The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Regulative Principle and Psalm 149-150

jmp,

Shortly before the times you were responding to Pilgrim and me yesterday, I happened to be in the Lord's Day worship service of my church, and was also, at times, employing a musical instrument to assist the congregation in our singing of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.

For argument's sake, please assume, aside from the issue of the regulative principle (as you see it), that in all other respects mine is a TRUE CHURCH.

Please inform me, solely on the basis of the one fact and the one assumption above:

Was I breaking the holy, just and good Law of God?

...Alow me to [img]https://the-highway.com/Smileys/censored.gif[/img] in...

Shortly before the times you were responding to Pilgrim and me yesterday, I happened to be in the Lord's Day worship service of my church, and was also, at times, employing a musical instrument to assist the congregation in our singing of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. For argument's sake, please assume, aside from the issue of the regulative principle (as you see it), that in all other respects mine is a TRUE CHURCH. Please inform me, solely on the basis of the one fact and the one assumption above: Was I breaking the holy, just and good Law of God?

...nice... So, let me get this straight. If jmp sez "No", he would be arguing against him-self and if he sez "Yes", it would most surely imply that all instrument-worshiping Christians are committing such a grievous sin, that they should all be excommunicated for Christendom as a whole (after all what else do we do w/ people who actively "break the holy, just and good Law of God")... With all due respect... if you hold that you are correct in your worship to God, then let God be your justifier and not jmp (by answering "no"). Or... if you find credibility in what jmp stated so far, then let the Holy Spirit convict you and not jmp (by answering "yes"). Lets keep this a "discussion board" and not a "judicial board". [image]http://the-highway.com/Smileys/einstein.gif[/image]

Graemlins must not like me! Well, fine then! grrr! back at them!

Paul S' quote was supposed to be in <block quote> too. Sorry, forgot the html part <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sorry.gif" alt="" /> but the problem is in your errant coding! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

1) I would venture to guess that you choose "Using HTML" from the "Make post" dropdown menu, which means you can't use the Graemlins auto insert feature since that only works when you chose "using UBBCode" or "using HTML and UBBCode". Thus, you would have to manually type in the HTML code to insert an image (Smiley, etc.), e.g., <img src="http://www.domain.com/folder/image.gif">

2) The HTML tag for "blockquote" has no spaces, i.e., <blockquote>text</blockquote>

I corrected both mistakes for you. I do hope you don't mind? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />

jadeitedrake0,


I find this admonition not slightly ironic, coming on the heels of a public rebuke for intending to express certain thoughts which:

a) I have not intended to express and which,

b) I have not, in fact, expressed!.

Your formulation of the intent, content and style of my (as-yet non-existent) responses to jmp's (as-yet non-existent) responses, itself seems rather pre-judicial, given that the bulk of your formulation of my thought does not even come close to what I hoped to expess to jmp, contingent upon a response from him.

Here's something to consider, culled from two unrelated, recent discussions:
Notwithstanding the fact that the quoted statement is itself judicial--a judgment having been passed on previous posters to that thread--the same principle might apply here!


The fact is, all discussion involves judgment, since it has pleased our Lord to fashion us in his image, an essential aspect of which entails our words inevitably expressing our heart. Therefore it is impossible to discuss mere ideas without, to varying degrees, having that discussion impact the very lives of those participating in it. While unwarranted ad hominem remarks are unprofitable in public discourse, requests for clarification of position are most certainly not personal attacks.

Paul_S,

I could not have stated it better:

The fact is, all discussion involves judgment, since it has pleased our Lord to fashion us in his image, an essential aspect of which entails our words inevitably expressing our heart.

No one will argue that rational discussion can not be with out judgement.

Mat 7. "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the same measure you use, it will be measured back to you... ...6. Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

The point is that there is a difference between judging a person and judging an idea/situation.

T'hence...

Lets keep this a "discussion board" and not a "judicial board".

...intending to express certain thoughts which:

a) I have not intended to express and which,

b) I have not, in fact, expressed!.

Your formulation of the intent, content and style of my (as-yet non-existent) responses to jmp's (as-yet non-existent) responses, itself seems rather pre-judicial, given that the bulk of your formulation of my thought does not even come close to what I hoped to expess to jmp, contingent upon a response from him.

Simply put, if that statement is indeed honest, then I own you an appology.

jadeitedrake0,

Pardon my abrupt barging in here, but I simply must ask a question or two. Are you suggesting that it would be unwarranted and "unChrist-like" to judge a person a heretic on the basis of the doctrines espoused? Even more so, is it "forbidden" to judge a person as unregenerate based upon a denial of fundamental doctrine and/or a person's overt and deliberate sinful life? If these are "no-no", then how is the Church to discipline its members and particularly to excommunicate someone, which is in essence declaring a person an unbeliever and in need of repentance and redemption in Christ?

The issue boils down to this, IMHO, is it possible in ALL instances to bifurcate the person from those things believed and/or done?

In His grace,

jadeitedrake0,


Hmmm ...

although your stated position seems to preclude your judging the honesty or dishonesty of "that statement", which in turn precludes your judging whether you in fact "own me an appology", which in turn seems to preclude me from judging whether you have in fact apologized or not ...

in light of the super-abundant grace of our Savior whose death cleanses from all uncleanness, in earnest hope of reconciliation, I gladly accept your apology! If more needs to be said between us on this matter, I will be happy to discuss it with you in private.

Back to the topic.

I must refrain from forecasting my response to jmp, since of course he hasn't made it! But I would encourage you, in light of the topic, to consider that his response to my question need not fall into only the 2 categories of "No" or "Yes". You yourself in an earlier post implied that "Don't know" is often a valid positional descriptor, and there are certainly several varities of qualified responses. Let's see where jmp goes with this, and then see where I go with that.

Pardon my abrupt barging in here, but I simply must ask a question or two. Are you suggesting that it would be unwarranted and "unChrist-like" to judge a person a heretic on the basis of the doctrines espoused? Even more so, is it "forbidden" to judge a person as unregenerate based upon a denial of fundamental doctrine and/or a person's overt and deliberate sinful life? If these are "no-no", then how is the Church to discipline its members and particularly to excommunicate someone, which is in essence declaring a person an unbeliever and in need of repentance and redemption in Christ?

Excommunication must occur only and only on the basis of the Biblical doctrine. Meaning, ultimately, it is not the pastor/congregation which is pronouncing a judgement on the condemned but the Holy Word of God (aka God).

We identify whether somebody's view is heretical based wholly on the Bible. Meaning, once again, ultimatelly it is not me/us judging someone to be a heretic, but the Bible (aka God).

Putting all this together, if we are to pronounce a judgement on a person, we must be very clear that the judgement is not our own, but God's.

Hmmm ...

although your stated position seems to preclude your judging the honesty or dishonesty of "that statement", which in turn precludes your judging whether you in fact "own me an appology", which in turn seems to preclude me from judging whether you have in fact apologized or not ...

Paul_S, you are a very astute person... oh... drats... there's me judging again...