Are you a member of the church of the New Testa...

Originally posted by Treytrumpet1
I promise I will look at it, but I need you to be open minded also, okay? What if I'm right and you are wrong? Will you change? I guarantee, if I'm wrong about this, I'll change. Because I want to be right with God. What do you think?

That's very open of you . I hope you understand that I am not looking to confront you or put you down. I'm prepared to listen to anything you say and I do want to be right with God just as you do but for me being right with God means being right with him personally and not being right with a "church" . To me a church is only there to foster a personal realtionship with him. If you have that then what day of the week you worship or which denomination you are in won't make any difference.

There are plenty of other sites out there like this, tell me , did you know about these sites or are you familiar with all this? One thing to try is to tell your leaders that you have been looking at thse sites and then watch their reaction carefully. If you hint at leaving watch also what they do , do they put pressure on you or suggest that you won't be right with God?

Originally posted by Treytrumpet1
When Jesus said that to the rich young man, first, they were both living under the Old Testament Law, not the New Testament. The New Covenant came into effect after the death of Christ (Heb. 7:11-12; Heb. 9:16-17). Second, that was a command only to the rich young man; He nowhere commands all Christians today to sell all possessions. But, since you ob ...[text shortened]... tribes (Hebrews 7:15). When God said, "sing," He excluded all other forms of music.

Re Music - David and many others habitually worshipped with musical instruments in the OT. So if for some reason Christ did not want worship done that way he would have specifically stated so.

You people are a good example of nitpickers, just like the Pharisees in the time of Christ. I suspect youall will receive the same condemnation.

Re Your worldly possessions. No have not done that and I never said I believe that you have to do everything in the NT. Anyway your conclusion is incorrect. Here is the Luke version of the story and the principle clearly applies today as well

Luke 18:22 And when Jesus heard it, he said unto him, One thing thou lackest yet: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
23 But when he heard these things, he became exceeding sorrowful; for he was very rich.
24 And Jesus seeing him said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
25 For it is easier for a camel to enter in through a needle`s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Originally posted by Treytrumpet1
My posts will not contain my opinion, but the Bible only. That's the only way we can have the unity that God demands in the matters of religion (I Corinthians 1:10-13)! I want this thread to be Bible based, and honest hearts thinking about what God has truly said in His word. I will begin with a few verses:

Matthew 16:18 - "And I say also unto th ...[text shortened]... is one church, and Jesus is the savior of that one church.

Any comments?

I'm sorry, but there is no reason to think "The International Church of Christ" isn't just another denomination. (1) What biblical proof do you have to support your claim that the ICoC - specifically the ICoC - is the one true church? Further, (2) what biblical proof do you have to support your claim that repentance, profession of faith in Jesus Christ and baptism outside of the ICoC isn't sufficient for salvation? By that I mean, if I happen to come to a saving faith within a Presbyterian church, for instance, and find fellowship there, on what biblical grounds can you definitively say that I am not saved?

Prove that you are a Christian and be honest with me; please answer these two questions in a straight forward manner worthy of your calling. Thank you.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I'm sorry, but there is no reason to think "The International Church of Christ" isn't just another denomination. (1) What biblical proof do you have to support your claim that the ICoC - specifically the ICoC - is the one true church? Further, (2) what biblical proof do you have to support your claim that repentance, profession of faith in Jesus ...[text shortened]... answer these two questions in a straight forward manner worthy of your calling. Thank you.

Did I ever say that I was a member of the Internation Church of Christ denomination? I am not! I am a member of the Lord's church, the church of Christ. Romans 16:16, "...the churches of Christ salute you."

Originally posted by knightmeister
That's very open of you . I hope you understand that I am not looking to confront you or put you down. I'm prepared to listen to anything you say and I do want to be right with God just as you do but for me being right with God means being right with him personally and not being right with a "church" . To me a church is only there to foster a personal ...[text shortened]... so what they do , do they put pressure on you or suggest that you won't be right with God?

How is it that the church is not essential when Jesus planned it before the foundation of the world (Eph. 3:10-11), and died for it (Acts 20:28)? When Paul said that Jesus is the "savior of the body" (Eph. 5:23), he meant that Jesus is going to save the church! There is no salvation outside of Christ, and there is no salvation outside of Christ's church. And incidentally, Christ and His church are inseperable!

Originally posted by Treytrumpet1
Did I ever say that I was a member of the Internation Church of Christ denomination? I am not! I am a member of the Lord's church, the church of Christ. Romans 16:16, "...the churches of Christ salute you."

I repeat ... you lack the ability to answer simple questions concisely and clearly.

Any church that can condemn the use of musical instruments to accompany the singing of hymns are fools of the highest order. I am sure that Christ is sitting up there somewhere laughing at you idiots.

Originally posted by Treytrumpet1
Did I ever say that I was a member of the Internation Church of Christ denomination? I am not! I am a member of the Lord's church, the church of Christ. Romans 16:16, "...the churches of Christ salute you."

Then what's the big deal? The body of Christ, i.e., the church, is obviously made up of all people - all people - who believe the gospel of Christ, regardless of denomination.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith" (Romans 1:16-17).

What's your point? Is "The Lord's Church" an actual organization?

Originally posted by Treytrumpet1
"Biblically sound" just means teaching that is in accordance with what the Bible teaches. Nothing from man mixed in; no creeds; no disciplines; just the Bible and the Bible alone. We must be "biblically sound" in order to go to heaven. That is, we must be obeying what God has set forth for us to do, and not to do as recorded in the Bible.

So you don't believe Jesus is God, then, right?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Treytrumpet1
"But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up" (Matt. 15:13). (Jesus said that in the context of vain worship - v. 9), like those who "worship" in unauthorized ways, eg. with mechanical instruments of music.

Are you seriously suggesting that worship necessarily must exclude the use of instruments?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Are you seriously suggesting that worship necessarily must exclude the use of instruments?

Nemesio

Wasn't it once the Church's position that the tritone was evil?

I also recently learned that to this day, the Mormon church still considers the guitar an evil instrument and forbids its use in worship.

Originally posted by Treytrumpet1
Now, as for instrumental music, the New Testament nowhere authorizes the use of mechanical instruments of music in the worship of God. There simply is a command to sing (Eph. 5:18-19; Col. 3:16). Therefore, that excludes anything else. ... When God said, "sing," He excluded all other forms of music.

LMFAO! Because it's not specifically mentioned, it's forbidden despite the Psalms to which
Jesus Himself referred to as Scripture?

What about this command, also from Jesus Himself: Love your enemies, do good to those who
hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If anyone strikes you on
the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withold even
your shirt. Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not
ask for them again. (St Luke 6:27b-30) Recall that after this He said: Why do you call me
'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I tell you? I will show you what someone is like who comes to
me, hears my words, and acts on them. That is like a man building a house, who dug deeply
and laid the foundation on rock; when a flood arose, the river burst against that house but
could not shake it because it had been well built. But the one who hears and does not act
is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. When the river burst
against it, immediately it fell, and great was the ruin of that house.

So, unlike what Jesus commands, you judge other denominations and you judge them on
something that goes unmentioned in the New Testament (but embraced in the Hebrew Scriptures).
You say that their worship is 'vain' and contrary to God's desires, but have no positive Scriptural
support for such a claim.

And so, you come from a long line of hypocrite 'Christians,' claiming to be part of the One
True Church and then acting in a fashion utterly contrary to Jesus's explicit commands. What
a crock!

Find a church tradition that doesn't extol singing, then you'll have a legitimate beef. But in
throwing out the multitude of Psalms ('God's Word'😉 referring to instruments, you only make
your claim to a 'authentic, Word-centered' church utterly laughable.

Nemesio

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Wasn't it once the Church's position that the tritone was evil?

I also recently learned that to this day, the Mormon church still considers the guitar an evil instrument and forbids its use in worship.

Well, it was called the 'Devil's interval.' The reason for this is because, mathematically, you
can't have a 'perfect tritone.' You can easily have perfect fourths and fifths (which are
simple mathematical ratios of 4:3 and 3:2 respectively); that is, if an A = 440 mHz, then a
perfect E will = 660 mHz and D will = 586 2/3 mHz. Pythagoras figured this out. A tritone
doesn't really have a 'perfect' state because even if you try to make the ratios reasonable,
it still sounds unstable. This was noticed by Zarlino and Guido di Arezzo (two of the earliest
music theorists). Further, if you make the ratios reasonable, they only sound good in one or
two keys. Thus, practically, the ratio between the two notes in a tritone do not tend to have
nice, neat numbers on instruments that don't offer direct pitch control (like a violin) so that
the tritone can serve different musical functions. There's some funny Latin limerick about
tritones...something like 'Diabolos in musica,' but I can't remember it.

Despite this instablity, it was routinely sung, because the oscillation between unstable sonorities
to stable ones is what makes music interesting. However, it was just not written out. That is,
the tradition of 'Musica ficta' (that is, the altering of musical tones to create certain melodic
relationships) is pretty well established. Consider this example:

http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/images/d/d3/Josquin-Ave_Maria_a_4.pdf

On page 2, in the Tenor (third line down), in m. 24, on the second beat (half-note gets the beat),
you see that Josquin has written an 'F.' Against the Bassus (bottom line) which has a 'C,' this
is merely a perfect fourth. But you'll notice that the editor (not the composer!!!) has indicated
a sharp over the note (as opposed to next to the note, as I'm sure a musician is used to
seeing). This is because there is an implicit understanding that when you have two melodies
approaching a unison/octave in conjunct motion (opposite directions) by step, one will be a
half-step. So, you see that the Contratenor has an 'A' moving to a 'G.' So, the performer
singing Tenor will alter the pitch up a halfstep in order to give better musical closure at that
arrival. Simply, in performace:

Contra----A-->G
Tenor-----F-->G

becomes:

Contra----A-->G
Tenor-----F#->G

This, of course, creates a tritone with the Bassus. So, for a period of time, composers simply
didn't write these alterations down, largely because the composers themselves were either in
or conducting the choirs themselves. When music publishing with moveable-type printing became
economically feasible, composers began to take greater care with accidentals (because they
weren't there to supervise the performances). And, so, the dislike at 'seeing' tritones kind of
disappeared as a concern.

A comment about 'Musica ficta:' It's kinda subjective and often retrospective. For example,
in the same piece, on p. 6, in the Bassus, in mm. 125-6, you see that the F# is indicated even
though there is not movement to the G in the Tenor. That's because the arrival is in m. 127,
and to only sing the last F as F# is musically quite awkward. So, sometimes you work your
way backwards in figuring out which should be.

The subjectivity can be heard in recordings; some people are very spare about using Musica ficta,
only altering tones at major arrivals. Other are very liberal: whenever they see a sixth expanding
out to a unison (or a third/tenth expanding inward), they alter a tone. Both extremes tend to
make for idiosynctratic performance. I, myself, lean towards using more rather than less, but
I don't force odd harmonies. And, sometimes, you try some and decide it sounds better
without them, and just stick with the more modal sounding resolution.

Nemesio

P.S., Rereading this, I'm guessing that maybe the example might be cryptic. If you need a
better one, I can find one tomorrow. This was the best I could do on the fly.

Originally posted by Treytrumpet1
....and there are many external evidences that can prove the Bible to be truly given of Deity.

I'd be interested in the evidence....

Originally posted by Treytrumpet1
Did I ever say that I was a member of the Internation Church of Christ denomination? I am not! I am a member of the Lord\'s church, the church of Christ. Romans 16:16, \"...the churches of Christ salute you.\"

Shouldn\'t your handle be \"Treyvocals\" or \"TreyACapella\"?

Originally posted by Treytrumpet1
How is it that the church is not essential when Jesus planned it before the foundation of the world (Eph. 3:10-11), and died for it (Acts 20:28)? When Paul said that Jesus is the "savior of the body" (Eph. 5:23), he meant that Jesus is going to save the church! There is no salvation outside of Christ, and there is no salvation outside of Christ's church. And incidentally, Christ and His church are inseperable!

Fair enough but did you visit the website? I want to know whether you understand the dynamics of how the Church of Christ works and where it has lead you astray. Do you understand the thinking styles and psychology it uses? Can you appreciate how talk of having a personal relationship might be threatening to such an organization?

"There is no salvation outside of Christ, and there is no salvation outside of Christ's church." ---TRUMPET----

RESPONSE-----
If you left your church would you think you were going to hell or losing your salvation? If so then this is a sure sign of cult type thinking . The best way to control people in an organisation is with fear. If you can convince them that leaving the church will result in losing salvation then you have got them. All cults do this . David Koresh (wako siege) , the moonies , J. Witnesses etc etc They don't want you to be an individual. Salvation becomes attached to an organisation RATHER than to God's spirit . This means that the oragnisation is taking the place of God and holding power over it's members (which is what it wants).


The "church" is the body of christ and those who meet in different ways to share their faith. You are obviously part of some organisation or other but that need not separate us or divide us from each other. We both believe in the saving grace of Christ's sacrifice and the gift of salvation through faith in him . We both believe in God's love. It will be frightening for you to think you might be in a cult of some kind or other but there are people out there to support you and many on this forum who can help also.