Church of Christ in Australia

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Keith Mc

unread,
Oct 9, 2007, 7:38:05 PM10/9/07
to
Hi there,

I just came across this group while I was trawling - some interesting
topics.

I am an evangelist with the church in Perth Western Australia and I am
interested in the church over there inthe UK.

Here in Oz we have a denomination called Church of Christ and we have
"non-denominational" churches of Christ. These churches are
autonomous and seek to follow the New testament pattern including;
baptism for the forgivnes of sin, acapella misic, women remaining
silent and observance of the Lord's Supper each first day of the week.

I am a member of the later church (you mayhave guessed) and would
welcome comments and information of the make up of the church of
Christ in the UK.

Thanks


Keith

http://jottingsfromthepreachersdesk.blogspot.com/

celia

unread,
Oct 10, 2007, 2:59:48 AM10/10/07
to
Out of interest, as it's a much discussed subject in UKRC, are your
women completely silent in church or are they permitted to thank the
preacher say 'amen' and that sort of thing.
Do they join in the singing ?

Celia

Tweetie Pooh

unread,
Oct 10, 2007, 3:47:56 AM10/10/07
to
Keith Mc <kmcdt...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:1191973085.915710.160250
@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
<snipped>
> Hi there,

>
> Here in Oz we have a denomination called Church of Christ and we have
> "non-denominational" churches of Christ. These churches are
> autonomous and seek to follow the New testament pattern including;
> baptism for the forgivnes of sin, acapella misic, women remaining
> silent and observance of the Lord's Supper each first day of the week.
Interesting ideas here, some oft discussed I guess. What I'd like to know
is why acapella? The early church possibly was since it often was in
hiding and/or moving around, however just because the NT doesn't mention
instrumentation doesn't mean there wasn't any.
Many in the early church were Jewish as was Jesus and the first disciples.
The OT is full of instruction to use instruments (trumpets, harps,
tambourines, lyres, timbrels etc). And I can't believe that if they
frowned on music they would have been as attractive as they were.

celia

unread,
Oct 10, 2007, 4:17:34 AM10/10/07
to
An after thought.
Does the acceptance of this thread starter from a non UK resident now
mean that Quasin may start threads ?

Celia

Mike Williams

unread,
Oct 10, 2007, 4:35:07 AM10/10/07
to

There are several different UK organisations that contain "Church of
Christ" in their name. Probably the most significant is the "London
Church of Christ", which is widely considered to be a cult.

Part of the "International Churches of Christ" (formerly known as the
Boston Church of Christ movement) which originated as a splinter from
the traditional "Church of Christ" denomination. They believe themselves
to be the only true church. They believe in salvation by works, not by
grace. They have been known to employ dishonest recruitment practices.
They forbid speaking in tongues. Some branches deny that the Holy Spirit
is a person of the Trinity.

I first encountered them when someone approached me, and other junior
members of the Christian Fellowship at the bank where I worked, claiming
to be setting up regular lunchtime Bible studies as part of that
Christian Fellowship. It turned out to be an LCoC meeting where they
attempted to convert members of the Fellowship to their cult.

See: http://www.tolc.org/
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/i02.html
http://www.chocd.org/home.html

And, in particular, this Readers Digest article about the ICoC in
Australia
http://www.tolc.org/readaus.htm

--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure

loiner2003

unread,
Oct 10, 2007, 5:49:50 AM10/10/07
to
Mike Williams wrote:
>
> There are several different UK organisations that contain "Church of
> Christ" in their name. Probably the most significant is the "London
> Church of Christ", which is widely considered to be a cult.


I don't know the organisation Mike W is referring to. But there is the
perfectly respectable denomination called the Churches of Christ -
linked with the US denomination known as the Disciples of Christ. In the
UK a large part of this movement joined the United Reformed Church, but
I think there are still some congregations that did not do so. The
denomination tends to be what I would call traditional evangelical in
theology (ie the kind of conservative evangelicalism that existed before
the charismatic movement.)

Interesting how ecumenism works. I know of an American minister of the
Disciples of Christ who came to England and thus became a URC minister;
he has now moved to Scotland where he is minister of a united URC/Church
of Scotland congregation. His wife is training for the Methodist
ministry and works for the local Methodist church. Fascinating!


--

Revd. Eric Potts,

www.lanarkshiremethodist.scotshome.com
www.theinterface.org.uk

Mike Williams

unread,
Oct 10, 2007, 6:27:35 AM10/10/07
to
Wasn't it loiner2003 who wrote:
>Mike Williams wrote:
>>
>> There are several different UK organisations that contain "Church of
>> Christ" in their name. Probably the most significant is the "London
>> Church of Christ", which is widely considered to be a cult.
>
>
>I don't know the organisation Mike W is referring to. But there is the
>perfectly respectable denomination called the Churches of Christ -
>linked with the US denomination known as the Disciples of Christ. In the
>UK a large part of this movement joined the United Reformed Church, but
>I think there are still some congregations that did not do so. The
>denomination tends to be what I would call traditional evangelical in
>theology (ie the kind of conservative evangelicalism that existed before
>the charismatic movement.)

Like I said, there are several different UK organisations with "Church
of Christ" in their name. The one you're talking about was the "Re-
formed Association of Churches of Christ". I can't find any references
to any part of that movement that wasn't absorbed into the URC.

Gordon Hudson

unread,
Oct 10, 2007, 8:08:53 AM10/10/07
to
"Keith Mc" <kmcdt...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1191973085.9...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

Technically they are "Glassites" but your description is exactly how thier
churches appear.
I have a book in the loft that explains the history of the churches of
christ in the UK.
It will probably appear over the next week as I am sorting through my books.
It traces them from the Glassites in Scotland over to America and then back
over to the UK as a missionary church.
There was alos a very useful web site maintained by someone from a local
church of christ but it seems to have vanished from the internet.

Mark Goodge

unread,
Oct 10, 2007, 2:05:18 PM10/10/07
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 01:17:34 -0700, celia put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>An after thought.
>Does the acceptance of this thread starter from a non UK resident now
>mean that Quasin may start threads ?

If it's UK-relevent, yes.

Mark
--
http://www.BritishSurnames.co.uk - What does your surname say about you?
"A pocket full of mumbles, such are promises"

Alan Zanker

unread,
Oct 10, 2007, 3:30:05 PM10/10/07
to
loiner2003 <loine...@methodistchristian.co.uk> wrote:

>Mike Williams wrote:
>>
>> There are several different UK organisations that contain "Church of
>> Christ" in their name. Probably the most significant is the "London
>> Church of Christ", which is widely considered to be a cult.
>
>
>I don't know the organisation Mike W is referring to. But there is the
>perfectly respectable denomination called the Churches of Christ -
>linked with the US denomination known as the Disciples of Christ. In the
>UK a large part of this movement joined the United Reformed Church, but
>I think there are still some congregations that did not do so. The
>denomination tends to be what I would call traditional evangelical in
>theology (ie the kind of conservative evangelicalism that existed before
>the charismatic movement.)

I thought the Disciples of Christ in the US were and are one of the more
liberal denominations, smaller but similar in some ways to the United
Church of Christ?


>
>Interesting how ecumenism works. I know of an American minister of the
>Disciples of Christ who came to England and thus became a URC minister;
>he has now moved to Scotland where he is minister of a united URC/Church
>of Scotland congregation. His wife is training for the Methodist
>ministry and works for the local Methodist church. Fascinating!

As a Loiner you may remember the Church of Christ which was located in I
think Gledhow Road (or was it Roseville Road?) in Leeds. It was one of
those congregations which joined the URC and subsequently became part of
the joint URC/Methodist society at Trinity United Church in new
buildings on Roundhay Road in 1983.

The building was designed to accommodate all three traditions - because
the Church of Christ practised baptism by immersion there is a baptistry
(not sure of the correct term?) under the platform bearing the communion
table. As the CofC had lay ministers and weekly eucharists, each Sunday
service ended with Holy Communion conducted either by the lay CofC
ministers or the resident ordained URC minister. This caused some
grumbling by some of the 'lower' Methodist local preachers who
increasingly often were conducting Sunday worship when the ordained
minister was elsewhere ('if they can preside as lay men and women why
can't we?').

There have been many changes in the last few years. None of the former
CofC members is left, and hardly any URCers. The remainder of the large
congregation is Methodist, most from the Caribbean but with a lively
group from Zimbabwe (one of whom is a local preacher on note).

Alan

Keith Mc

unread,
Oct 10, 2007, 7:40:41 PM10/10/07
to
Hi Celia.

I know for many this is a difficult subject - women speaking in the
church, but the Bible is clear on it. As some don't lie what the
bible says they either ignor it or try to make it say somehting else.

We are tld that all must remain silent exept (of course) the one
speaking. See 1 Cor 14:30-33. That is men women and children need to
remain silent. That is the first thing - to do other wise would be to
encourage confusion, so the Bible says.

The subject often comes around to women teaching. well again the
Bible is clear on that.
1Tim. 2:12 "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority
over a man, but to remain quiet."
Now, that is clear. just in case we are not sure Paul adds
1Cor. 14:34 ¶ The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they
are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the
Law also says.
1Cor. 14:35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own
husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.
1Cor. 14:36 Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or
has it come to you only?

Now I know there will be people who wil gasp at this and think I am so
narrow minded. Well, I'm as broad minded as the scriptures allow me
to be.

The context to these passages has to do with teaching so, yes women
can and are expected to sing and of course they can thank the
preacher.

I hope this helps a little

Keith

http://jottingsfromthepreachersdesk.blogspot.com/

Keith Mc

unread,
Oct 10, 2007, 7:55:56 PM10/10/07
to
Hi there

It is a good question - why acapella.

Well, it has to do with what we are authorised to do - what the Bible
tells us to do.

now just so we are on the same field we need to recognise that we are
living under the New Covenant, not the Old - right? There were a lot
of worship practices that were used in the old Covenant that we are
not to use today, sacrifices, incense etc.

So, what dose the New Testament teach those living under the New
Covenant?

Col. 3:16 Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all
wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and
spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.
We are told to sing

Eph. 5:19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual
songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;
Again we are told to sing - the instrument we are to use is the voice
- the melody is to me made in our hearts.

so, what do we have authority for? Singing.

Its a bit like a little being given a shopping list. On that list is
bread, milk and butter. His mother gives him some money and sends him
down to the shop. How, we all know that all he has authority for is
those 3 items. if he spent all of the change on chocolate he would be
going past the authority his mother gave him (and just might get in
trouble).

we understand this type of authority in everyday life. the boy's
mother did not have to list all those things he couldn't buy - she
only had to tell him what he could get, not what he couldn't get.

So to with the Bible. God tells us what we have to do in our worship
to Him.

He does not have to tell us all that we should not do.

God tells us to sing - that's it. we don't have authority to add any
further instruments that he has not authorised us to use.

Hope this is clear

Keith

http://jottingsfromthepreachersdesk.blogspot.com/


On 10 Oct, 15:47, Tweetie Pooh <brj601...@cia.gov> wrote:
> Keith Mc <kmcdthom...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:1191973085.915710.160250

Keith Mc

unread,
Oct 10, 2007, 8:03:29 PM10/10/07
to
An interesting articel Mike

I have not come across this group in Perth, but I have heard of them

> See:http://www.tolc.org/http://www.apologeticsindex.org/i02.htmlhttp://www.chocd.org/home.html


>
> And, in particular, this Readers Digest article about the ICoC in

> Australiahttp://www.tolc.org/readaus.htm

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 5:28:14 AM10/11/07
to
Keith Mc wrote:

> Well, it has to do with what we are authorised to do - what the Bible
> tells us to do.

...


> so, what do we have authority for? Singing.
>
> Its a bit like a little being given a shopping list. On that list is
> bread, milk and butter. His mother gives him some money and sends him
> down to the shop. How, we all know that all he has authority for is
> those 3 items. if he spent all of the change on chocolate he would be
> going past the authority his mother gave him (and just might get in
> trouble).

...


> God tells us to sing - that's it. we don't have authority to add any
> further instruments that he has not authorised us to use.

Then you're taking a terrible risk, using the internet for Christian
discussions. There's nothing about that in the New Testament.

--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc

loiner2003

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 6:25:45 AM10/11/07
to
Alan Zanker wrote:
> I thought the Disciples of Christ in the US were and are one of the more
> liberal denominations, smaller but similar in some ways to the United
> Church of Christ?

Hi, Alan. You could be right. I was just indicating an impression I'd
formed, admittedly on very little information. I was not in the URC when
they joined it and so had no direct contact.

>> Interesting how ecumenism works. I know of an American minister of the
>> Disciples of Christ who came to England and thus became a URC minister;
>> he has now moved to Scotland where he is minister of a united URC/Church
>> of Scotland congregation. His wife is training for the Methodist
>> ministry and works for the local Methodist church. Fascinating!
>
> As a Loiner you may remember the Church of Christ which was located in I
> think Gledhow Road (or was it Roseville Road?) in Leeds. It was one of
> those congregations which joined the URC and subsequently became part of
> the joint URC/Methodist society at Trinity United Church in new
> buildings on Roundhay Road in 1983.

Gledhow Road, you are right. I used to pass it daily on the bus from
Foundry Lane into the city! (Wow, that takes me back to my teens, which
seems centuries ago now! :-)


> There have been many changes in the last few years. None of the former
> CofC members is left, and hardly any URCers. The remainder of the large
> congregation is Methodist, most from the Caribbean but with a lively
> group from Zimbabwe (one of whom is a local preacher on note).

I did preach at Roscoe in the nineties - again a mainly Caribbean
congregation. Was that incorporated into the new church?

Steve Hague

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 8:19:37 AM10/11/07
to
"Gareth McCaughan" <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:87fy0ix...@g.mccaughan.org.uk...

Cars and public transport aren't mentioned throughout the whole of the
Bible. Perhaps you should be avoiding them too. And as for flying.....
Steve Hague

Alan Zanker

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 11:33:59 AM10/11/07
to
Keith Mc <kmcdt...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>The context to these passages has to do with teaching so, yes women
>can and are expected to sing and of course they can thank the
>preacher.

Are they allowed to tell the preacher they don't agree with his
interpretation of the Bible passage?

Regards

Alan

celia

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 1:05:07 PM10/11/07
to

How about prophesying ?

Celia

celia

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 1:10:57 PM10/11/07
to

Can women sing with instruments ?
Presumably they are not bound by this Col. 3.16 as 'teaching' is
mentioned.

Celia

Mark Goodge

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 4:21:15 PM10/11/07
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:55:56 -0700, Keith Mc put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>

>Col. 3:16 Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all
>wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and
>spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.
>We are told to sing
>
>Eph. 5:19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual
>songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;
>Again we are told to sing - the instrument we are to use is the voice
>- the melody is to me made in our hearts.
>
>so, what do we have authority for? Singing.

There are passages in the Old Testament which refer to the use of
instruments in worship. Why do you think that the New Testament is
more restrictive in this respect than the old?

>He does not have to tell us all that we should not do.

No, he doesn't. But, on the other hand, neither does he have to tell
us all that we can do.

>God tells us to sing - that's it. we don't have authority to add any
>further instruments that he has not authorised us to use.

The use of instruments was authorised in the Old Testament. So you
think this authorisation was later withdrawn (and if so, when?), or do
you think that permission for the use of instruments was only granted
to the Jews and never to the Gentiles?

Mark
--
http://www.BritishSurnames.co.uk - What does your surname say about you?

"Life is both a major and a minor key"

Keith Mc

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 8:59:54 AM10/11/07
to
Gareth McCaughan wrote

Then you're taking a terrible risk, using the internet for Christian
> discussions. There's nothing about that in the New Testament.
>
> --
> Gareth McCaughan

Hi Mike,

I don't think it is a risk. with singing we are talking about worship
to God - now be ha better get that right, I am sure you would agree!

using the internet is not quite in the same catigory

Just a question - by what authority do the things you do in your
worship to God.

Keith

http://jottingsfromthepreachersdesk.blogspot.com/

Keith Mc

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 9:05:12 AM10/11/07
to
>
> Cars and public transport aren't mentioned throughout the whole of the
> Bible. Perhaps you should be avoiding them too. And as for flying.....
> Steve Hague

Hey Steve,

the Diference is that we have a specific command - SING!

IF we were given a general command, say "make music" we could chose
what sort of music we could use. However God has chose the music we
are to make, and that is with the human voice.

As far as cars public transport and even flying. well, we have a
genral command there - yep, they are mentioned in te Bible. we are
told to "Go therefore and make disciples" Matt 28:18. We are not told
how to "go". there is not a specific command, just a genreal command
- Go..

Keith

http://jottingsfromthepreachersdesk.blogspot.com/

Phil Saunders

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 5:10:51 PM10/11/07
to
"Keith Mc" <kmcdt...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1192107912....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...

Ok well we are told to make a joyful noise, not with what!

As for making music

19Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make
music in your heart to the Lord

Please you explain the difference between a Psalm, a Hymn and a Spiritual
Song?

We are told to make music in our heart but you say it is forbidden to do so
out loud?

Laughable really. Legalistic and laughable.

Phil

Alan Zanker

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 5:24:43 PM10/11/07
to
loiner2003 <loine...@methodistchristian.co.uk> wrote:

>I did preach at Roscoe in the nineties - again a mainly Caribbean
>congregation. Was that incorporated into the new church?

No. Roscoe is still very lively and flourishing, as are most of the
black-majority churches in Harehills and Chapeltown (including St
Aidan's!). Roscoe also has an Eritrean evangelical congregation using
the premises.

However, following the retirement of the URC minister at Trinity and the
departure of the Methodist minister at Roscoe to become Super of
Richmond Hill circuit last year, the new Methodist minister was given
oversight of both Roscoe and Trinity, assisted by a Lay Worker at
Trinity.

Regards

Alan

joerev...@bellsouth.net

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 8:22:17 PM10/11/07
to
"Keith Mc" <kmcdt...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1192107912....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> >
>> Cars and public transport aren't mentioned throughout the whole of the
>> Bible. Perhaps you should be avoiding them too. And as for flying.....
>> Steve Hague
>
> Hey Steve,
>
> the Diference is that we have a specific command - SING!
>
> IF we were given a general command, say "make music" we could chose
> what sort of music we could use. However God has chose the music we
> are to make, and that is with the human voice.

Musical instruments can sing more literally than stones can cry out.
There in mo mention of the human voice in any of the scriptures you cite.
That is merely your assumption about their meaning.

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 9:03:53 PM10/11/07
to
Keith Mc wrote:

> Gareth McCaughan wrote
>
> Then you're taking a terrible risk, using the internet for Christian
>> discussions. There's nothing about that in the New Testament.
>>
>> --
>> Gareth McCaughan
>
> Hi Mike,

You quoted my name twice and then called me Mike. That's rather
strange.

> I don't think it is a risk. with singing we are talking about worship
> to God - now be ha better get that right, I am sure you would agree!

Only if there's some actual danger associated with getting it wrong.
Do you think God is going to get angry if you sing his praises with
instrumental accompaniment? There's no sort of prohibition of this
anywhere in the Bible (or elsewhere in the Christian tradition, other
than your own group and perhaps a few other even smaller ones). So
I really don't see what basis you can have for avoiding instruments
*other* than a general belief that whatever is not explicitly permitted
is forbidden. And if you have *that* belief then, yes, I think using
the internet is taking a terrible risk, and I don't see on what grounds
you say ...

> using the internet is not quite in the same catigory

... that it isn't. (That using the internet isn't something you do
for God's sake? But here you are, using the internet to spread your
ideas about how God should and shouldn't be worshipped.)

> Just a question - by what authority do the things you do in your
> worship to God.

Me? I'm an atheist. But when I was a Christian, I worshipped God
in whatever ways seemed to me edifying for me (and others) and
likely to please him. Since the OT is extremely clear about
encouraging the use of instruments in worship, and there's no
reason to think that that would have become a problem with
the arrival of the new covenant, and the great majority of
the church has always agreed, and the use of instruments has
obvious value in helping keep the congregation in tune and
in time, I never had any problem with it. Asking "by what
authority?" as if every action needs some sort of explicit
permission seems to me to be making a groundless assumption
about how one should go about deciding what to do. "No longer
do I call you servants ... but I have called you friends".

Keith Mc

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 7:37:54 PM10/11/07
to
> Are they allowed to tell the preacher they don't agree with his
> interpretation of the Bible passage?

Of course they can just as any male member can - but would it be
fitting fofr a male member to interupt the service?

The Bible is taling about the worship service - I said in my earlier
post all have to remain quiet (during worship) expect the one male
teacher.

Keith

http://jottingsfromthepreachersdesk.blogspot.com/

Keith Mc

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 7:59:24 PM10/11/07
to
> Please you explain the difference between a Psalm, a Hymn and a Spiritual
> Song?

A Psalm comes from the book of Psalms
A Hymn is a song of Triuph (See JH Thayer)
A Spiritual song is a song about spiritual things

Acts 16:25 ¶ But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and
singing hymns of praise to God, and the prisoners were listening to
them;

> We are told to make music in our heart but you say it is forbidden to do so
> out loud?

No - we are to sing - out loud

> Laughable really. Legalistic and laughable.

Legalistic isn't so bad really - doesn't it have to do with following
God's law?

Do you folow God's law or not?
I am sure we all try to.

Keith

http://jottingsfromthepreachersdesk.blogspot.com/

Keith Mc

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 8:00:00 PM10/11/07
to
> There are passages in the Old Testament which refer to the use of
> instruments in worship. Why do you think that the New Testament is
> more restrictive in this respect than the old?

John 4:23 "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers
will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the
Father seeks to be His worshipers.
The New testament is very diffent from the Old
Worhip has tobe in spirit (from the heart) and truth (from God's word
- John 17:17 "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.)


> The use of instruments was authorised in the Old Testament. So you
> think this authorisation was later withdrawn (and if so, when?), or do
> you think that permission for the use of instruments was only granted
> to the Jews and never to the Gentiles?

The Old Testament was God "agrement" with the Jews - that is what the
word means
God did not give 'permission for the use of instruments' to the Jews
any where I can read - BUT - He tells us in the New Testament
(agrement with us today) what we have to do. That is sing - a
specific comand

Keith

http://jottingsfromthepreachersdesk.blogspot.com/

Keith Mc

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 8:00:38 PM10/11/07
to
> How about prophesying ?

Cor. 14:34 ¶ The women are to keep silent in the churches;


Keith

http://jottingsfromthepreachersdesk.blogspot.com/

Keith Mc

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 8:01:01 PM10/11/07
to
> There are passages in the Old Testament which refer to the use of
> instruments in worship. Why do you think that the New Testament is
> more restrictive in this respect than the old?

John 4:23 "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers


will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the
Father seeks to be His worshipers.
The New testament is very diffent from the Old
Worhip has tobe in spirit (from the heart) and truth (from God's word
- John 17:17 "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.)

> The use of instruments was authorised in the Old Testament. So you
> think this authorisation was later withdrawn (and if so, when?), or do
> you think that permission for the use of instruments was only granted
> to the Jews and never to the Gentiles?

The Old Testament was God "agrement" with the Jews - that is what the

Keith Mc

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 8:00:30 PM10/11/07
to
> Can women sing with instruments ?

There is not authority in the new testament for instruments in the New
Tetsments

http://www.pb.org/pbdocs/music.html#The%20Testimony%20of%20Great%20Religious%20Leaders

Here is something of interest I found - the whole article is
interesting, but just read this bit first

Keith

http://jottingsfromthepreachersdesk.blogspot.com/

Keith Mc

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 9:54:12 PM10/11/07
to
> Musical instruments can sing more literally than stones can cry out.
> There in mo mention of the human voice in any of the scriptures you cite.
> That is merely your assumption about their meaning.

Hi there,

Most people understand the meaning of the sing.

Note
http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=sing
Dictionary meaning
sing
- make music with voice: to use the voice to produce words or sounds
in a musical way

Luke 19:40 But Jesus answered, "I tell you, if these become silent,
the stones will cry out!"
I'm not sure you have quite the right context when talking about
stones.

We are talking about what we have authority to do in the church

Keith

http://jottingsfromthepreachersdesk.blogspot.com/

celia

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 2:44:01 AM10/12/07
to
On 10 Oct, 00:38, Keith Mc <kmcdthom...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Here in Oz we have a denomination called Church of Christ and we have
> "non-denominational" churches of Christ. These churches are
> autonomous and seek to follow the New testament pattern including;
> baptism for the forgivnes of sin, acapella misic, women remaining
> silent and observance of the Lord's Supper each first day of the week.

Can women say the Lord's prayer aloud in church ?

Celia

celia

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 2:34:44 AM10/12/07
to

So how do you define 'church' as women were undoubtedly prophesying in
apostolic times, it's not a solitary thing and has biblical approval.

Celia

Mark Goodge

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 2:56:38 AM10/12/07
to
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:00:00 -0700, Keith Mc put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>> There are passages in the Old Testament which refer to the use of


>> instruments in worship. Why do you think that the New Testament is
>> more restrictive in this respect than the old?
>
>John 4:23 "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers
>will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the
>Father seeks to be His worshipers.

The context of this passage relates to having a particular location
for worship, rather than the means of worship. Although some people
interpret "in spirit" as meaning that true worshippers worship God by
speaking "in the spirit" - that is, in tongues. I presume that's not
your interpretation? If not, why not? Why do you think this passage
applies to the use of music?

>The New testament is very diffent from the Old
>Worhip has tobe in spirit (from the heart) and truth (from God's word
>- John 17:17 "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.)

In what way is music not "from the heart"?


>> The use of instruments was authorised in the Old Testament. So you
>> think this authorisation was later withdrawn (and if so, when?), or do
>> you think that permission for the use of instruments was only granted
>> to the Jews and never to the Gentiles?
>
>The Old Testament was God "agrement" with the Jews - that is what the
>word means
>God did not give 'permission for the use of instruments' to the Jews
>any where I can read - BUT - He tells us in the New Testament
>(agrement with us today) what we have to do. That is sing - a
>specific comand

That doesn't answer my question. Where does the Bible say that
permission to use instruments in worship was withdrawn?

(Do you, for that matter, actually agree that the Jews of the Old
Testament were actually permitted and even encouraged to use
instruments in worship?)

Mark
--
Blog: http://Mark.Goodge.co.uk Photos: http://www.goodge.co.uk
"Life is bigger, it's bigger than you"

Phil Saunders

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 3:27:43 AM10/12/07
to
"Keith Mc" <kmcdt...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1192147164.4...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> Please you explain the difference between a Psalm, a Hymn and a Spiritual
> Song?

A Psalm comes from the book of Psalms
A Hymn is a song of Triuph (See JH Thayer)
A Spiritual song is a song about spiritual things

Acts 16:25 ś But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and


singing hymns of praise to God, and the prisoners were listening to
them;

I thought you might go for those dcotrinal pleasing definitions

> We are told to make music in our heart but you say it is forbidden to do
> so
> out loud?

No - we are to sing - out loud

So singing is making music? lol

> Laughable really. Legalistic and laughable.

Legalistic isn't so bad really - doesn't it have to do with following
God's law?

No. Because there is no law to be followed.

Do you folow God's law or not?

Nope.

I am sure we all try to.

Think again.

Phil

Nick Milton

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 3:35:48 AM10/12/07
to
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:00:00 -0700, Keith Mc
<kmcdt...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>He tells us in the New Testament
>(agrement with us today) what we have to do. That is sing - a
>specific comand

Does he tell us to stand up while we sing?
Does he tell us to sit down when we sing?
Does he tell us to raise our arms when we sing?
Does he tell us to refrain from playing musical instruments when we
sing?

I can't recall any instructions about what we should do while we are
singing, and if we want to play music to accompany that singing, there
are no prohibitions.

Paul Roberts

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 4:08:29 AM10/12/07
to
"Phil Saunders" <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:vjwPi.8629$8c4....@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...

[snip]


> We are told to make music in our heart but you say it is forbidden to do
> so out loud?
>
> Laughable really. Legalistic and laughable.

Sorry, Phil, but for me discussions of this type only highlight how
"laughable" the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is. You rightly dismiss this
type of fruitcake theology, but it is derived from an excessively literal
(and full of assumptions) reading of the Bible in exactly the same way as
yours, and Jeff's, and others, are.

The truth is that, even if the Bible was intended to be the infallible Word
of God (and I don't for one minute believe it is) there is nobody who can
claim to be able to interpret it in an infallible way, therefore the
doctrine is worthless anyway. Far better to simply recognise that we don't
have access to all the answers and try to get to know God well enough to
hear His voice for ourselves.
--
Paul R.
Remove nospam for valid email address

Phil Saunders

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 4:52:33 AM10/12/07
to
"Paul Roberts" <p.t.r...@nospam.ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:11921765...@nntpgw.ncl.ac.uk...

> "Phil Saunders" <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:vjwPi.8629$8c4....@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>
> [snip]
>> We are told to make music in our heart but you say it is forbidden to do
>> so out loud?
>>
>> Laughable really. Legalistic and laughable.
>
> Sorry, Phil, but for me discussions of this type only highlight how
> "laughable" the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is. You rightly dismiss
> this type of fruitcake theology, but it is derived from an excessively
> literal (and full of assumptions) reading of the Bible in exactly the same
> way as yours, and Jeff's, and others, are.

Then I suspect that you need to remove your warped glasses. Neither Jeff or
this other person are suffering from taking the scriptures too literally.

They suffer from taking only a select few scriptures, often totally out of
context, in order to support an already arrived at opinion.

Your theology doesnt suffer in the same way because you dont even have to
pretend that the bible supports your fruitcake theology :-)

> The truth is that, even if the Bible was intended to be the infallible
> Word of God (and I don't for one minute believe it is) there is nobody who
> can claim to be able to interpret it in an infallible way, therefore the
> doctrine is worthless anyway. Far better to simply recognise that we don't
> have access to all the answers and try to get to know God well enough to
> hear His voice for ourselves.

As I said the theological assumptions that you make are free from criticism
only in that there is no authority to which you will bow other than your own
opinion.

Phil

Alan Zanker

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 6:09:00 AM10/12/07
to
Keith Mc <kmcdt...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>>>The context to these passages has to do with teaching so, yes women
>>>can and are expected to sing and of course they can thank the
>>>preacher.

>> Are they allowed to tell the preacher they don't agree with his


>> interpretation of the Bible passage?
>
>Of course they can just as any male member can -

That's encouraging - I didn't realise your denomination believed women
capable of that level of theological understanding. 1 Cor 14.35 appears
to imply that the best they can do is to go home and ask their husbands
(would be difficult in my case as my wife, a priest, is the theology and
bible expert).

>but would it be
>fitting fofr a male member to interupt the service?

I hope no-one would interrupt during worship, even to thank the preacher
- I was thinking about after the service when people are leaving the
church or chatting over coffee.


>
>The Bible is taling about the worship service - I said in my earlier
>post all have to remain quiet (during worship) expect the one male
>teacher.

Yes, I saw that.

Alan

Keith Mc

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 6:25:07 AM10/12/07
to

The context in 1 Cor 14 is the worship service

Keith Mc

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 6:29:15 AM10/12/07
to
On Oct 12, 3:35 pm, nick.mil...@knoco.co.uk (Nick Milton) wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:00:00 -0700, Keith Mc
>

The instruction is to sing - that is a type of music - aggreed?
Standing, sitting, raising arms is not muisc.
We hve been told a specific type of music.

Note:
John Wesley, the reputed founder of the Methodist Church, is quoted by
Adam Clarke to have said: "I have no objection to instruments of music
in our chapels, provided they are neither heard nor seen." Clarke's
Commentary, Vol. 4, page 684.

keith

celia

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 6:43:02 AM10/12/07
to
On 11 Oct, 00:40, Keith Mc <kmcdthom...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> Now I know there will be people who wil gasp at this and think I am so
> narrow minded. Well, I'm as broad minded as the scriptures allow me
> to be.

>
> The context to these passages has to do with teaching so, yes women
> can and are expected to sing and of course they can thank the
> preacher.
>
Alas, you are not nearly narrow minded enough, for one glorious moment
I thought I might have found a denomination where Jeff would feel at
home and so not "neglect the assembling of yourselves together"
Am I right in supposing that women aren't allowed to do Bible
readings in church and that you wouldn't want homosexuals or the
divorced and remarried among your members ?
I think the singing without music sounds rather lovely and can
imagine that the freedom given by this to also add to the words as you
sing could be quite inspiring.

Celia

Nick Milton

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 8:19:52 AM10/12/07
to
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 03:29:15 -0700, Keith Mc
<kmcdt...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>On Oct 12, 3:35 pm, nick.mil...@knoco.co.uk (Nick Milton) wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:00:00 -0700, Keith Mc
>>
>> <kmcdthom...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> >He tells us in the New Testament
>> >(agrement with us today) what we have to do. That is sing - a
>> >specific comand
>>
>> Does he tell us to stand up while we sing?
>> Does he tell us to sit down when we sing?
>> Does he tell us to raise our arms when we sing?
>> Does he tell us to refrain from playing musical instruments when we
>> sing?
>>
>> I can't recall any instructions about what we should do while we are
>> singing, and if we want to play music to accompany that singing, there
>> are no prohibitions.
>
>The instruction is to sing - that is a type of music - aggreed?

it can be part of music

>Standing, sitting, raising arms is not muisc.
>We hve been told a specific type of music.

No - we have been told "singing"

To assume this means "no accompanying music, clapping, standing,
raising of arms" etc are interpretations placed upon the text - not
the text itself

Alec Brady

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 10:27:18 AM10/12/07
to
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 03:25:07 -0700, Keith Mc
<kmcdt...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>On Oct 12, 2:34 pm, celia <c_a_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12 Oct, 01:00, Keith Mc <kmcdthom...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> > > How about prophesying ?
>>

>> > Cor. 14:34 ś The women are to keep silent in the churches;


>>
>> > Keith
>>
>> >http://jottingsfromthepreachersdesk.blogspot.com/
>>
>> So how do you define 'church' as women were undoubtedly prophesying in
>> apostolic times, it's not a solitary thing and has biblical approval.
>>
>> Celia
>
>The context in 1 Cor 14 is the worship service

Is it? I can see that it says "in the assembly", but where do you read
that the assembly had "worship services"?

Ian

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 1:04:37 PM10/12/07
to
On 11 Oct, 00:55, Keith Mc <kmcdthom...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> God tells us to sing - that's it. we don't have authority to add any
> further instruments that he has not authorised us to use.

In what language do you sing, and on what authority have you chosen
that language?

Ian

Alec Brady

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 1:54:03 PM10/12/07
to
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:00:30 -0700, Keith Mc
<kmcdt...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>> Can women sing with instruments ?
>
>There is not authority in the new testament for instruments in the New
>Tetsments

There is no authority in the new testament for requiring its authority
before you can do something.

Ian

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 1:03:02 PM10/12/07
to
On 12 Oct, 11:43, celia <c_a_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I think the singing without music sounds rather lovely ...

Singing without music?

Ian

Paul Roberts

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 4:35:24 PM10/12/07
to
In news:lBGPi.23419$HW.1...@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net,
Phil Saunders <philip....@ntlworld.com> articulated:

> "Paul Roberts" <p.t.r...@nospam.ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:11921765...@nntpgw.ncl.ac.uk...

[snip]


>> Sorry, Phil, but for me discussions of this type only highlight how
>> "laughable" the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is. You rightly
>> dismiss this type of fruitcake theology, but it is derived from an
>> excessively literal (and full of assumptions) reading of the Bible
>> in exactly the same way as yours, and Jeff's, and others, are.
>
> Then I suspect that you need to remove your warped glasses. Neither
> Jeff or this other person are suffering from taking the scriptures
> too literally.

Well, you would say that. No doubt you believe you can demonstrate how they
read the scriptures incorrectly. From where I'm sitting, it doesn't look
like that - and you certainly haven't succeeded in persuading them.

> They suffer from taking only a select few scriptures, often totally
> out of context, in order to support an already arrived at opinion.

Yes, and they aren't the only ones.

> Your theology doesnt suffer in the same way because you dont even
> have to pretend that the bible supports your fruitcake theology :-)

Indeed :-)

But feel free to demonstrate why it's fruitcake theology :-)

>> The truth is that, even if the Bible was intended to be the
>> infallible Word of God (and I don't for one minute believe it is)
>> there is nobody who can claim to be able to interpret it in an
>> infallible way, therefore the doctrine is worthless anyway. Far
>> better to simply recognise that we don't have access to all the
>> answers and try to get to know God well enough to hear His voice for
>> ourselves.
>
> As I said the theological assumptions that you make are free from
> criticism only in that there is no authority to which you will bow
> other than your own opinion.

Indeed I don't accept anyone other than God as an infallible authority. And
I certainly don't claim to hear God clearly - which is, of course, my
problem - so ultimately you are correct in that it's my opinion.

But I think that those who claim to take their beliefs directly from
scripture are faced with the same dilemma. Even that in itself is based on
an unfounded assumption, and any passage which is open to any kind of
interpretation introduces further assumptions, so any claim to authority is
flawed from the start.

Alec Brady

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 1:57:13 PM10/12/07
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:55:56 -0700, Keith Mc
<kmcdt...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:


>God tells us to sing - that's it. we don't have authority to add any
>further instruments that he has not authorised us to use.

Where does God tell you to interpret the Bible like that?

Phil Saunders

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 6:40:52 PM10/12/07
to
"Paul Roberts" <p.t.r...@nospam.ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:11922213...@nntpgw.ncl.ac.uk...

> In news:lBGPi.23419$HW.1...@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net,
> Phil Saunders <philip....@ntlworld.com> articulated:
>> "Paul Roberts" <p.t.r...@nospam.ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:11921765...@nntpgw.ncl.ac.uk...
>
> [snip]
>>> Sorry, Phil, but for me discussions of this type only highlight how
>>> "laughable" the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is. You rightly
>>> dismiss this type of fruitcake theology, but it is derived from an
>>> excessively literal (and full of assumptions) reading of the Bible
>>> in exactly the same way as yours, and Jeff's, and others, are.
>>
>> Then I suspect that you need to remove your warped glasses. Neither
>> Jeff or this other person are suffering from taking the scriptures
>> too literally.
>
> Well, you would say that. No doubt you believe you can demonstrate how
> they read the scriptures incorrectly. From where I'm sitting, it doesn't
> look like that - and you certainly haven't succeeded in persuading them.

I'm not trying ot persuade them. I have no interest in doing that. I'm just
laughing. Shallow but true.

>> They suffer from taking only a select few scriptures, often totally
>> out of context, in order to support an already arrived at opinion.
>
> Yes, and they aren't the only ones.

Indeed not.

>> Your theology doesnt suffer in the same way because you dont even
>> have to pretend that the bible supports your fruitcake theology :-)
>
> Indeed :-)

:-)

> But feel free to demonstrate why it's fruitcake theology :-)

It was just a joke since you cant prove theirs is.

>>> The truth is that, even if the Bible was intended to be the
>>> infallible Word of God (and I don't for one minute believe it is)
>>> there is nobody who can claim to be able to interpret it in an
>>> infallible way, therefore the doctrine is worthless anyway. Far
>>> better to simply recognise that we don't have access to all the
>>> answers and try to get to know God well enough to hear His voice for
>>> ourselves.
>>
>> As I said the theological assumptions that you make are free from
>> criticism only in that there is no authority to which you will bow
>> other than your own opinion.
>
> Indeed I don't accept anyone other than God as an infallible authority.
> And I certainly don't claim to hear God clearly - which is, of course, my
> problem - so ultimately you are correct in that it's my opinion.

Indeed. That was my point

> But I think that those who claim to take their beliefs directly from
> scripture are faced with the same dilemma. Even that in itself is based on
> an unfounded assumption, and any passage which is open to any kind of
> interpretation introduces further assumptions, so any claim to authority
> is flawed from the start.

You may think that, I dont agree.

Phil

Paul Roberts

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 6:49:15 PM10/12/07
to
In news:UJSPi.25336$HW....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net,

Phil Saunders <philip....@ntlworld.com> articulated:
> "Paul Roberts" <p.t.r...@nospam.ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:11922213...@nntpgw.ncl.ac.uk...

[snip]


>> But I think that those who claim to take their beliefs directly from
>> scripture are faced with the same dilemma. Even that in itself is
>> based on an unfounded assumption, and any passage which is open to
>> any kind of interpretation introduces further assumptions, so any
>> claim to authority is flawed from the start.
>
> You may think that, I dont agree.

Well, er, fine. Reasons why you disagree would be interesting :-)

Phil Saunders

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 7:10:31 PM10/12/07
to
"Paul Roberts" <p.t.r...@nospam.ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:11922293...@nntpgw.ncl.ac.uk...

"unfounded assumption" which one is that?

"any kind of interpretation introudces further assumptions" in what way?

Who is suggesting that one makes doctrine from unclear readings?

Phil

Keith Mc

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 8:21:19 PM10/12/07
to
On Oct 12, 8:19 pm, nick.mil...@knoco.co.uk (Nick Milton) wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 03:29:15 -0700, Keith Mc
>
>
>
> <kmcdthom...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >On Oct 12, 3:35 pm, nick.mil...@knoco.co.uk (Nick Milton) wrote:
> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:00:00 -0700, Keith Mc
>
> >> <kmcdthom...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> >He tells us in the New Testament
> >> >(agrement with us today) what we have to do. That is sing - a
> >> >specific comand
>
> >> Does he tell us to stand up while we sing?
> >> Does he tell us to sit down when we sing?
> >> Does he tell us to raise our arms when we sing?
> >> Does he tell us to refrain from playing musical instruments when we
> >> sing?
>
> >> I can't recall any instructions about what we should do while we are
> >> singing, and if we want to play music to accompany that singing, there
> >> are no prohibitions.
>
> >The instruction is to sing - that is a type of music - aggreed?
>
> it can be part of music

Singing is one TYPE of music

>
> >Standing, sitting, raising arms is not muisc.
> >We hve been told a specific type of music.
>
> No - we have been told "singing"
>
> To assume this means "no accompanying music, clapping, standing,
> raising of arms" etc are interpretations placed upon the text - not
> the text itself

What does the text tell us to do?

The only type of music we are told to use is singing.

Keith

Keith Mc

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 8:18:56 PM10/12/07
to
> Alas, you are not nearly narrow minded enough, for one glorious moment
> I thought I might have found a denomination where Jeff would feel at
> home and so not "neglect the assembling of yourselves together"
> Am I right in supposing that women aren't allowed to do Bible
> readings in church and that you wouldn't want homosexuals or the
> divorced and remarried among your members ?
> I think the singing without music sounds rather lovely and can
> imagine that the freedom given by this to also add to the words as you
> sing could be quite inspiring.
>
> Celia

Hi Celia,

We are told, "Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without
wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to
stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own
assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one
another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near. Heb."
10:23-25
And yes I beieve it is wrong to "forsake the assembly".

Jesus taught on the divorce and remarriage question
Matt. 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for
immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

As far as homosexuals - God loves them and wants them to be saved, but
as long as they are sinning they need to repent.
1Cor. 6:9-10 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit
the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor
thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers,
will inherit the kingdom of God."

Many reading this will REALLY think I am narow minded - we that's OK -
rather that than be too liberal with the truth.

Keith

Keith Mc

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 8:23:48 PM10/12/07
to
On Oct 12, 10:27 pm, Alec Brady <alec.br...@virgin.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 03:25:07 -0700, Keith Mc
>
>
>
> <kmcdthom...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >On Oct 12, 2:34 pm, celia <c_a_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 12 Oct, 01:00, Keith Mc <kmcdthom...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> > > How about prophesying ?
>
> >> > Cor. 14:34 ¶ The women are to keep silent in the churches;

>
> >> > Keith
>
> >> >http://jottingsfromthepreachersdesk.blogspot.com/
>
> >> So how do you define 'church' as women were undoubtedly prophesying in
> >> apostolic times, it's not a solitary thing and has biblical approval.
>
> >> Celia
>
> >The context in 1 Cor 14 is the worship service
>
> Is it? I can see that it says "in the assembly", but where do you read
> that the assembly had "worship services"?

What did they assemble for?

See 1 Cor 11;18 on

Keith

Keith Mc

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 8:27:32 PM10/12/07
to
On Oct 13, 1:54 am, Alec Brady <alec.br...@virgin.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:00:30 -0700, Keith Mc
>
> <kmcdthom...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> Can women sing with instruments ?
>
> >There is not authority in the new testament for instruments in the New
> >Tetsments
>
> There is no authority in the new testament for requiring its authority
> before you can do something.

Luke 6:46 ¶ "Why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I
say?

James 1:22 But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely
hearers who delude themselves.

Matt. 7:21 ¶ "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter
the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in
heaven will enter.

We have to do what is written in the Bible

Keith

Paul Roberts

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 8:31:08 PM10/12/07
to
In news:H9TPi.3583$ah6....@newsfe4-win.ntli.net,

Phil Saunders <philip....@ntlworld.com> articulated:
> "Paul Roberts" <p.t.r...@nospam.ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:11922293...@nntpgw.ncl.ac.uk...

>> [snip]
>>>> But I think that those who claim to take their beliefs directly
>>>> from scripture are faced with the same dilemma. Even that in
>>>> itself is based on an unfounded assumption, and any passage which
>>>> is open to any kind of interpretation introduces further
>>>> assumptions, so any claim to authority is flawed from the start.
>>>
>>> You may think that, I dont agree.
>>
>> Well, er, fine. Reasons why you disagree would be interesting :-)
>
> "unfounded assumption" which one is that?

That scripture is the inerrant word of God.

> "any kind of interpretation introudces further assumptions" in what
> way?

Because you assume that your interpretation is the correct one.

> Who is suggesting that one makes doctrine from unclear readings?

Scripture has been handed down through a great many generations; much of it
was verbal tradition long before it was ever committed to paper; it was a
part of a time, place and culture very different from ours and has been
translated many times - some of the modern translations don't even agree
with each other (or, at the very least, place different emphases).

Under such circumstances, it's difficult to claim that *anything* is clear.

Keith Mc

unread,
Oct 13, 2007, 12:01:54 AM10/13/07
to
> Scripture has been handed down through a great many generations; much of it
> was verbal tradition long before it was ever committed to paper; it was a
> part of a time, place and culture very different from ours and has been
> translated many times - some of the modern translations don't even agree
> with each other (or, at the very least, place different emphases).
>
> Under such circumstances, it's difficult to claim that *anything* is clear.
> --
> Paul R.
> Remove nospam for valid email address

Paul you really need to get your facts straight - the owrd of God has
more ancient manuscipts than any other ancient book bar none. The
oldest patial manuscipt comes from the 2nd century and you know what -
it tolaly agrees with what we have now.

It was commited to paper in the first century. We can trust God's
word and to state otherwise could be seen as an atempt to undermine
others faith.

Faith comes from God's word and we can trust that.

Rom. 10:17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of
God.

Luke 21:33 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not
pass away.

God has proved over the centuries that he protects His word. Don't
let anyone tell you otherwise! Trust in God and His power to fulfill
what He promised.

Keith

http://jottingsfromthepreachersdesk.blogspot.com/

celia

unread,
Oct 13, 2007, 12:47:46 AM10/13/07
to
On 13 Oct, 01:18, Keith Mc <kmcdthom...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>
> Hi Celia,
>
> We are told, "Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without
> wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to
> stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own
> assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one
> another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near. Heb."
> 10:23-25
> And yes I beieve it is wrong to "forsake the assembly".
>
> Jesus taught on the divorce and remarriage question
> Matt. 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for
> immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
>
> As far as homosexuals - God loves them and wants them to be saved, but
> as long as they are sinning they need to repent.
> 1Cor. 6:9-10 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit
> the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor
> idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor
> thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers,
> will inherit the kingdom of God."
>
> Many reading this wi