)" is a person. The personal pronoun "him" is used twice in reference to him who is by title "the Word." The very one who is "the Word" is identified by the Apostle John as being the Son of God.
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (vs. 14-18)
It seems strange to me that anyone can read these words and not see that "the Word" is that person who "was made flesh" and "dwelled among us," and who is "the only begotten of the Father" and "the only begotten Son," and who is clearly distinct from "the Father" who begat him. How can one be in the bosom of himself? The "Word" or the "Son" is "in the bosom of the Father," and is clearly not the Father. It would be as easy for me to claim to be my own father as for Jesus to claim to be his Father.
There are no scriptures where the Father and Son are ever said to be the same person. The only possible exception are these words of Jesus:
"If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." (John 14: 7-10)
Is Jesus saying "I am my Father"? Is he saying that he is the same person as the Father? If he is, then the above words of the text would be truly a unique passage with none other like it in Scripture. In fact, it would contradict every other statement, in the gospels, where Jesus personally distinguished himself from his Father.
In fact, Jesus spoke of both he and his Father as being "two." Even in that famous passage where Jesus says "I and my Father are one" (John 10: 30) there is the use of the plural verb "are." Jesus did not say "I and my Father is one." Thus, Jesus is saying, about himself and his Father, "we two are one." It would be the same in meaning as when Jesus confirms that "two are one" in marriage.
In John 5: 31-37 Jesus responds to charges that his witness of himself cannot be valid unless, by the law of God, there are two witnesses. In addition to his own testimony about himself, there is the added witness of "the Father." (He also in several places spoke of the witness of the Spirit to his person and work) Jesus said:
"If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true." (vs. 31, 32)
If Jesus was the Father, then he was indeed bearing witness of himself alone. Jesus is a person but it requires, in the Torah, that "another" person to bear witness. Jesus said: "It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men (persons) is true." (John 8: 17) Jesus is clearly saying that he and the Father are "two" persons and bear witness as persons.
This is all devastating, of course, to Modalism. If Jesus and the Father are the same person, then Jesus' justification and defence, for meeting Torah witness standards, is not valid. Modalists do not want to confess that Jesus (the Word and Son of God) is not the same person as the Father, do not want to think of them as being anything more than "one" in every sense possible, and therefore are opposed to admitting that they are "two" as well as "one." But, as we have seen, the scriptures are clear.
Jesus explains what he means when he says "he who has seen me has seen the Father." He says "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me." Clearly he distinguishes his own person from the person of his Father. Jesus even speaks of his Father, who is in him, in the third person. So, it is a mistinterpretation of this unique passage to say that it proves that Jesus and the Father are the same person. Rather, it clearly shows that they are not the same person.
So, how is the Father's person seen in the person of his Son? Is it not because the Son is the "express image (likeness) of his (Father's) person (substance)"? (Heb. 1: 3) Christ mirrored the exact image of his Father. The Son is like the Father and the Father is like the Son. As we say in common speech - "like father, like son." Further, Jesus clearly distinguished himself from the Father when he said "he who has seen me has seen the Father." "Me" is clearly not the same person as "the Father."
Taken from The Baptist Gadfly blog (see here)
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was (the) God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made” (John 1:1-3).
It is very clear from this passage that "The Word (Logos)" is a person. The personal pronoun "him" is used twice in reference to him who is by title "the Word." The very one who is "the Word" is identified by the Apostle John as being the Son of God.
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (vs. 14-18)
It seems strange to me that anyone can read these words and not see that "the Word" is that person who "was made flesh" and "dwelled among us," and who is "the only begotten of the Father" and "the only begotten Son," and who is clearly distinct from "the Father" who begat him. How can one be in the bosom of himself? The "Word" or the "Son" is "in the bosom of the Father," and is clearly not the Father. It would be as easy for me to claim to be my own father as for Jesus to claim to be his Father.
There are no scriptures where the Father and Son are ever said to be the same person. The only possible exception are these words of Jesus:
"If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." (John 14: 7-10)
Is Jesus saying "I am my Father"? Is he saying that he is the same person as the Father? If he is, then the above words of the text would be truly a unique passage with none other like it in Scripture. In fact, it would contradict every other statement, in the gospels, where Jesus personally distinguished himself from his Father.
In fact, Jesus spoke of both he and his Father as being "two." Even in that famous passage where Jesus says "I and my Father are one" (John 10: 30) there is the use of the plural verb "are." Jesus did not say "I and my Father is one." Thus, Jesus is saying, about himself and his Father, "we two are one." It would be the same in meaning as when Jesus confirms that "two are one" in marriage.
In John 5: 31-37 Jesus responds to charges that his witness of himself cannot be valid unless, by the law of God, there are two witnesses. In addition to his own testimony about himself, there is the added witness of "the Father." (He also in several places spoke of the witness of the Spirit to his person and work) Jesus said:
"If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true." (vs. 31, 32)
If Jesus was the Father, then he was indeed bearing witness of himself alone. Jesus is a person but it requires, in the Torah, that "another" person to bear witness. Jesus said: "It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men (persons) is true." (John 8: 17) Jesus is clearly saying that he and the Father are "two" persons and bear witness as persons.
This is all devastating, of course, to Modalism. If Jesus and the Father are the same person, then Jesus' justification and defence, for meeting Torah witness standards, is not valid. Modalists do not want to confess that Jesus (the Word and Son of God) is not the same person as the Father, do not want to think of them as being anything more than "one" in every sense possible, and therefore are opposed to admitting that they are "two" as well as "one." But, as we have seen, the scriptures are clear.
Jesus explains what he means when he says "he who has seen me has seen the Father." He says "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me." Clearly he distinguishes his own person from the person of his Father. Jesus even speaks of his Father, who is in him, in the third person. So, it is a mistinterpretation of this unique passage to say that it proves that Jesus and the Father are the same person. Rather, it clearly shows that they are not the same person.
So, how is the Father's person seen in the person of his Son? Is it not because the Son is the "express image (likeness) of his (Father's) person (substance)"? (Heb. 1: 3) Christ mirrored the exact image of his Father. The Son is like the Father and the Father is like the Son. As we say in common speech - "like father, like son." Further, Jesus clearly distinguished himself from the Father when he said "he who has seen me has seen the Father." "Me" is clearly not the same person as "the Father."
Taken from The Baptist Gadfly blog (see here)
Psallontes (ψάλλοντες) - Making Melody
INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC IN WORSHIP? by Bob L. Ross of Pilgrim Publications (see here)
As brother Ross said, this article is "part of my book entitled “Campbellites, Cowbells, Rosary Beads, and Snake-Handling.”
It would do well for all to read the entire article and to get Bob's book on this topic. There are also debates on the subject by Ross on youtube. Here are some of the questions and answers on the subject that Bob addressed (emphasis mine).
1. “What kinds of music are in the Bible?”
The words “musick,” “musical,” and “musician(s)” are used in the Bible 75 times, and 55 of these are “captions” to the Psalms.
The word “musick” is used 15 times in the Old Testament and refers to instrumental music: 13 times literally, once allegorically (Ecc. 12:4), and once metaphorically (Lam. 3:63).
“Musick” is used ONE time in the New Testament (Luke 15:25) where it translates the Greek word “sumphonia,” which means the same as our word “symphony.”
Thus, in the Bible, “musick” is used of instrumental music only. There are, however, two classes of instruments: (1) wind instruments, (2) hand-played instruments. These have been here since the days of Adam (Gen. 4:21, harp and organ). These classes of instruments are also said to be in God’s own heavenly presence (Ex. 20:18; I Cor. 15:52; Rev. 8:2; 5:8; 14:2; 15:2). It appears that the Lord has his own “musical staff” in the heavenlies, and the instruments are stamped “made in Heaven” (if stamped at all)!
2. “Is not singing a kind of music in the Bible?”
We have nothing against singing; in fact, we love it! We could take all our space and then some in extolling singing. But in the Bible, “musick” is not used of singing. Singing has been so closely associated with instrumental music, we usually use the word “music” to cover singing, as well as other related items such as lyrics, musical notes, performances, etc. However, in scriptural nomenclature, there is only one “kind” of music, and that is with instruments. The words, “vocal music,” are sometimes used by some, but there is no direct statement, account of action, or implication that this is a Bible expression.
3. “Why do some churches reject instrumental music?”
Church groups, such as Churches of Christ and Primitive Baptists, here in Texas, reject instrumental music. One reason for this is a particular theory about the relation of the Old Testament to the New Testament. It is thought by some that we are “not under the Old Testament.” But while there are indeed a number of things which changed with the coming of Jesus Christ, these are carefully delineated in New Testament writings and we must not go “above that which is written” (I Cor. 4:6). The scriptures of both testaments are to be studied and “rightly divided” (2 Tim. 2:15). Jesus, the Apostles, and the early church had the Old Testament; the Gospels and the Epistles came along as the apostolic days transpired. The Old Testament is “for our learning” and is “scripture” (Romans 15:4; John 5:39; 2 Tim. 3:15). Paul admonishes us to use “psalms” in our singing, and these are admittedly the Psalms of the Old Testament (Ept. 5:19; Col. 3:16).
4. “If we take instrumental music from the Old Testament, would we not also have to take animal sacrifices and everything else?”
We are authorized to use “psalms” (Eph. 5:19), not to offer animal sacrifices. Many things taught in the Old Testament are still lawful; many things which are called “patterns, figures, and shadows” were fulfilled. The Law is still “good, if a man use it lawfully” (I Timothy 1:8). But there is perhaps nothing about which there is as much confusion as the Law and its relation to New Testament teachings. This was also the case in apostolic times, and the apostles often had to address the problem. And today, we are not authorized to subtract anything from God’s Law without authority for so doing (Deut. 4:2; Matt. 5:19; Mark 7:5-13). Neither are we to add to His Law.
5. “Also, wouldn’t we likewise be authorized to bring in many other questionable religious practices?”
To hear some critics of instrumental music present the case, instrumental music “opens the floodgates” to a regular “Vanity Fair” in church worship! This is the old ploy of the sophist who seeks accreditation for his point of view by the discreditation of another view, and to do this he uses what is called the “slippery slope” or “domino” fallacy.
This approach fails to recall that psalms were used with instrumental music in the worship of God for thousands of years before anyone ever thought of the “floodgate” idea! Isn’t it rather “strange” that instrumental music did not have that effect in Israel?
If we are instructed to use psalms, this does not carry with it the “blanket approval” of anything and everything that happens to pop-up.
6. “If we are authorized to use instruments, would not every member have to play an instrument?”
The church “body” is a unit with individual “members” with differing “gifts” as it “hath pleased Him” (I Cor. 12:18). Paul discusses the “parts” such as the foot, hand, ear, eye, and nose and explains that they have their respective roles in the one “body” (I Cor. 12:11-31). He is discussing the same matter in Ephesians and says “unto every one is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ” (4:7). Not every member in the one body is gifted to preach, or teach, or lead public prayer, or lead singing, or do mission work, or some other work in which the body as a church unit is engaged. See the “unit” principle in 1 Corinthians 12:26.
The “account of approved action” which we have in Scripture is that those who were “cunning” with instruments, “willing skillful men,” “all that could skill of instruments,”- these served in the “ministry” playing instruments (I Chron. 25:7; 28:21; 2 Chron. 34:12; 29:25; 7:6; 8:14; 23:18; 1 Chron. 16:4-9). It was not every Israelite who played, neither does every member of the “body” play today. We learn this from these Scriptures as we are authorized to do (see Romans 15:4).
7. “How does one ‘make melody,’ according to Scripture?”
The words “making melody” are used in Ephesians 5:19, but “how” this is done is found in Isaiah 23:16, and it is with a musical instrument: “Take an harp, go about the city, thou harlot that hast been forgotten; make sweet melody, sing many songs, that thou mayest be remembered.” Also, Amos 5:23 speaks of “the melody of thy viols,” which is also reference to a musical instrument. So if “the Bible interprets itself,” these passages show “how” to make melody – with musical instruments.
8. “Does Ephesians 5:19 mean that the heart is the ‘instrument’?”
Some who reject musical instruments in worship contend that Eph. 5:19 is “figurative,” or “metaphorical;” however, this idea goes “begging” for any support in the Scriptures. James D. Bales, an anti-instrument writer, even acknowledges that there is “no passage” which says “the instrument typified the melody of the heart,” yet this is the theory of those who oppose music. “Strings of the heart” is not a Bible phrase. “Singing and making melody in your heart” simply means the same thing as in other passages where something is done “in” or “with” the heart. All obedience and worship are to be “in the heart,” for this is what God’s Law requires (Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:30). We are to worship “in spirit” and “in truth” (John 4:23, 24), but this does not mean that acts of worship are eliminated. There is no example of “making melody” in the heart in the “hidden” sense, if we go by Scripture.
Now, let the Hardshell anti instrumentalist answer Bob's defence!
Supplementary Notes
on "singing and making melody"(ᾄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες)
Albert Barnes in his Notes on the NT wrote:
"It is most frequently used in the sense of touching or playing a lyre, or a harp..."
John Eadie's Commentary on Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Philippians wrote:
"...the meaning of the clause seems to be this—“Giving expression among yourselves, or in concert, to your joyous emotions in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς, different from λέγοντες πρὸς ἑαυτούς, may, perhaps, signify “in responsive chorus,” or dicere secum invicem, as Pliny's letter describes it. We know that ancient sacred song was of this antiphonal nature; nay, Nicephorus Callistus in his History, 13.8, says, that such a practice was handed down from the apostles- τὴν τῶν ἀντιφώνων συνήθειαν ἄνωθεν ἀποστόλων ἡ ἐκκλησία παρέλαβε. Theodoret traces the same custom to the church at Antioch (Hist. Ecclesiastes 2:24), while Socrates ascribes the origin of it to Ignatius. Hist. 6.8. Augustine, however, carries such responsoria no higher than the episcopate of Ambrose at Milan. But indeed many of the psalms were composed so as to be sung by a chorus and semichorus, as is plainly marked in the 2nd and in the 24th."
"The apostle refers certainly to social intercourse, and in all probability also, and at the same time, to meetings for Divine service."
"The previous λαλοῦντες is defined by ᾄδοντες as being co-ordinate with it. The second participle may denote an additional exercise. Their speech was to be song, or they were to be singing as well as speaking. ψάλλειν, originally “to strike the lyre,” came to signify “to strike up a tune,” and it denotes the prime accompaniment of these songs..."
Hodges Commentary:
"ᾄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες, singing and making melody, are two forms of expressing the same thing. The latter term is the more comprehensive; as αἴδειν is to make music with the voice; ψάλλειν, to make music in any way; literally, to play on a stringed instrument; then, to sing in concert with such an instrument; then, to sing or chant. See 1 Corinthians 14:15; James 5:13; Romans 15:9."
As brother Ross said, this article is "part of my book entitled “Campbellites, Cowbells, Rosary Beads, and Snake-Handling.”
It would do well for all to read the entire article and to get Bob's book on this topic. There are also debates on the subject by Ross on youtube. Here are some of the questions and answers on the subject that Bob addressed (emphasis mine).
1. “What kinds of music are in the Bible?”
The words “musick,” “musical,” and “musician(s)” are used in the Bible 75 times, and 55 of these are “captions” to the Psalms.
The word “musick” is used 15 times in the Old Testament and refers to instrumental music: 13 times literally, once allegorically (Ecc. 12:4), and once metaphorically (Lam. 3:63).
“Musick” is used ONE time in the New Testament (Luke 15:25) where it translates the Greek word “sumphonia,” which means the same as our word “symphony.”
Thus, in the Bible, “musick” is used of instrumental music only. There are, however, two classes of instruments: (1) wind instruments, (2) hand-played instruments. These have been here since the days of Adam (Gen. 4:21, harp and organ). These classes of instruments are also said to be in God’s own heavenly presence (Ex. 20:18; I Cor. 15:52; Rev. 8:2; 5:8; 14:2; 15:2). It appears that the Lord has his own “musical staff” in the heavenlies, and the instruments are stamped “made in Heaven” (if stamped at all)!
2. “Is not singing a kind of music in the Bible?”
We have nothing against singing; in fact, we love it! We could take all our space and then some in extolling singing. But in the Bible, “musick” is not used of singing. Singing has been so closely associated with instrumental music, we usually use the word “music” to cover singing, as well as other related items such as lyrics, musical notes, performances, etc. However, in scriptural nomenclature, there is only one “kind” of music, and that is with instruments. The words, “vocal music,” are sometimes used by some, but there is no direct statement, account of action, or implication that this is a Bible expression.
3. “Why do some churches reject instrumental music?”
Church groups, such as Churches of Christ and Primitive Baptists, here in Texas, reject instrumental music. One reason for this is a particular theory about the relation of the Old Testament to the New Testament. It is thought by some that we are “not under the Old Testament.” But while there are indeed a number of things which changed with the coming of Jesus Christ, these are carefully delineated in New Testament writings and we must not go “above that which is written” (I Cor. 4:6). The scriptures of both testaments are to be studied and “rightly divided” (2 Tim. 2:15). Jesus, the Apostles, and the early church had the Old Testament; the Gospels and the Epistles came along as the apostolic days transpired. The Old Testament is “for our learning” and is “scripture” (Romans 15:4; John 5:39; 2 Tim. 3:15). Paul admonishes us to use “psalms” in our singing, and these are admittedly the Psalms of the Old Testament (Ept. 5:19; Col. 3:16).
4. “If we take instrumental music from the Old Testament, would we not also have to take animal sacrifices and everything else?”
We are authorized to use “psalms” (Eph. 5:19), not to offer animal sacrifices. Many things taught in the Old Testament are still lawful; many things which are called “patterns, figures, and shadows” were fulfilled. The Law is still “good, if a man use it lawfully” (I Timothy 1:8). But there is perhaps nothing about which there is as much confusion as the Law and its relation to New Testament teachings. This was also the case in apostolic times, and the apostles often had to address the problem. And today, we are not authorized to subtract anything from God’s Law without authority for so doing (Deut. 4:2; Matt. 5:19; Mark 7:5-13). Neither are we to add to His Law.
5. “Also, wouldn’t we likewise be authorized to bring in many other questionable religious practices?”
To hear some critics of instrumental music present the case, instrumental music “opens the floodgates” to a regular “Vanity Fair” in church worship! This is the old ploy of the sophist who seeks accreditation for his point of view by the discreditation of another view, and to do this he uses what is called the “slippery slope” or “domino” fallacy.
This approach fails to recall that psalms were used with instrumental music in the worship of God for thousands of years before anyone ever thought of the “floodgate” idea! Isn’t it rather “strange” that instrumental music did not have that effect in Israel?
If we are instructed to use psalms, this does not carry with it the “blanket approval” of anything and everything that happens to pop-up.
6. “If we are authorized to use instruments, would not every member have to play an instrument?”
The church “body” is a unit with individual “members” with differing “gifts” as it “hath pleased Him” (I Cor. 12:18). Paul discusses the “parts” such as the foot, hand, ear, eye, and nose and explains that they have their respective roles in the one “body” (I Cor. 12:11-31). He is discussing the same matter in Ephesians and says “unto every one is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ” (4:7). Not every member in the one body is gifted to preach, or teach, or lead public prayer, or lead singing, or do mission work, or some other work in which the body as a church unit is engaged. See the “unit” principle in 1 Corinthians 12:26.
The “account of approved action” which we have in Scripture is that those who were “cunning” with instruments, “willing skillful men,” “all that could skill of instruments,”- these served in the “ministry” playing instruments (I Chron. 25:7; 28:21; 2 Chron. 34:12; 29:25; 7:6; 8:14; 23:18; 1 Chron. 16:4-9). It was not every Israelite who played, neither does every member of the “body” play today. We learn this from these Scriptures as we are authorized to do (see Romans 15:4).
7. “How does one ‘make melody,’ according to Scripture?”
The words “making melody” are used in Ephesians 5:19, but “how” this is done is found in Isaiah 23:16, and it is with a musical instrument: “Take an harp, go about the city, thou harlot that hast been forgotten; make sweet melody, sing many songs, that thou mayest be remembered.” Also, Amos 5:23 speaks of “the melody of thy viols,” which is also reference to a musical instrument. So if “the Bible interprets itself,” these passages show “how” to make melody – with musical instruments.
8. “Does Ephesians 5:19 mean that the heart is the ‘instrument’?”
Some who reject musical instruments in worship contend that Eph. 5:19 is “figurative,” or “metaphorical;” however, this idea goes “begging” for any support in the Scriptures. James D. Bales, an anti-instrument writer, even acknowledges that there is “no passage” which says “the instrument typified the melody of the heart,” yet this is the theory of those who oppose music. “Strings of the heart” is not a Bible phrase. “Singing and making melody in your heart” simply means the same thing as in other passages where something is done “in” or “with” the heart. All obedience and worship are to be “in the heart,” for this is what God’s Law requires (Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:30). We are to worship “in spirit” and “in truth” (John 4:23, 24), but this does not mean that acts of worship are eliminated. There is no example of “making melody” in the heart in the “hidden” sense, if we go by Scripture.
Now, let the Hardshell anti instrumentalist answer Bob's defence!
Supplementary Notes
on "singing and making melody"(ᾄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες)
Albert Barnes in his Notes on the NT wrote:
"It is most frequently used in the sense of touching or playing a lyre, or a harp..."
John Eadie's Commentary on Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Philippians wrote:
"...the meaning of the clause seems to be this—“Giving expression among yourselves, or in concert, to your joyous emotions in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς, different from λέγοντες πρὸς ἑαυτούς, may, perhaps, signify “in responsive chorus,” or dicere secum invicem, as Pliny's letter describes it. We know that ancient sacred song was of this antiphonal nature; nay, Nicephorus Callistus in his History, 13.8, says, that such a practice was handed down from the apostles- τὴν τῶν ἀντιφώνων συνήθειαν ἄνωθεν ἀποστόλων ἡ ἐκκλησία παρέλαβε. Theodoret traces the same custom to the church at Antioch (Hist. Ecclesiastes 2:24), while Socrates ascribes the origin of it to Ignatius. Hist. 6.8. Augustine, however, carries such responsoria no higher than the episcopate of Ambrose at Milan. But indeed many of the psalms were composed so as to be sung by a chorus and semichorus, as is plainly marked in the 2nd and in the 24th."
"The apostle refers certainly to social intercourse, and in all probability also, and at the same time, to meetings for Divine service."
"The previous λαλοῦντες is defined by ᾄδοντες as being co-ordinate with it. The second participle may denote an additional exercise. Their speech was to be song, or they were to be singing as well as speaking. ψάλλειν, originally “to strike the lyre,” came to signify “to strike up a tune,” and it denotes the prime accompaniment of these songs..."
Hodges Commentary:
"ᾄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες, singing and making melody, are two forms of expressing the same thing. The latter term is the more comprehensive; as αἴδειν is to make music with the voice; ψάλλειν, to make music in any way; literally, to play on a stringed instrument; then, to sing in concert with such an instrument; then, to sing or chant. See 1 Corinthians 14:15; James 5:13; Romans 15:9."
Sunday, May 27, 2018
My Favorite Songs
From
The Inspirations (my favorite group)
Oh What A Day
I'll Have A New Life
I've Got Overwhelming Joy
Waiting On The Other Side
I'm Singing Today
We'll Understand It Better By And By
I Stand Upon The Rock Of Ages
Heavenly Honey
Jeff and Sheri Easter
John Saw
The Hoppers
It's Shouting Time In Heaven
Stepping On The Clouds
Kingdom Heirs
We'll Soon Be Done With Troubles and Trials
James And Martha Carson
Living In The Promised Land
Jacob's Ladder
Salvation Has Been Brought Down
Doyle Lawson and Quicksilver
(some of these are accapella)
Lay Your Burdens At His Feet
Help Me Lord To Stand
On The Sea Of Life
Babylon's Falling
Climbing Up The Mountain
Heaven's Joy Awaits
O'ershadowed By His Love
Won't It Be A Happy Meeting
Chuckwagon Gang
Heaven's Jubilee
Daddy Sang Bass
He Will Set Your Fields On Fire
The Joy Of Heaven
There's Going Being Shouting And Singing
The Son Hath Made Me Free
I'm Headed For The Promised Land
TENNESSEE ERNIE FORD & The Jordanaires:
GREAT GOSPEL SONGS (SEE HERE)
Especially
I'll Have A New Life
Daniel Prayed
We'll Soon Be Done With Troubles and Trials
Early Sons Of The Pioneers
There Is Power In The Blood
Leaning On The Everlasting Arms
Chestnut Grove Quartet
(accapella)
I'm So Glad
Lord Give Me Just A Little More Time
I'm Going To Be Happy There
Tis The Old Ship Of Zion
Shouting In The Air
Legacy Five
Send The Light
Somebody Sing
The Inspirations (my favorite group)
Oh What A Day
I'll Have A New Life
I've Got Overwhelming Joy
Waiting On The Other Side
I'm Singing Today
We'll Understand It Better By And By
I Stand Upon The Rock Of Ages
Heavenly Honey
Jeff and Sheri Easter
John Saw
The Hoppers
It's Shouting Time In Heaven
Stepping On The Clouds
Kingdom Heirs
We'll Soon Be Done With Troubles and Trials
James And Martha Carson
Living In The Promised Land
Jacob's Ladder
Salvation Has Been Brought Down
Doyle Lawson and Quicksilver
(some of these are accapella)
Lay Your Burdens At His Feet
Help Me Lord To Stand
On The Sea Of Life
Babylon's Falling
Climbing Up The Mountain
Heaven's Joy Awaits
O'ershadowed By His Love
Won't It Be A Happy Meeting
Chuckwagon Gang
Heaven's Jubilee
Daddy Sang Bass
He Will Set Your Fields On Fire
The Joy Of Heaven
There's Going Being Shouting And Singing
The Son Hath Made Me Free
I'm Headed For The Promised Land
TENNESSEE ERNIE FORD & The Jordanaires:
GREAT GOSPEL SONGS (SEE HERE)
Especially
I'll Have A New Life
Daniel Prayed
We'll Soon Be Done With Troubles and Trials
Early Sons Of The Pioneers
There Is Power In The Blood
Leaning On The Everlasting Arms
Chestnut Grove Quartet
(accapella)
I'm So Glad
Lord Give Me Just A Little More Time
I'm Going To Be Happy There
Tis The Old Ship Of Zion
Shouting In The Air
Legacy Five
Send The Light
Somebody Sing
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)