A few weeks, I saw on a discussion board that someone had written a book challenging Rick Atchley’s sermons, called “Both/And,” defending the decision of Richland Hills Church of Christ to add an instrumental service. Rumor had it that someone paid to print 20,000 copies, enough to mail one to every Church of Christ in the country! And I’ve been waiting for my copy to arrive but I’m apparently not on their mailing list. (I’m just so shocked!)
Well, I found that the book is now available in full text on the internet right here. It’s called Richland Hills & Instrumental Music: A Plea to Reconsider. I’m looking forward to reading through it.
And so, the next few posts will address the author’s arguments on why instrumental music is sinful.
Rick Atchley’s sermons are available here.
The author of the book is Dave Miller, Ph.D. His bio is here.
Now, to give you a sense of the book, the author never refers to the Richland Hills Church of Christ as the “Richland Hills Church of Christ,” just “Richland Hills,” except when referring to its legal name back when the church’s charter prohibited the use of instrumental music. Is the author implying that it’s wrong to call Richland Hills a “Church of Christ”?
Well, here’s the first sentence in the book: “The church that claims to be the largest church of Christ in America now conducts a 5:00 p.m. Saturday afternoon worship service that incorporates both the Lord’s Supper and instrumental music (Ross, 2007).”
“Claims”? Is there a bigger Church of Christ? No. Oh! He means that they “claim” to be a “church of Christ.” They are no longer Christ’s church, I suppose, because they allow some of their members to worship God with an instrument.
On page 81, while discussing the argument that authority is required for all that a Christian does, Miller writes,
He placed closure on the incident by concluding: “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (vs. 12, emp. added). Salvation may be achieved only by the authority, approval, sanction, and requirements of Christ. No one else on the planet has any right or authorization to extend salvation to anyone.
(all boldface in quotations is in the original). Page 95 has a similar statement —
Must we conform ourselves to the name of Christ? That is, in order to be saved, must I have His prior approval, His sanction, His authorization, His permission for everything I do in religion? Peter answers: “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
On page 116, Miller concludes,
By Rick’s reasoning, if Noah had advocated enhancing worship with instrumental music and praise teams, he might have made some converts. But such “conversions” would not be legitimate in God’s sight (Matthew 23:15). Though it is true that only eight people were saved at that point in history (1 Peter 3:20) and Noah failed to attract converts, the problem was neither the preacher (deemed by God “a preacher of righteousness” [2 Peter 2:5]), nor the packaging of the message; the problem was in the hearts of the people—their unwillingness to accept God’s directives on His terms. So it is today.
(brackets in original). In other words, Miller is teaching that someone converted by a church with a Saturday night instrumental worship service is not saved at all!
This is absurd and anti-Biblical beyond words! I mean, the hearing, believing, repenting, confessing, and being baptized avails nothing because the convert had the misfortune to be taught by someone who permits the instrument. Why is it that we only ask a convert his position on Jesus as being the Son of God in order to baptize him? Under this perverse logic, wouldn’t we also have to know the convert’s position on the instrument? And on every other issue Miller considers a salvation issue?
Oh, please. This is just so very, very wrong.
For those new to this site, here are the Biblical reasons why he’s horribly, tragically wrong —
The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace: God’s antidotes for division within the Churches of Christ–a study in the indwelling Spirit and the assurance of our salvation (PowerPoint version)
Do We Teach Another Gospel?–Are the Churches of Christ guilty of the Galatian heresy? Takes The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace deeper. (PowerPoint version)
He is using the phrase "in the name of the Lord" to support his position that requiring biblical authorization for everything we do (ie, that silence prohibits). About a year ago I wrote this blog post explaining why I think that is NOT what "in the name of the Lord" means.
You are way too defensive and reading too much into what he said in his intro. I haven't read the book yet, but I happened to notice a copy of his book in the back of the church building today and I was wondering where it came from. (I guess we were on his mailing list.) Anyway, when I read the introduction "The church that claims to be the largest church of Christ in America…" I didn't get the sense that he was saying Richland Hills isn't a church of Christ and I would assume that he simply refers to it as Richland Hills rather than Richland Hill Church of Christ to save paper and ink (not to mention my attention span). But then again, I'm not guilty of adding instrumental music to the worship service so that sentence didn't hit me like a ton of bricks the way it hit you. You clearly take his words as saying it is not a church of Christ because you have doubts on the subject yourself but don't want to admit it.
Now, Recall my dear friend what Paul says concerning Jesus' priesthood in Hebrews chapters 7-8, that if Jesus were on earth he COULD NOT be a priest because Jesus was born into this world of the tribe of Judah "of which tribe Moses spake nothing" concerning priesthood on this earth. If the silence of the Scriptures prohibits Jesus (very God in the flesh) from being priest on earth, then why do we think that we can do whatever we want just because Scripture doesn't say "thou shalt not." Moses never specifically said that a man born of a virgin of the tribe of Judah could not be a priest on earth, but because he "spake nothing" of such a man being priest on earth, God himself was barred from the priesthood during his earthly sojourn. Are we better than God himself? Is the disciple above his master? Are we more anointed than Christ or is Christ anointed above his fellows?
Josh,
* I'm very glad to admit that I don't consider instrumental music a sin. I've written several posts on the subject. Here's a list: /index-under-construction/i…. My own congregation is a cappella, however. I am not "guilty of adding instrumental music to the worship service." It hit me like a ton of bricks because the arguments made utterly distort the gospel of Jesus Christ.
* Miller is ultimately pretty clear on his views of the salvation of Richland Hills. Consider this from p. 107 —
I happen to be reading Frank Chesser's The Spirit of Liberalism — foreword by Dave Miller. This book quite explicitly damns those who use the instrument and is heartily endorsed by Miller. The book further condemns baby dedications, clapping, choirs, solos, women praying audibly in the presence of men, Christmas and Easter ceremonies (pp. 54-55); praise teams, air conditioned and heated playgrounds, theatrical performances (pp. 48-49); family life centers (p. 42); and children's church (p. 190), considering all these as partaking of the "spirit of liberalism" which "is an adversary of the cross of Jesus Christ." (p. 43) and "nullifies the very nature of biblical faith" (p. 55).
I have no doubt that Miller considers Richland Hills lost. They are "guilty" of many of these things. And as noted above, Miller does call Richland Hills a "church of Christ" when referring to them prior to their decision to add an instrumental service. He even says on p. 116 that if Richland Hills were to convert anyone "such 'conversions' would not be legitimate in God’s sight"!
I'm really amazed at the assertion that someone who hears, believes, repents, confesses, and is baptized is not legitimately saved just because he was baptized at a church that uses an instrument. When did we add to the plan of salvation the requirement that the one doing the teaching be a cappella?
(I'll consider the argument from Hebrews in a separate comment.)
Josh,
I appreciate you encouraging me to study the argument from Hebrews. I've been meaning to get to it.
Here's the passage with some of the context —
Now, your argument is that additions to the given pattern are always wrong. For support, you point out that Jesus could not have been a priest under the Law of Moses because, as the Hebrews writer says, the Law of Moses "spake nothing" regarding a priest from the tribe of Judah.
But this misapprehends the argument in Hebrews. V. 18 makes the point that when Jesus became a high priest, "The former regulation is set aside." In other words, the old law had to be removed to make way for Jesus — not because it was silent, but because the Law of Moses required priests to be from the tribe of Levi (Num 1:50-51, among many other passages). Therefore, the problem wasn't just the silence of the scriptures but silence coupled with the affirmative command that priests were to be Levites (as stated in Heb 7:5).
I really have to point out that many of the verses asserted to prove that the instrument is sin are of this type. They deal with violations of actual commands.
Noah was told to use gopher wood. Had he used pine, he'd have violated the command. However, God was silent on the kind of clothing to wear on the ark. This particular silence would appear permissive — provided Noah was not immodest or extravagant.
Just so, God was not silent on the fire to use in the temple (fire from the altar was commanded). Nadab and Abihu did not violate a prohibitive silence. They violated an explicit command (Num 6:12, for example).
Uzzah touched the ark in violation of God's command (Num 4:15) — not contrary to a necessary inference from silence.
Ananias and Sapphira bore false witness in violation of the many commands against lying.
These examples are simply not analogous to adding something without express authority but not contrary to a command. Just so, Jesus could not be a high priest while the Law was in effect because there were explicit commands to use Levites. The "silence" was the absence of an exception to the law — not the absence of law.
Instruments do not contradict the command to sing, if the congregation sings — just as making announcements does not violate the command to sing, if the congregation sings. They are not mutually exclusive.
Thank you for your response on Hebrews 7-8. Now, you state "Therefore, the problem wasn’t just the silence of the scriptures but silence coupled with the affirmative command that priests were to be Levites (as stated in Heb 7:5)." Exactly. And not only does God pass over instrumental music in silence in the New Testament, but he also gives an affirmative command to sing and make melody in our hearts. These two subjects are exact parallels: one thing is passed in silence, another is affirmed. There he passes over priesthood of Judeans in silence and affirms Levitical priesthood, while here he passes over instrumental music in silence and affirms singing.
Now, you say: "I really have to point out that many of the verses asserted to prove that the instrument is sin are of this type. They deal with violations of actual commands. Noah was told to use gopher wood. Had he used pine, he’d have violated the command." What if he used both? Both Gopher wood and Pine, a combo, as after all isn't that the name of the sermons to which Miller is responding, "The Both/And Church"? Both Gopher wood and Pine is essentially the same as both singing and instrumental music. In each case God commanded one, but two are being done. It's like saying that God commanded immersion for baptism and passed sprinkling over in silence, so let's baptize by a mixture of half sprinkling and half immersion. It is very strange and convoluted.
Again, you say "Just so, God was not silent on the fire to use in the temple (fire from the altar was commanded). Nadab and Abihu did not violate a prohibitive silence." But once again there is both silence and command, one type of fire is commanded while another type of fire is passed over in silence. Just the same, one type of music is commanded and another passed over in silence. How do you fail to see the exact parallelism?
Now, I'm not sure why you quoted that section from p. 107. I assume you are indicating that you disagree with Miller's decrying of those who assert that grace "unconditionally" forgives sins. If so, I wonder what you will do with Heb 10:26 and 1st John 1:7-9. Ignoring the question of whether instrumental music itself is a sin or not, these passages plainly teach that forgiveness is conditional. But you move on and say "The book further condemns baby dedications, clapping, choirs, solos, women praying audibly in the presence of men, Christmas and Easter ceremonies…" which I assume means that you see nothing wrong with these.
A baby dedication is as I understand it simply infant baptism by another name, so what's wrong with condemning it? I'm only on page 16 of Miller's book so far, and I notice that he has asked already (on page 3) "Since large numbers of people are enamored with sprinkling babies with water, will Rick bring this practice into the church…?" When I read it, I assumed that Rick would answer with an emphatic "no," but now that you seem to be asserting that this very thing is OK, I see that there is great wisdom in Miller asking this question. I also seriously wonder what "I suffer not a woman to teach nor usurp authority over a man" is supposed to mean if women are able to pray as some sort of corporate head for a group that includes men, as your apparent disagreement with what is quoted above seems to indicate you beleive is alright. I fail to see your point about the quote on page 107 and the following quote, in other words, unless your point is that you disagree with sound Biblical teaching on a variety of subjects beyond the instrumental music issue.
As to whether a conversion is legitimate if a person is baptized in a congregation that uses instrumental music is concerned, I think that a conversion is legitimate if the person believes, repents of their sins, confessed Christ before men, and is baptized by immersion in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost specifically in order to receive the remission of sins, believing that they will receive the remission of sins and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. I beleive, however, that a conversion is illegitimate if a person believes, repents, confesses and is physically baptized but either (1) does not beleive they will receive the remission of sins in baptism, or (2) does not beleive they will receive the Holy Spirit in baptism. I beleive that those who deny the literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit don't receive the Spirit, but this is another issue altogether. While I would not say that instrumental music makes a conversion invalid, I would say that as a Christian reads the word of God and matures, especially if they hear the other side of the issue, they ought to follow the truth.
I think this is what Jesus is referring to in Luke 12:32-48. (1) The heretic, the one who knows better yet convinces others to practice error, will be cut asunder and given his portion with the hypocrites, i.e. go to hell. (2) The coward who follows the heretic because he doesn't have the spine to stand up to the heretic may still make it to heaven, but will be beaten with many stripes on his way in the door. (3) The Christian who doesn't have a clue and follows the heretic will be beaten with stripes on the way in too, but not as badly. So, the one who puts instrumental music in the church goes to hell. The coward who knows better and allows it anyway might make it to heaven, but with a sore backside, and the clueless Christian who allows it because he doesn't know any better will be beaten on his way in to heaven too but not as bad as the coward who knew better.
las paragraph, that reference should be Luke 12:42-48, not 32-48
Josh's comments are in regular type. Mine are in bold (I'm not yelling, it's just to make it easier to follow the conversation). For convenience, I've inserted my replies within Josh's most recent post.
Thank you for your response on Hebrews 7-8. Now, you state "Therefore, the problem wasn’t just the silence of the scriptures but silence coupled with the affirmative command that priests were to be Levites (as stated in Heb 7:5)." Exactly. And not only does God pass over instrumental music in silence in the New Testament, but he also gives an affirmative command to sing and make melody in our hearts. These two subjects are exact parallels: one thing is passed in silence, another is affirmed. There he passes over priesthood of Judeans in silence and affirms Levitical priesthood, while here he passes over instrumental music in silence and affirms singing.
Josh, here's the difference. In the Hebrews example you gave, Jesus could not be both a Levite and a Judahite (Judite? Hmm …) One necessarily excludes the other. However, playing an instrument does not exclude singing. It's quite possible to do both simultaneously. I've seen it with my own eyes.
Now, you say: "I really have to point out that many of the verses asserted to prove that the instrument is sin are of this type. They deal with violations of actual commands. Noah was told to use gopher wood. Had he used pine, he’d have violated the command." What if he used both? Both Gopher wood and Pine, a combo, as after all isn't that the name of the sermons to which Miller is responding, "The Both/And Church"? Both Gopher wood and Pine is essentially the same as both singing and instrumental music. In each case God commanded one, but two are being done. It's like saying that God commanded immersion for baptism and passed sprinkling over in silence, so let's baptize by a mixture of half sprinkling and half immersion. It is very strange and convoluted.
Apples and oranges. I agree that if Noah has used both pine and gopher wood (likely cypress, actually) he'd have sinned. That's because God specified gopher wood. Gopher wood and pine are inherently mutually exclusive. However, had he used pine to build furnishings for the ark (additions), he'd not have violated God's command.
A parable to make the point: We had Thanksgiving for the family at my house this year. I told my son to bring bread. He showed up with bread and a tub of butter. Did he disobey? More importantly, did I expel him from the house and make him sit in the cold while the rest of us ate? No, he was welcomed, the butter went on the table, and we were very happy with his addition to our command. He did not disobey in the slightest.
Again, you say "Just so, God was not silent on the fire to use in the temple (fire from the altar was commanded). Nadab and Abihu did not violate a prohibitive silence." But once again there is both silence and command, one type of fire is commanded while another type of fire is passed over in silence. Just the same, one type of music is commanded and another passed over in silence. How do you fail to see the exact parallelism?
Here's the gist of the controversy. The "authority" camp comes to the scriptures looking for the killer proof text to support their position. (I know. I used to be in that camp.) They notice that Nadab and Abihu could be said to have acted without authority. In fact, they did. And they were burned to a crisp by Jehovah Almighty.
But ALL violations of a command are without authority. If I murder or commit adultery, you could say that I acted without authority. And it would be true. There's no authority for murder or adultery.
But authority is foreign to the teaching. It's not really about authority. It's about obedience. Disobedience is sin. Obedience is not. There's no reason to bring authority into the discussion to understand the lesson.
There is no dispute between the "grace camp" and the "must have authority camp" as to whether obedience is required. All on both sides teach the necessity of obedience.
I'm still waiting for an example of damnable conduct for acting without authority but not in violation of a command.
Now, I'm not sure why you quoted that section from p. 107. I assume you are indicating that you disagree with Miller's decrying of those who assert that grace "unconditionally" forgives sins. If so, I wonder what you will do with Heb 10:26 and 1st John 1:7-9.
I quote from p. 107 to respond to your comments regarding whether Miller considers Richland Hills damned.
I teach on Hebrews 10:26-27 frequently and regularly. It means what it says. Deliberately continuing to sin damns. I'm not sure of your point re 1 John 1:7-9. I offer my interpretation at <a href="/2007/08/19/classes-on-grace-forgiveness-according-to-1-john/.” target=”_blank”>/2007/08/19/classes-on-grace-forgiveness-according-to-1-john/.
Ignoring the question of whether instrumental music itself is a sin or not, these passages plainly teach that forgiveness is conditional.
You know, I don't know anyone within the Churches of Christ who actually teaches that forgiveness is "unconditional." God's love in unconditional, but his forgiveness is not. Who in the Churches of Christ teaches to the contrary? I'd be interested in knowing. I know of no one who denies the necessity of faith in Jesus and of repentance.
But you move on and say "The book further condemns baby dedications, clapping, choirs, solos, women praying audibly in the presence of men, Christmas and Easter ceremonies…" which I assume means that you see nothing wrong with these.
Anything can be done in a sinful way but I see nothing inherently sinful in any of these.
A baby dedication is as I understand it simply infant baptism by another name, so what's wrong with condemning it?
You've been misled. Infant baptism is designed to remit original sin from the baby. I know of no Church of Christ where infant baptism is taught or practiced. Baby dedication is a prayer on behalf of the families and the babies and a pledge by the families to raise their babies in Jesus with the support of their congregation. How is any of that wrong?
I'm only on page 16 of Miller's book so far, and I notice that he has asked already (on page 3) "Since large numbers of people are enamored with sprinkling babies with water, will Rick bring this practice into the church…?" When I read it, I assumed that Rick would answer with an emphatic "no," but now that you seem to be asserting that this very thing is OK, I see that there is great wisdom in Miller asking this question.
If you've been told that baby dedications are equivalent to infant baptism, you've been taught an untruth. It's just not true.
I also seriously wonder what "I suffer not a woman to teach nor usurp authority over a man" is supposed to mean if women are able to pray as some sort of corporate head for a group that includes men, as your apparent disagreement with what is quoted above seems to indicate you beleive is alright.
Now, here you are putting the worst possible reading on what I said. You said "corporate head," not me. The issue that comes up in most churches is whether women may audibly pray in the presence of men in a devotional setting — especially chain prayers where each participant adds a petition to a group prayer. Would this be wrong?
And how do you deal with 1 Cor 11, where women were told to cover their heads because they were praying and prophesying in the presence of men? Arguably the women might have been praying in silence, but how could they have been prophesying in silence?
Chesser does not condemn women leading prayer as head over men. He condemns women praying audibly in the presence of men. And this is, to me, overbroad under even the most narrow construction of 1 Tim 2. And even if it's sin, why does it damn?
I fail to see your point about the quote on page 107 and the following quote, in other words, unless your point is that you disagree with sound Biblical teaching on a variety of subjects beyond the instrumental music issue.
Do you consider each example given by Chesser and endorsed by Miller as sin? as damning? He doesn't condemn women for leading prayer. He condemns them for praying audibly in the presence of men. Is that damnable? Is is damnable to dedicate your baby to God in the presence of Christian brothers and sisters?
As to whether a conversion is legitimate if a person is baptized in a congregation that uses instrumental music is concerned, I think that a conversion is legitimate if the person believes, repents of their sins, confessed Christ before men, and is baptized by immersion in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost specifically in order to receive the remission of sins, believing that they will receive the remission of sins and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. I beleive, however, that a conversion is illegitimate if a person believes, repents, confesses and is physically baptized but either (1) does not beleive they will receive the remission of sins in baptism, or (2) does not beleive they will receive the Holy Spirit in baptism. I beleive that those who deny the literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit don't receive the Spirit, but this is another issue altogether. While I would not say that instrumental music makes a conversion invalid, I would say that as a Christian reads the word of God and matures, especially if they hear the other side of the issue, they ought to follow the truth.
Then you disagree with Miller, which is good. However, although I agree with you regarding the literal indwelling, I fail to see how that's a condition of salvation (knowing it, not receiving it). If you're right, a very, very large percentage of the Churches of Christ is damned.
Certainly, the mature will follow the truth as they understand it. I know no one within the Churches who disagrees. I mean, are you suggesting that there comes a point where we're all accountable to get every single question right? Surely you aren't.
I think this is what Jesus is referring to in Luke 12:32-48. (1) The heretic, the one who knows better yet convinces others to practice error, will be cut asunder and given his portion with the hypocrites, i.e. go to hell. (2) The coward who follows the heretic because he doesn't have the spine to stand up to the heretic may still make it to heaven, but will be beaten with many stripes on his way in the door. (3) The Christian who doesn't have a clue and follows the heretic will be beaten with stripes on the way in too, but not as badly. So, the one who puts instrumental music in the church goes to hell. The coward who knows better and allows it anyway might make it to heaven, but with a sore backside, and the clueless Christian who allows it because he doesn't know any better will be beaten on his way in to heaven too but not as bad as the coward who knew better.
You treat as equivalent "the one who knows better" and "the one who puts instrumental music in the church." How can you conclude that every single person using an instrument in church "knows better"? Just how do you come by that knowledge of the hearts of the millions who do this every Sunday? You are judging all these people you've never even met based on pure supposition as to the state of their knowledge — and it's frankly a very unlikely supposition.
Any time you pray in public you act as a representative of the group you are with, which is why I used the term "corporate head." Frequently it is natural, after all, to say "we" and "us" in such a setting. As for 1 Cor 11 I don't believe the head covering issue is at all about men being present or about modesty (as the Baptist John Gill argues in his commentary), but about prayer itself. Man is the spiritual head of woman and Christ is the spiritual head of man, but Christ is the sole mediator between humans and God. Therefore, because Christ is the immediate head of man, men must pray with uncovered heads, thus symbolizing that they are going to God through Christ and not circumventing Christ. But because man is between woman and Christ in the chain, the woman must cover her head (to symbolically cover man) in order to symbolize praying through Christ alone. And I find nothing to indicate that Paul is speaking of any sort of assembly. He begins speaking of the assembly only in verse 18 after having ended the discussion of headship and covering.
Praying over a baby is one thing, but any application of water (whether there is a belief in original sin or not and whether there is a claim of remission or not) and it becomes a mockery of baptism. There is certainly no grounds to condemn praying over a child, and we have after all a specific example in Mat 19:13 where Jesus layed his hands on children and prayed for them. But anything approximating or simulating baptism will cause confusion that may very well result in the damnation of souls (i.e. someone may think "I was already baptized as a baby and don't need to be baptized").
"Do you consider each example given by Chesser and endorsed by Miller as sin? as damning?" Whether or not it is damning, I will leave up to God to determine. I think certainly that it could be practiced as a willfull sin and is by some. Even things that aren't wrong can be practiced as willfull sin, such as if we doubt and yet continue in the thing anyway "for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." But what if something was wrong and someone didn't know it was wrong? I think Luke 12 applies here as I stated at the end.
As to why I treat as equivalent "the one who knows better" and "the one who puts instrumental music in the church," I beleive that if it is truly a faithful church of Christ, then there will of necessity be an outcry by some brother. And if the innovation is pushed still, the person doing the pushing is proven to be an heretic beyond all doubt. If there is not outcry, I think it is clear that such a congregation had already ceased to be a faithful congregation of the church of Christ before the push for instrumental music even began. And I don't believe that a Christian (seeing as how Christians have the indwelling of the Holy Ghost) can just wake up one morning and determine to put an unscriptural practice in the church. Jude having spoken at length of false teachers, says in verse 19 "These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit," and in verse 4 refers to them as "certain men crept in unawares." Paul in Galatians 2:4 refers to "false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily." It was not Peter who determined to stop eating with the Gentiles, but "certain" men, and Peter along with Barnabas and others merely followed along and "dissembled." That a Christian would determine to divide the church out of the blue is unthinkable to me, and that in a faithful congregation there would be no man to withstand the hypocrites to their faces (as Paul did) is also beyond imagination.
"Just how do you come by that knowledge of the hearts of the millions who do this every Sunday?" Do you need to read minds to know that someone either (1) doesn't know or (2) knows but is pretending not to? If so, our school system is in gross error in thinking that it can access knowledge by having people answer questions. Everyone who gets an F on a test must of necessity either (1) not know, or (2) know and yet not care to put the right answer down. So, in doing the will of our Lord, we must all either know and do, not know and not do, or know and not do. If therefore it can be seen that someone is not doing, then it follows that either they don't know or know and don't care to do. Yet, it can only be determined that it is one of those two and not which of the two it is, except in the case of a clear heretic.
I might add (and I suppose I will), that in the case that prompted this discussion, Rick Atchley and Richland Hills, if the quote on page 5 of Miller's book is accurate, if Rick really made the following claim:
Begin_Quote:Right there at that spot about 1994 the Holy Spirit said to
me in the middle of my sermon, “and that’s what you and
all the preachers like you were doing, who haven’t for years
believed that the worship of God with instruments is wrong.
But you continue by your silence to let people think it’s wrong,
to allow the body to be disrupted, and you do so under the
plea, ‘Well, we’re just maintaining peace.’ But that’s not peace;
that’s cowardice.” I knew then the day would come I’d have to
teach this lesson.:End_Quote
Now, if Rick really made such a claim of the Holy Spirit speaking to him in 1994 and verbally telling him to preach that instrumental music is OK, first of all, as Miller rightly points out, Rick ought not to have waited 12 years to preach it, but ought to have preached it right then and there! As Paul told Agrippa, "Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:" for Paul immediately went into Damascus, and didn't wait 12 years first.
Now then, assuming that Rick made this claim, and that by his own admission he waited until 12 years after supposedly receiving such a message directly from God to obey the message….does this not prove him to be a heretic? I think this tends to back up my assertion that a faithful Christian doesn't wake up one day and say "I'm going to put instrumental music into the church." A faithful Christian also doesn't wake up one day and say "I'm going to make up a dialogue with God that never took place." This is all assuming that Miller is quoting Rick accurately, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, as it is not Miller but Rick who put in the instruments of music which is clearly an unscriptural practice.
Now then, assuming that Rick made this claim, and that by his own admission he waited until 12 years after supposedly receiving such a message directly from God to obey the message….does this not prove him to be a heretic?
First of all, Josh's –and Miller's– contention that Rick should not have waited twelve years is more than a bit disingenuous. Neither Miller nor Keele would have approved of such a thing twelve years earlier, so criticizing the timing is simply a canard stacked on top of other objections for no other reason than to add mass. It's the old idea that "the thicker the book, the better the argument".
As to heresy, Rick seems to be right in line with what Jesus personally promised us. In the same conversation where Jesus promised to "go and prepare a place" for us, he promised that the Holy Spirit would take that which was from Jesus and make it known to us.
If it is heresy to believe the words of Jesus, I plead guilty.
So you beleive that the Holy Spirit speaks to you? These are just the last ditch shinanagins of heretics who want to install unscriptural practices and doctrines. With no Scripture to support their foolishness they turn to blaspheming the Holy Spirit and claiming that he commanded them to teach their false doctrines. No true church of Christ would put up with a Binny Hinn the way Richland Hills did, so the conclusion of the whole matter is that Miller is right to simply call them Richland Hills because they are not a church of Christ.
But why need we his blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to show what manner of man he is, when Paul says "I will not eat meat so long as the world stands if it make my brother to offend" and "destroy not with your meat the brother for whom Christ died," but this man saith, "I will place my organ in the church to see who I might destroy." You speak much of grace out of one side of your mouth, but you destroy the brethren with your meat in the other.
Now if the Holy Spirit were to speak to anyone audibly, it would be to those of the true church of Christ, who neither use unauthorized instruments of music, nor have women teachers, nor use multiple cups but one which represents the New Testament. Who neither have "children's church" nor infant baptism called by another name. To these would he speak if he were to speak to any man today, and not to an heretic. He would speak comfortably to them. He that spake to Rick, then, if indeed anyone did, was not the Holy Spirit. Dare I say that the same spirit which spoke to him speaketh to the pope of Rome and all his ilk? I durst. Yea, for the self-same spirit that speaketh to Rick speaketh also to the mormons and the JW's as he did to Mohammed.
Josh, as before, I'll insert my comments in bold.
Any time you pray in public you act as a representative of the group you are with, which is why I used the term “corporate head.” Frequently it is natural, after all, to say “we” and “us” in such a setting.
I take it that you consider praying an act of authority over others. Some feel that way, I understand. But my point re Chesser's book is that he treats this as damnable. He just slides from "wrong" to "damned," without bothering to explain why grace has not application.
As for 1 Cor 11 I don’t believe the head covering issue is at all about men being present or about modesty (as the Baptist John Gill argues in his commentary), but about prayer itself. Man is the spiritual head of woman and Christ is the spiritual head of man, but Christ is the sole mediator between humans and God. Therefore, because Christ is the immediate head of man, men must pray with uncovered heads, thus symbolizing that they are going to God through Christ and not circumventing Christ. But because man is between woman and Christ in the chain, the woman must cover her head (to symbolically cover man) in order to symbolize praying through Christ alone.
And I find nothing to indicate that Paul is speaking of any sort of assembly. He begins speaking of the assembly only in verse 18 after having ended the discussion of headship and covering.
I've expressed my views on this elsewhere on this site. For now, I'd like to limit our discussion to grace for doctrinal error.
Praying over a baby is one thing, but any application of water (whether there is a belief in original sin or not and whether there is a claim of remission or not) and it becomes a mockery of baptism. There is certainly no grounds to condemn praying over a child, and we have after all a specific example in Mat 19:13 where Jesus layed his hands on children and prayed for them. But anything approximating or simulating baptism will cause confusion that may very well result in the damnation of souls (i.e. someone may think “I was already baptized as a baby and don’t need to be baptized”).
I doubt very seriously that any Church of Christ has ever engaged in a baptism-like ceremony for babies. I've never heard of it. We do baby dedications that are prayer for babies — and we've been criticized for it by people who presume the worst. But we aren't about to stop praying for our babies.
“Do you consider each example given by Chesser and endorsed by Miller as sin? as damning?” Whether or not it is damning, I will leave up to God to determine. I think certainly that it could be practiced as a willfull sin and is by some. Even things that aren’t wrong can be practiced as willfull sin, such as if we doubt and yet continue in the thing anyway “for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” But what if something was wrong and someone didn’t know it was wrong? I think Luke 12 applies here as I stated at the end.
I'm very pleased that you see that knowledge and intent matter for those in grace. Many do not and consider all in error lost.
As to why I treat as equivalent “the one who knows better” and “the one who puts instrumental music in the church,” I beleive that if it is truly a faithful church of Christ, then there will of necessity be an outcry by some brother. And if the innovation is pushed still, the person doing the pushing is proven to be an heretic beyond all doubt. If there is not outcry, I think it is clear that such a congregation had already ceased to be a faithful congregation of the church of Christ before the push for instrumental music even began.
And so you consider the arguments against the instrument so persuasive that no one can honestly disagree? I think you are mistaken.
And I don’t believe that a Christian (seeing as how Christians have the indwelling of the Holy Ghost) can just wake up one morning and determine to put an unscriptural practice in the church. Jude having spoken at length of false teachers, says in verse 19 “These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit,” and in verse 4 refers to them as “certain men crept in unawares.” Paul in Galatians 2:4 refers to “false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily.” It was not Peter who determined to stop eating with the Gentiles, but “certain” men, and Peter along with Barnabas and others merely followed along and “dissembled.” That a Christian would determine to divide the church out of the blue is unthinkable to me, and that in a faithful congregation there would be no man to withstand the hypocrites to their faces (as Paul did) is also beyond imagination.
There's a difference between challenged by an inspired apostle and an ordinary Christian! Imagine that a preacher starts to teach the literal indwelling of the Spirit for the first time in his congregation. There will surely be many members who rebuke him for denying the word-only theory. But he'll disagree and continue.
They'll accuse him of willful and knowing disobedience because they confronted him and handed him books and tracts with word-only arguments. He'll say that they are mistaken in their understanding. They just might damn him, claiming he's a false teacher, citing all the verses you just cited. From their perspective, he's a false teacher who should be disfellowshipped. They might even run an ad in the paper!
Being confronted with an argument is just not the same as being persuaded. The reality is that such a preacher, if he is, as Paul urged, fully convinced in his own mind, in grace.
Reverse the facts. Imagine a preacher preaching word-only for the first time. The same events happen in reverse. Is he damned? No, even though he's wrong — you and I would agree — he's covered by grace despite his error because he's fully convinced in his own mind. He believes he speaks the truth, he's a penitent, baptized, believer. He's in grace. And so his error is covered by the blood of Christ.
I'm just not willing to succumb to the argument that all who disagree with me do so willfully and knowingly.
“Just how do you come by that knowledge of the hearts of the millions who do this every Sunday?” Do you need to read minds to know that someone either (1) doesn’t know or (2) knows but is pretending not to? If so, our school system is in gross error in thinking that it can access knowledge by having people answer questions. Everyone who gets an F on a test must of necessity either (1) not know, or (2) know and yet not care to put the right answer down. So, in doing the will of our Lord, we must all either know and do, not know and not do, or know and not do. If therefore it can be seen that someone is not doing, then it follows that either they don’t know or know and don’t care to do. Yet, it can only be determined that it is one of those two and not which of the two it is, except in the case of a clear heretic.
Right! It is usually impossible to know the heart of someone who disagrees with you. But experience teaches that most people act like they disagree because they really and truly disagree. Therefore, the natural and fair assumption is that your opponent means what he says.
Hence, if Quail Springs, for example, uses the instrument, we must presume that they really and truly think it's not sin. They are simply not persuaded by the anti-instrument arguments. And as they are fully convinced in their own minds, they are in grace.
Josh, I again reply in bold.
But why need we his blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to show what manner of man he is, when Paul says “I will not eat meat so long as the world stands if it make my brother to offend” and “destroy not with your meat the brother for whom Christ died,” but this man saith, “I will place my organ in the church to see who I might destroy.” You speak much of grace out of one side of your mouth, but you destroy the brethren with your meat in the other.
Does your church support orphans homes or cooperate to send out missionaries? Why not refuse to do so in order to yield to scruples of the non-institutional churches?
Do you have multiple cups? Why not yield to the scruples of the one-cuppers?
Do you have a Sunday school? Why not yield to the scruples of the non-Sunday school churches?
Of course, you don't, nor should you. The sin condemned in Rom 14 is in tempting others to sin against their consciences. When my church uses multiple cups, we aren't tempting the one-cuppers to do the same. When Richland Hills uses the instrument, I doubt that you are seriously tempted to follow their lead.
"Of course, you don’t, nor should you." I wouldn't yield to the scruples of the non-institutional churches, the one-cuppers, nor the non-Sunday-school churchs, no not for an instant! But that's only because I have no need to yield to the scruples of those who are right and with whom I agree. Nor do I need to change anything to be in fellowship with those whom I am already in fellowship with. But as to why you think you have no need to yield to such scruples, I don't see that on your part it could be anything other than haughtiness. The Bible clearly says that Jesus took a cup and said "this cup is the New Testament ratified by my blood" in addition to his comments on the contents "this is my blood of the New Testament." Paul clearly speaks of "the cup of blessing" etc. It takes fandangling and twisting to get more than one cup out of it. But fandangling is exactly what you do, because you hate unity. You have the bond of peace, because you love confusion and bow to its author.
"The sin condemned in Rom 14 is in tempting others to sin against their consciences. When my church uses multiple cups, we aren’t tempting the one-cuppers to do the same. " Really? So what exactly are you doing then? If it were the case that some were not tempted, then there would only be one multi-cup church today, but since after Brewer installed the things in one church others followed, it follows logically that others were tempted. "When Richland Hills uses the instrument, I doubt that you are seriously tempted to follow their lead." I doubt that *I* am too. But its not me that matters here.
Now, let's ask the question on the most serious offense: When a heretic sees he has no scriptural support for his doctrines and gets up and says that the Holy Spirit spoke to him and told him to preach this or that, does that tempt anyone to lie and say the Holy Spirit told them to preach this or that which they have no Scriptural support for? I think it does.
PS: I started listening to part 1 of Rick's Both/And Church series, and one of the elders introducing Rick referred to his own congregation as "the Richland Hills Church" at least three times.
Pingback: Instrumental Music: A Question About Transitions « One In Jesus.info