The Salvation of the Gentiles!

Does Acts 15 teach the addition of instrumental music in New Testament worship by default?

http://youtu.be/h4W3VtI-aNo

A Case For Engagement

During the War Between the States there was a cavalry engagement at Thompson's Station, TN near Nashville.  The Southern force was being pressed from both their front and rear.  When asked for orders the Southern commander replied; "Charge in both directions!"  They won the day.

I am reminded of that line in the great hymn, Just As I Am.  

Fightings within and fears without, oh Lamb of God, I come, I come!

The church of Christ today continues to face the foes of sin and strife from outside the body of Christ as she has since the beginning.  She is also facing today those within who are attempting her destruction.  Jude refers to these as those "who have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation..." - Jude 4 (ESV)  In a way of speaking, they "came in through the side door unnoticed."

None of us can judge anyone else among us, that is up to God and only God.  However, there are those who insist upon the division of the Body of Christ in order to possess the instrument.  It truly is an "instrument of division."  They must be confronted, engaged and stopped!  Paul clearly teaches in Romans 14.23 that if any Christian holds a divisive opinion he "should keep it between (him)self and God." (ESV)  Regardless of all the biblical reasons to reject the instrument, it should NEVER be adopted for it divides the Body of Christ.  Not only does it divide the Body as a whole, it often divides congregations.  Many "double minded" elderships purposely divide their flocks between so-called "traditional" and "contemporary" worship hours.  Two worships, two assemblies and two interpretations of the Bible. Which is right?  Which is wrong?  Who is right?  Who is wrong?  James tells us that "a double minded man is unstable in all his ways." - James 1.8.  Elijah the great prophet asked the Baal worshiping Israelites of his day; "How long will you go limping between two different opinions?" - I King 18.21b (ESV)  There is no such thing as a "multiple truth" where both parties can be right before God simultaneously while advocating two different things.

The instrument cannot be both right and wrong!

 "IF" we assert that the instrument is wrong we must say so!  If we no longer believe it we must adopt it's use and begin teaching that those who fail to use it are in error before God.  Compromise is not an option for compromise is just another word for surrender and lukewarmness.  It is time we engaged the dividers of the Body with the truth proclaimed in love.

In times past brethren who disagreed would hold a public, logical, reasonable and monitored debate so that ideas and facts could be presented in a non-emotional setting.  Today, debates in the true sense of the word are nearly extinct.  Taking their place today are  un-monitored, emotional and opinionated rantings in the most prominent media vehicle among churches of Christ, The Christian Chronicle.  In the current on-line edition of the paper (today being 14 May 2012) there appears an article examining the question as to whether or not the instrument faction is seeing a rise in attendance because of the devise.  As I am writing this article there have been 36 responses.  Of those responses, only 4 quote or refer to any Scripture!  That makes only 11.1% of those responses, at least partly, based on Scripture.  This writer attempted on several occasions over the last two days to post Scripture based responses but, for whatever reason, they are no longer there.

Why assert engagement?  James makes it simple; "My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins." - James 5.19-20 (ESV)

Won't YOU engage?  Just go to this link, scroll to the bottom and write your Scripture based comments for all our erring brethren to see.  Perhaps some will repent!

http://www.christianchronicle.org/blog/2012/05/are-the-instrumental-christian-churches-really-experiencing-phenomenal-growth/

The general flavor of the comments posted rest upon the assumption that to use or not to use the instrument is just an "opinion."  God does not really care if we do or not use it - so appears the typical sentiment.  In fact, there is a certain syncretistic overtone to all of this, a sort of "we can have it both ways" if you please.    This reminds me of the syncretism of the State of Israel from the time of Jeroboam until the Babylonian exile.    Websters On Line Dictionary defines the term as: "the combination of different forms of belief and practice."  ["We will take the instrument while you do not but your'e o.k. and I'm o.k.  We both can be right though our faith and practice is 180 degrees apart."]  THEY wanted it both ways; "We can serve Yahweh AND Baal!"  "Not only that we can change the priesthood, we can alter the focus of our worship and we can change the place of worship.  God won't care..."  Well, He DID care.  He sent prophet after prophet, not to those outside of the covenant, but to those "wandering sinners" inside the covenant.  These prophets were not so-called "defenders of the faith," they were proclaimers of a message of repentance.  That, my friends, is OUR role as we seek to lovingly engage the advocates of the "instrument of division." Our engagement is one of repentance, renewal and restoration while God's mercy tarries.  The need is eternally urgent for we can see, as it were, the dust of the approaching Babylonians just over the next hill. 

The Instrument of Division - Part III

THE ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ARGUMENT

One of the strangest and most bizarre “arguments” set forth by the instrument of division is what we will call (the faction has no formal name for it) “the anti-discrimination” argument. On one hand this argument is downright silly, yet, on the other hand, it clearly illustrates just how far that evolutionary and circular thinking has permeated those among us who want any kind of change at any kind of price so we can have “progress.” Rick Atchley articulates this foolish notion:

Please do not say that you can only praise God from the heart with the voice and not the instrument. This is an unkind and an untrue insult to all believing musicians. Playing an instrument to the glory of God is not just an aid to worship, it is an act of worship… Now many a-cappella churches allow people with gifts in acting or in painting to bless the body. Why would we deny that same sweet privilege to our gifted musicians? (1)

This is a very old and very Catholic argument. It is pure “Thomism” (the imagination is truth theory of Thomas Aquinas). As we have observed, Aquinas believed that, like Aristotle, men come to “truth” primarily through their senses, one of which – according to Aquinas – is imagination. If one can “imagine truth,” it becomes truth to that person. Aquinas “imagined” all kinds of biblical personages, including Jesus Christ, speaking to him on a regular basis in person and in real time! More importantly, he also taught that truth is better communicated visually than orally. That is why popery adopted all kinds of visual stimulations into their “worship.” When one experiences art, sculpture, drama, stained glass, pomp and circumstance…one is experiencing pure Thomism.

It is to this Thomistic theory that Atchley goes to assert that it is “discrimination” to disallow the “gifted musicians” among us from “giving glory to God” with an instrument for other such “gifts” are allowed in worship in some congregations. Sadly, THOSE practices are also additions that presumptively corrupt the pattern of revealed New Testament Christianity. “Performances” of any kind in worship are not to be found in the pages of the New Testament revelation! Paul did not paint pictures and Peter did not put on plays during worship… and neither should we!

Not only that, the argument would open a “Pandora’s box” of insane “worship” experiences. For example “IF” we should – to use Atchley’s word – “insult” gifted musicians by denying them the ability to use their gift in worship…what then will we then say to the “gifted” plumber, electrician, bricklayer and sales person? Will they too be invited to “share” their gift in public worship?

Most importantly, the Holy Spirit NEVER intended to use sensual stimulation to communicate the gospel! Paul clearly articulates God’s will in this manner in Romans 10:17 – “For faith comes by HEARING, and hearing by the Word of Christ.” Jesus, from Matthew to Revelation, continually pleads for us to “have ears to hear what the Spirit says!” Thomas Aquinas and Rick Atchley are VERY wrong in their assertions. The performing arts have no part in biblical New Testament worship for they glorify only man!

(1) Rick Atchley, December, 2006, Richland Hills church of Christ – “Both / And” sermon

To Be Continued…

The Instrument of Division - Part II

By adopting the subjective and evolutionary so-called “allegorical method,” the instrument of division is able (so it thinks) to put forth “arguments” in support of it’s demonic purpose – the deconstruction and destruction of the Lord’s Body as described in the New Testament. To the faithful and Berean Christian these assertions are specious, shallow and superficial. Unfortunately, to those who have “itching ears,” they are appealing, innovative and pragmatic. There are many such “arguments.” Generally speaking, however, there are five main assertions – the new revelation argument, the anti discrimination argument, the less narrow door argument, the silence of the scriptures argument and specific passage arguments.

THE NEW REVELATION ARGUMENT

Since Satan tempted Eve in the garden, people have injected heresy into God’s will by claiming new and special revelation from God himself. When rebellious and self serving humans want change and cannot find support for such in the Bible, claims of “special revelation” are made. Until 2006 we never experienced such apostate thinking in the church of Christ. However, all that changed in December of that year when our erring brother Rick Atchley preached three sermons to the Richland Hills church of Christ in Ft. Worth, Texas. In true existential form, he entitled these lessons “Both / And.” The existentialist sees “truth” and “progress” in contradiction and chaos. Among other “arguments” for the instrument of division he attempts to assert that God’s will embraces both vocal and “instrumental” praise though our God is “not a God of confusion but of peace.” Atchley’s centerpiece salvo was the “new revelation argument.” Here is the exact quote:

Right there in that spot about 1994 in the middle of my sermon, the Holy Spirit said to me; “and that’s what you and all the preachers like you are doing who haven’t for years believed that the worship to God with instruments is wrong but you continue by your silence to let people think it’s wrong to all the body to be disrupted and you do so under the plea, “Well, we’re maintaining peace, but that’s not peace, that’s cowardice." I knew then the day would come I’d have to teach this lesson.(1)

We should shudder at the thought of adding to God’s revelation! The wise man of Proverbs tells us clearly in 30:5 -6 that adding to God’s Word will find us to be liars by God Himself! The Scripture plainly states that “God IS (present tense meaning “now and forevermore”) “no respecter of persons,” (Acts 10:34) that “The faith was once deliver-ED (past tense) to the saints (Jude 3) and that “His divine power has giv-EN (past tense) to us ALL things pertaining to life and godliness through the knowledge of Him that has call-ED (past tense) to us glory and virtue.” (II Peter 1:3)
“IF” Rick Atchley is right, “IF” the Holy Spirit really spoke to him and “IF” what Atchley “says” the Holy Spirit said was really spoken by Him, then:
• God now allows man to add to divine revelation
• God now IS a respecter of persons – in fact Rick Atchley now possesses “greater truth” than ALL the inspired New Testament writers who somehow “missed” the will of the Holy Spirit in regards to the instrument!
• The faith actually was NOT completely delivered to the saints in the long ago.
• God has actually NOT delivered to us “all things pertaining to life and godliness.
Words mean things. “IF” we are to take Atchley at his word then we MUST embrace his assertion that he (Atchley) is a modern day prophet with more insight, revelation and inspiration than Peter and Jude!

(1) Rick Atchley, “Both / And” #2, approx. 5 minutes 30 seconds into the sermon as transcribed by the author.

To Be Continued:

The Instrument of Division

Satan has a weapon of mass destruction. No, it is not nuclear, tactical or strategic. It appears innocent yet it is lethal. It is not expensive and therefore very available to armies of apostates. It fits easily into the "side door" of many a congregation. The weapon is stealth and may be invisible in plain sight. It claims to contribute to growth while designed only to destroy. Its proponents speak of peace, harmony and tolerance while practicing war, discord and intolerance towards any opposition. Just what is this weapon of mass destruction? To the wise and faithful it is a poisonous leaven that will murder souls. To its proponents, it is cynically called "instrumental praise."(1) "Miss Bertha plays on"(2) and millions march off into apostasy.

The "Instrument of Division" is the instrument!

Many congregations in the church of Christ are "emerging towards apostasy" with the embrace of a deadly instrument of division. They are grasping at the "clanging cymbals" of instrumental music in "worship." The fact that drums, guitars and saxophones divide the body of Christ, injure love and kill fellowship means absolutely nothing to those who insist upon their addition. There are many "reasons" for these departures from "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." However, when these "reasons" are all boiled down to their core essence, they parallel Saul's "reasons" to ignore God's clear, direct and linear commands regarding the wicked Amalekites. We read about Saul's apostasy in I Samuel 15. What motivated Saul in the long ago, now motivates the instrument of division.(3)

1) Popular opinion. 2) Presumptive biblical interpretation. 3) Partial obedience. 4) Self promotion. 5) Pragmatic motives.

How can this be? How can people claiming to be Christians divide the Body of Christ and still sleep at night? How can people cause division and blame others for what they themselves have done?!

The instrument of division must embrace a different biblical interpretive method in order to do Satan's bidding.

The instrument of division must reject biblical and linear interpretation, the kind that Samuel followed in I Samuel 15 and Saul...did not. Instead, the apostate must embrace the allegorical interpretive method, a method that goes in continual circles always asking questions and never finding the truth. (4)

The so-called "allegorical method" has been around since the 2nd century A.D. The Alexandrian (Egypt) Jewish teacher, Philo, embraced Plato's allegorical interpretive method used by the Greeks in the study of Homer and applied it to the interpretation of what we now call the Old Testament. Homer, of course, wrote pure fiction. Plato taught that one could understand Homer best by filtering his work through the filter of ones own "stories" and personal "experiences." The resulting interpretive chaos had every Greek with a different Homerial interpretation! Applied to fiction, it meant nothing...BUT...when applied to Scripture, the pre-Messianic Jews soon theologically digressed back to the days of the Judges where "every man did what was right in his own eyes." (Judges 21:25)

Philo was a strong influence on the famous patristic, Clement of Alexandria. Clement had a protégé as well, his name was Origen.(5) It was Origen that piped the allegorical fantasies of Philo and Clement into the mainstream thinking of the rapidly apostatizing 2nd century church of Christ. Origen convinced many Christians of his time that the Scriptures held multiple meanings and these multiple meanings came from the individually personalized stories and experiences of each individual Christian. As a result, the emerging Roman Catholic Church used Origen to justify every digressive doctrine, every change in biblical leadership and every fantasy regarding the Lord's Supper that would soon evolve into the Mass. Today the current pope in Rome credits Origen for the creation and evolution of the ever changing "Magesterium" of Roman Catholicism.

As convoluted as Origen was, a man would come along several hundred years later that would "poison the well" even more. That man was the delusional Thomas Aquinas, a man that imagined biblical characters speaking to him "in person," "revealing" understandings of various Scriptures. His delusion was fueled by a life long obsession with the pagan philosopher, Aristotle. Aristotle taught that man learned truth primarily through his senses. Aquinas adopted this falsehood even though the Scripture clearly teaches that "...faith comes by hearing and hearing through the Word of God..." (Romans 10:17) Making his delusion chronic, Aquinas taught that one of man's senses was his imagination. So as if multiple meanings and individual private interpretation were not enough, Aquinas asserted that if one could "imagine" a "truth," it then became "truth" to you! (6)

Fast forwarding to today, one can adopt the instrument of division when one embraces the "multiple meanings of Scripture," filtered through one's own "stories" (Origen) fueled by the over active "imagination" (Aquinas) that renders "truth" to the adherent of such nonsense.

Origen + Aquinas = Apostasy

The sad thing is that nearly every person advocating the instrument of division has likely never even studied Origen or Aquinas, let alone the New Testament in any great detail. Any teaching they may have experienced is likely to be superficial at best. More likely than not, such teaching was presented with the smooth words of emergent teachers steeped in the teachings of Brian McLaren (7) rather than in the teachings of Christ and the apostles!

(1) See bro. Alan Highers skillful refutation of bro. Rick Atchley's pro-instrument assertions at: http://www.seektheoldpaths.com/stop707.htm#RTAD
(2) See an earlier post on the history of "Miss Bertha" here at:http://samuelslinesaulscircle.blogspot.com/2009/09/miss-berthas-revival.html
(3) See the foundational post for this entire weblog at: http://samuelslinesaulscircle.blogspot.com/2008/04/samuels-line-and-sauls-circle.html
(4) I have written a soon to be published book on biblical (mis)interpretaion entitled Emerging Towards Apostasy
(5) I have written extensively about Origen and Aquinas et. al. For more on this, go to: http://samuelslinesaulscircle.blogspot.com/2008/04/time-traveling-error-from-fallto.html
(6) Ibid.
(7) For a synopsis of Brian McLaren, see: http://samuelslinesaulscircle.blogspot.com/2008/09/who-is-brian-mclaren-why-do-you-need-to.html

To Be Continued...

Did the Apostles Advocate the use of the Instrument in Acts 15 Without Even Knowing It?

In December, 2006, bro. Rick Atchley of the Richland Hills church of Christ asserted in his first “Both / And” sermon that we can and should add the instrument to worship today since the Apostles did not make circumcision a requirement for salvation in Acts 15. Rick’s assertion, argument and premise is that the apostles and elders did not meet at in Jerusalem to preserve and defend the gospel, they met to “make it easier” for Gentiles to become Christians. In other words, it is his contention that the only meeting EVER recorded in Scripture with the apostles and the elders of the Jerusalem congregation was to, in effect, conduct an “outreach and methodology seminar.” One can almost see the rows of “church growth” vendors inside the convention hall, as it were. Acts 15 becomes his primary, central and foundational “proof text” for adding the instrument to worship. In true circular fashion, bro. Atchley takes a secondary and byproduct (1) point from 15:19 and elevates it to core, central and dominant status in his “interpretation” of the passage. In Rick Atchley’s world, the theological tail wags the theological dog.

This choice of “proof texts” relates to us more than “surprise,” it conveys outright astonishment, amazement and incredulity. Such is the case “IF” Acts 15 turns out NOT to be about answering the question; “What must I do to be saved?” NOT about “adding to nor taking away” or NOT about the preaching of “another gospel.” In fact, “IF” Acts 15 is about adding the instrument to worship our only response would of necessity have to be one of stunned amazement. The adoption of Acts 15 as a “proof text” for the instrument would create such centrifugal force from radical circular reasoning as to leave one suspended in mid air with no where to go.

Even as I type these words, the whole idea of discussing this passage in such a light seems so bizarre as to defy all logic and reason. Unfortunately, as my mind returns to rationality, I sadly begin to understand what Paul spoke of so passionately to Timothy just before he died the martyr’s death:

For the time will come, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts will they multiply to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they will turn away their ears from the truth, and will be turned to fables. (2)

To read into (3) Acts 15 a “proof text” for the use of the instrument in worship is indeed… a fable. Gill says that these “fables” are “…everything that is vain, empty, and senseless.” (4) Thayer says that a fable is, “…a story…a fiction… an invention, a falsehood.” (5) How, then, could bro. Atchley possibly see the instrument in this passage? In order for one to “see” the instrument in this passage one must first adopt:

• Origen’s theory that Scripture has “hidden and multiple meanings,” all equally valid. (6)
• Origen’s theory that individuals can understand Scripture via “allegorical” (fictional) stories.
• Thomas Aquinas’ theory that truth is primarily revealed through the “senses” and not revelation. (7)
• Thomas Aquinas’ theory that one of man’s “senses” is the “sense” of “imagination,” i.e. if one can imagine something as true, it becomes true for that person – think John Lennon, “imagine there’s no heaven, it’s easy if you can, no hell below us, above us only sky…” (8)
• Circular Theology that theorizes that one best understands Scripture when seen through the light of “one’s life experiences” and that nobility is found not in the finding of truth but the SEARCH for it. In other words, one ends where one begins… with questions and no answers. (9)
• “Emerging” or evolutionary theology that theorizes that truth evolves over time like Darwinian evolution. Each generation, like rings on a tree, grows stronger and more sophisticated than the generation before it. Therefore, today’s “truth” is superior to yesterday’s “truth” and tomorrow’s “truth” will be superior to today’s… and so on. Darwin incorrectly assumed that the “simple” evolved into the more “complex.” We now know that even the smallest of cellular organisms are far more complicated than we can even begin to understand, even with today’s advanced technology. Upon this same foolish notion, the “emerging” church assumes that 1st century Christianity was “simple” and today’s is far more complex and sophisticated. (10)
• Sensus Plenior (“fuller sense”) biblical interpretation theory that assumes that men today, with all the accumulated “wisdom” of the ages, can actually better understand the Scriptures than those who lived before, even the writers of the Bible!

When one blends all these murky and erroneous ingredients into a lens mold, a pair of “rose colored glasses” is the sad result. Through these glasses one can then stare through and “see” the use of the instrument in worship supported in Acts 15. In our next installment we will hear what Acts 15 has to say about Acts 15. By the way, we continue our study on Wednesday nights at 7 p.m. on this subject at the Archdale church of Christ in Charlotte, NC. You are more than welcome! www.archdale.org

NOTES:

(1) A byproduct is not the essence. Resulting effects are not possible without the essence of a thing being first delivered. When the Holy Spirit inspired truth of the gospel was defended and defined at Jerusalem, one effect was that no additional roadblocks were put in the way of Gentile believers, they came to Christ the same way as the Jew.
(2) II Timothy 4:3-4 – 1833 Webster Bible via e-sword.com
(3) To read “into” a passage something that is not there is called “eisegesis.”
(4) John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible via e-sword.com
(5) Thayer’s Greek Definitions via e-sword.com
(6) Origen lived and taught in the early 2nd century, primarily from Alexandria and Palestine
(7) Thomas Aquinas lived in the 13th century
(8) Lyrics via: http://johnlennon.lyrics.info/imagine.html
(9) Here’s a technical definition of Circular Theology: “Bible interpretation (hermeneutics) is therefore the circular process of understanding sacred Biblical literature, namely interpreting the component parts of the sacred text in the light of the whole and the whole of the light of its parts. It is the ongoing dialogue between one’s initial understanding of the sacred text and the impressions of the Holy Spirit gathered from subsequent readings and reflections on it. It’s the dialogue between one’s own frame of reference (one’s own sphere of existence) and the context of the text.” - Ferdinand Deist, A Concise Dictionary of Theological and Related Terms (Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik, 1990, 1992)
(10) For more detail, see: Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy (El Cajon, CA, Youth Specialties Books / Zondervan, 2004) pg. 286-280.

Did the Holy Spirit Speak to a Man in 1994 (Or There-Abouts)? Perhaps 1996?

In December of 2006 bro. Rick Atchley of the Richland Hills church of Christ in Ft. Worth, Texas, preached a series of three sermons. These sermons were all entitled, "Both / And." The purpose of these lessons was to "justify" the addition of the instrument to their worship and to add the taking of the Lord’s Supper on days un-authorized in the New Testament. Since that time many congregations have followed the erroneous path blazed by Richland Hills. Many more, sadly, may be contemplating the embrace of such error as well.

The opening…and most aggressive argument…set forth in these lessons to justify such radical changes to the New Testament pattern (YES… there IS a pattern! See II Timothy 1:13’s statement regarding the “pattern of sound words”) is the assertion that the Holy Spirit instituted them by way of a "special knowledge" communication directly and exclusively to Rick Atchley. Here is the exact quote:

Right there in that spot about 1994 in the middle of my sermon, the Holy Spirit said to me (emphasis mine RM): “And that’s what you and all the preachers like you are doing who haven’t for years believed that the worship to 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 maintaining peace,” but that’s not peace, that’s cowardice.” I knew then the day would come I’d have to teach this lesson.(1)

In the very first lesson, and at the very beginning of that lesson, bro. Atchley asserts that the Holy Spirit told him (“about” 1994) during the middle of a sermon that he would "have" to teach these lessons. Is this possible? Did the Holy Spirit actually "speak" to Rick Atchley? Why weren’t these “new truths” preached in 1994? Why did bro. Atchley have to wait until 2006? How did he know when to preach them? Did the Holy Spirit speak to him again and give him the time table? Why did elsewhere in the sermon did bro. Atchley say this “statement” from the “Holy Spirit” took place ten years prior? [That would have made the conversation in 1996, not 1994!] Which year was it? "IF" the Holy Spirit actually "speaks" to a man, would not that very date and time become tatooed on his brain? Did the Holy Spirit change His mind on the instrument? Let’s see what the Scripture says:

o Special knowledge was a spiritual gift given in the 1st century to "confirm the word" before it had been written down – Mark 16:17-20
o Special knowledge was to "cease" when the Word was completed – I Corinthians 13:8-10
o Today God speaks to us ONLY through His Son – Hebrews 1:1
o Jesus Christ is the Word and the Word is Jesus Christ – John 1
o ALL Scripture is profitable for doctrine – II Timothy 3:16
o ALL things "pertaining to life and Godliness" have been (past tense) given to us – II Peter 1:3
o The faith has been (past tense) "delivered to the saints" – Jude 3
o God is not a "respecter of persons" – Acts 10:34-35

Summarizing, "IF" the Holy Spirit did "speak" to Rick Atchley, the following would have to then be true:

• Special knowledge is still a gift and the Word of God is not complete and is still being written today – Mark was in error
• God speaks through men in addition to His Son Jesus Christ – the Hebrew writer was in error.
• Words other than Scripture are profitable for doctrine – Paul was in error.
• God has not, in fact, given us all things pertaining to life and Godliness – Peter was in error.
• The faith has not been delivered to the saints – Jude was in error.
• God is, after all, a respecter of person – Peter, again, was in error
• Since Mark, the Hebrew writer, Paul, Peter, and Jude were in error, Rick Atchley is the only one with the truth.
• By logical extension of bro. Atchley’s contentions, HE has more revelation from God than the very writers of the New Testament! “IF” such is the case, these men will have to seek bro. Atchley out in heaven one day to sit at his feet and hear his discourse on these matters!

These conclusions are, of course,absurd! The Word of God is complete, special knowledge has been done away with, God speaks exclusively through His Word Jesus Christ, all scripture is profitable for doctrine, all things pertaining to life and Godliness have been given to us, the faith has been delivered to the saints and God is not a respecter of persons.

One other “small” matter… “IF” the Holy Spirit” did speak to bro. Atchley, he MUST produce tangible evidence [Mark 16:17-20] that he is telling the truth, i. e. heal the sick, raise the dead, speak in languages he did not study, drink deadly poison, pick up deadly snakes, etc. You know what I mean… the whole “goose and gander” thing….

In conclusion, the Holy Spirit did not change His mind on the instrument (or any other point of doctrine) and He did not speak to Rick Atchley while he was delivering a sermon in 1994. Regardless of any other "proof" trotted out by bro. Atchley, his arguments crumble for they are built on a foundational falsehood and a bedrock of shifting sand…the assertion that the Holy Spirit speaks to some men and not others outside and apart from the Scripture today. The truth is plain...the Holy Spirit does not today speak to mortal men outside of the Revelation of Scripture, PERIOD.(2)

NOTES:

(1) Transcribed by the author off of the Richland Hills website (www.rhchurch.org). The sermon is no longer available on the website per se, though it is FOR SALE on CD format on said website.
(2) During the Fall Quarter, we are studying a series of Bible lessons entitled, "Wrong Division - A Study of Proof Texts Used in Support of the Instrument." JOIN US! Every Wednesday at 7 p.m. - Archdale church of Christ, 2525 Archdale Drive in Charlotte. For directions go to: www.archdale.org!

Miss Bertha's Revival

On February 20, 1894 in Thorp Spring, TX (1) the world changed forever. In violation of both Scripture and conscience Miss Bertha, as she was called, was asked to “play on.” Play on she did, on the organ, that is. The occasion was a gospel meeting held at Add-Ran College (now known as Texas Christian University in Ft. Worth, TX). It appears that the “tail wagged the dog” at this particular place of learning for the inclusion of the instrument was the students idea and not the faculty or the staff. Sadly, the “ghost” of Miss Bertha is stalking churches of Christ even now! She’s somehow been “revived…” Error is progressive and constantly pushes all who will listen to the very edge of the abyss and then drags all present over that very same edge to their destruction. Like so many so-called “progressive”(2) congregations of our day, these students had persuaded their teachers and administrators to allow the use an organ in both their social and devotional events for some time. That night they went for the jugular. When the smoke cleared, the church in Thorp Springs was torn asunder, the Clarke family was openly divided with two sons, (Addison and Randolph) against their faithful father and a once flourishing Christian college began its slow decent into the endless dust of history. The elder bro. Clarke died brokenhearted in 1901. In 1906, it all became “official” when the U. S. Government Census listed “churches of Christ” and “Christian churches” separately. History, sad to say, is repeating itself. In 1906, the instrumental faction focused on taking buildings away from the faithful church of Christ. At least these wayward brethren had the good grace to change their name once they became apostate! Today they are known primarily as “Christian Churches” and “Disciples of Christ.” Were that it would be so today! Were that those bent on bringing in the instrument would be content with simply taking over a building! Beginning in 2006, many self identified progressives have been “celebrating” the legacy of Miss Bertha, not by stealing a building but by attempting to steal the very name – church of Christ. Though the instrumental denomination party among us “has gone out from us,” [I John 2:19] they continue to demand the hijacking of the very name of the Savior’s Body for their own chaotic purposes! How does one “embrace the name of Christ” and yet oppose the very clear teaching of His Word? Some of you may be saying as you read this; “Hold on now Russ!”

• “The Bible doesn’t ever call the use of the instrument a sin!” • “That’s just your opinion!” • “Using the instrument is not a salvation issue!” • “Using the instrument helps attract young people!” • “Why argue over the instrument when we should be out spreading the gospel?” • “Aren’t there instruments in heaven?”(3)

There are these arguments and others as well. Our parent’s generation, and their parents, heard them in their day. “There’s nothing new under the sun” says the wise man. Now these same old, already answered arguments, are now being … as it were… brought down from the attic, dusted off, polished up and set down before us once more. In the coming weeks we will prove… with Scripture alone… that the use of the instrument in New Testament worship is not only UN-authorized by God, it’s presumptive presence among us today is the sad result of the mindset of King Saul in I Samuel 15. The flawed logic and pragmatic mindset of King Saul resulted in the Kingdom of Israel being stripped from him and given to another. Far from being “just an opinion,” the use of the instrument is indicative of having the mind of an apostate. How we interpret the Bible (or MIS-interpret it as the case may be) has either blessed or catastrophic results. May God bless us as we seek the truth that is given in His Word as we commence this study;

Wrong Division – A Study of Proof Texts Used in Support of the Instrument.

Let’s stop listening to a ghost from the past and put Miss Bertha back where she belongs… in the history books.

NOTES:

(1) For a very interesting, yet sad, history of this incident see: http://www.therestorationmovement.com/clark3.htm
(2) “Progressive” in the sense of the 1964 Glen Ford movie, “Advance to the Rear!”© Those in error often “spin” for themselves new and self congratulating descriptions. They may define themselves with terms quite opposite from reality, i.e. what was once called fornication is now known as “co-habitation” and ones illicit lover is now called a “significant other.”
(3) The arguments raised and the proof texts given are from the very words of one of the instrumental faction’s own spokespersons, bro. Rick Atchley of the sadly misnamed Richland Hills Church of Christ in Ft. Worth, TX. Rick troubled the entire brotherhood regarding these matters in December, 2006 with a series of three lessons on the subject, all entitled: “Both / And.” As no printed transcript of these lessons is available, the author transcribed large portions of the three addresses by hand off of audio from the Richland Hills website.

Testing the Spirit of Origen

“Beloved, do no believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” – I John 4:1 NKJV

Origen was a 2nd century post-Gnostic philosopher who lived and taught in Alexandria. The Alexandrian School was the nucleus of the mixing of Christian, Platonic and Gnostic influenced learning in the 2nd century. Most of us are very little, if at all, familiar with Origen. Even fewer of us are aware that the spirit of Origen is alive and well today and threatens the church of Christ with a neo-Gnostic approach to biblical interpretation. In an effort to appeal to the “we can’t ever find the truth” post-modern generation, some among us have adopted Origen and his philosophy. Origen taught, among other things that Bible passages have multiple meanings and that each person can perceive these various meanings through a template of their own personal stories.

As a result, New Testament a-cappella singing has morphed into head banging rock and roll, the Lord’s Day has rolled back into Saturday night and the blood bought church of Christ has become just another denomination . . . according to some among us today.

“IF” Origen is correct, John the inspired apostle must be wrong. In order for us to “test the spirits,” we must have a clear, singular meaning and linear standard by which to do the testing. Otherwise, you have your truth, I have mine and there is no standard at all by which to judge anything. “Let God be true and every man a liar.”

Jesus told the apostles that they would KNOW the truth, he told them that the Holy Spirit would lead them to ALL the truth and he finally told them to teach baptized disciples ALL things whatsoever he commanded. Any biblical interpretive model that teaches, or even infers, that truth is somehow unknowable, unreachable or otherwise clouded in "mystery" is FALSE.