Stand In The Gap to Get Jesus: Guilt Clause

The Guilt Clause: The clergy were stand in the gap type guys intending to murder Jesus while they shouted and played their triumphal music. Because He taught DOCTRINE, Jesus was branded with the first guilt clause. Or was it Adam blaming Eve?
The heretics and their enablers think that when you create heresy and CLIMB into the most evil sin of DELIBERATELY sowing discord, TIME WILL CURE ALL. John Calvin addressed this. And, Wasn't it Adam who invented the GUILT CLAUSE people always use to BLAME the victim for his bleeding heart. THAT'S PART OF THE prearranged HIRELING-CHANGELING program which was carefully laid out. Their PARIDIGMISM to replace the old. legalistic PATTERNISM (fools can be fooled) was laid out by Hitler while in prison. I can post the EXACT patternism.

Phaedrus: The Wolf and the Lamb

BY thirst incited; to the brook
The Wolf and Lamb themselves betook.
The Wolf high up the current drank,
The Lamb far lower down the bank.

Then, bent his ravenous maw to cram,
The Wolf took umbrage at the Lamb.
"How dare you trouble all the flood,
And mingle my good drink with mud?"

"Sir," says the Lambkin, sore afraid,
"How should I act, as you upbraid?
The thing you mention cannot be,
The stream descends from you to me."

Abash'd by facts, says he, " I know
'Tis now exact six months ago
You strove my honest fame to blot"-
"Six months ago, sir, I was not."

"Then 'twas th' old ram thy sire," he cried,
And so he tore him, till he died.
To those this fable I address
Who are determined to oppress,

And trump up any false pretence,
But they will injure innocence.

"There were those saying that they could "not abide the election of a Republican President."
In which event
they would destroy the Union.

"And then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us!
That is cool.

A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth,

"Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you,
and then
you will be a murderer." Abraham Lincoln, Frost, Vol. 1, p. 274

A rich man does wrong, and he even adds reproaches; a poor man suffers wrong, and he must add apologies Ecclesu 13:3.

V-jo is one of them: She defines the OWNERS as the SQUATTERS when the SQUATTERS have already planned to INFILTRATE and DIVERT the OWNER'S PROPERTY into a THEATER FOR HOLY ENTERTAINMENT. How we 'gonna du dat? Well, we gonna tell the people that they are on a train to A but we (he he he) 'gonna switch their car to where WE gonna take 'em."

WE know that their religionism is exactly prophesied of the "sacred prostitute" religion where ALL "singers were happy to be the HAREM OF THE GODS." It is called witchcraft and the EVIDENCE IS CLEAR: wives of leading lights have created the CIRCLES of SANCTITY USING their leading light husbands who CONFESS to training "Prophets, Chanellers and Facilitators" and now Genies and Adepts.

Owning a stolen car for a long time never gives you ownership. That is easy for anyone with the SPIRIT of minimal ethics and morality.

Clement of Alexandria: Pedagogue 1

For as the mirror is not evil to an ugly man because it shows him what like he is; and as the physician is not evil to the sick man because he tells him of his fever,-for the physician is not the cause of the fever, but only points out the fever;-so neither is He, that reproves, ill-disposed towards him who is diseased in soul.

For He does not put the transgressions on him, but only shows the sins which are there; in order to turn him away from similar practices. So God is good on His own account, and just also on ours, and He is just because He is good.

And His justice is shown to us by His own Word from there from above, whence the Father was.For before He became Creator He was God; He was good. And therefore He wished to be Creator and Father.

And the nature of all that love was the source of righteousness-the cause, too, of His lighting up His sun, and sending down His own Son. And He first announced the good righteousness that is from heaven, when He said,

"No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; nor the Father, but the Son." [Luke x. 22]

This mutual and reciprocal knowledge is the symbol of primeval justice. Then justice came down to men both in the letter and in the body, in the Word and in the law, constraining humanity to saving repentance; for it was good.

But do you not obey God? Then blame yourself, who drag to yourself the judge.

Counseling for everyone August 22 2003, 6:46 PM

From "Freud"

When you call the psychiatrist office could you please schedule a couple of extra appointments.

One for people who cause division in the body of Christ, try to blame God, and then cry 'look how we're being mistreated by those we persecuted.'

The other for people who are deluded into thinking that they are only doing God's will when they are on the hot seat, which they heated themselves,

and then expect the object of their blasting to pay for the electric bill that it took to heat the seat up with in the first place.

There has to be some fancy name for such messed up thinking.

Narrative Theology: Rubel Shelly using the Bible as resource to write your own improved version of Scripture.

The "Guilt Clause" has become popular in Post Modernism where to be a member one must must undergo frontal labotomy:

"Most also call for dissociation as a preface to the religious experience. Dissociation is the loss of conscious awareness of the real world.

"Specifically, postmodern religionists call for people to leave all rational categories behind before ascending to the godhead. Thus, they see one thing as the supreme barrier to deep religion: Reason, and its handmaiden, truth. The Death of Truth

"In August, the president's four-and-half minute speech-his first acknowledgment of wrongdoing-was a textbook example of postmodernism at work.

Here were compartmentalization (I did wrong, but it doesn't matter because it was private),
contradiction (I accept full responsibility, but I'm a victim of my accuser), and
(my account, while legally accurate, was not forthcoming).

Most remarkable is how the president has been basing his defense on postmodernist language theory. According to postmodernists, words do not have a definite objective meaning. Rather, meaning is only a matter of interpretation. People interpret words in different ways; therefore, words are incapable of communicating any kind of objective truth, as such. In practice, this "deconstruction" of language means that such texts as the Constitution and the Bible do not have fixed meanings, but are open to unlimited interpretation.

This sort of thing has become almost a game in the literary criticism fashionable in academia. In this context, though, Mr. Clinton's reasoning comes across as ludicrous and pathetic.

To be sure, if there is no truth, it is impossible to lie. If language has no meaning, there can be no perjury. And, we might add, if there is no right and wrong, there can be no moral failure.

But now it appears that the whole postmodernist house of cards is collapsing.

Mr. Clinton's admission that he did things that were "improper" was occasioned by an inexorable fact, a bit of physical evidence that could not be explained away: a certain blue dress. This was something real, revealing information that was scientifically verifiable, an intrusion of objective, unspinnable truth. Though he would have liked to construct a different version of reality, the dress was a truth that is not relative.

This process continues as lies triumph over the truth of the Words of Christ. This is why "pastors" can lie and deceive to try to force a church into some new system of worship which will appeal to everyone on the face of the earth -- except those "enemies of God" who oppose the pastor.

The Post Modern "guilt clause" goes something like this: If you add unscriptural practices and I object, I am guilty of sowing discord and should be marked and warned that big brother will get you. This is because groups like Promise Keepers and the Vineyard clergy have moved beyond doctrine to force such as mind-control meetings and the Shepherding cult.

"You still believe the Bible but we are into the Post-Modern or Post Denominational phase of the now but not yet visible kingdom where we will rule and either reward you or kill you."

Objecting brings veiled threats from all over the country. See the Shepherding Movement which undoubtedly has a double-agent in your church right now.

Not True Friends of the Original Jesus

A series of questions and answers at Stand in the Gap in 1997 shows that the group could care less about offending those continuing to use the Bible. Promise Keepers' "Stand In The Gap Rally" - A Firsthand Report by by Brian Snider revealed the following:

6. How important is it to you that there is little doctrinal agreement among the members of Promise Keepers?

Almost every person interviewed quickly answered that it was of no consequence to them that there was no agreement on Bible doctrine among members of the Promise Keepers.

Most took great pride in the ability to ignore Bible doctrine for the cause of forging an ecumenically styled unity.

The one surprisingly pleasant answer to this question came from the only woman interviewed. She was a 27-year-old volunteer handing out some of the one million free Stand in the Gap Contemporary English Version New Testaments. She answered that she was very concerned that there was not much emphasis on doctrine.

7. What do you believe the Bible says about the importance of doctrine?

Many answered with the question, "What do you mean by doctrine?" Others said the Bible teaches that there are only essentials to which all Christians must subscribe and that there is great freedom beyond that.

The female PK volunteer was the only one who answered that the Bible treats the subject of doctrine seriously.

Perhaps she has moved on to be a Deborah chiding the effeminate "princes" for cowardice in the face of false doctrine.

This is why those "clergy," most of whom still don't understand the word "doctrine", are quick to turn somewhat violent when you "stand in the gap" and question their destructive practices by its Biblical soundness and its certain divisiveness or sectarianism.

Clement of Alexandria

Now their assertion is reduced to absurdity, if they shall say that the cause of the wound is not the dart, but the shield, which did not prevent the dart from passing through;
........... and if they blame not the thief, but the man who did not prevent the theft.

what we assert to have taken place in the theft, is not a cause at all;
........... but that what prevents is involved in the accusation of being a cause.

But if strict accuracy must be employed in dealing with them, let them know, that that which does not prevent what we assert to have taken place in the theft, is not a cause at all;

but that what prevents is involved in the accusation of being a cause.
For he that protects with a shield

is the cause of him whom he protects not being wounded; preventing him, as he does, from being wounded.

For the demon of Socrates was a cause, not by not preventing, but by exhorting, even if (strictly speaking) he did not exhort.

And neither praises nor censures, neither rewards nor punishments, are right, when the soul has not the power of inclination and disinclination, but evil is involuntary.

Whence he who prevents is a cause;
while he who prevents not judges justly the soul's choice.

Fixing Guilt to Warn the Disorderly

We feel like we are hallucinating when the guilt trip is placed on those who resist imposing something upon them against their will. Our simple analogy is: "I kicked him in a soft spot in church, he yelled 'ouch, stop it' and therefore he is guilty of disturbing the peace of the assembly." The result is to warn those being attacked not to resist so that "the people being invaded turn around and attack the invaders."

"To Lamar goes the credit for phrasing the 'guilt clause' which became a cardinal refrain of the organ apologists. The organ was in the churches to stay. The next move was to fasten 'guilt' upon any person or church who would commit one of the 'seven deadly sins' by dividing the church over the organ."

See how one church uses the charge of racism against those who oppose the forceful introduction of instrumental music into an already feminine and effeminate worship team which gives no peace to worship God even during the Lord's Supper.

One modern version is that to teach the Biblical facts about musical worship is divisive! Believe that? And, consistent with the last Jubilee period of divisiveness, those who defend music lie about the meaning of "words" because they have, ala Vineyard, moved beyond the old words of Christ and after Experiencing God with Blackaby have moved on to be new Christs.

When a field mouse has intruded into my house, cut holes in my antique radios and built a warm nest for its cute babies, should I feel guilty when I put her out into the cold or snap her with a trap? I don't think so. However, this is an example of the reasoning power of those who simply do not love truth. In the original division over music Lamar wrote:

"And to withdraw membership fellowship from the church or refuse to fellowship brethren who conscientiously differ with them on the subject, is so manifestly unscriptural that I am surprised to see the Times suggest even the possiblitiy of such a course." (p. 32)

Of course, the organ and society has been forced in order to attract the audience . That is, it is a mercinery, commercial transaction which will be punished when Jesus returns (Revelation 18). Once the people have been offended and the instruments introduced, of course we should use psychological intimidation to force them to remain with us and "put something in the pot."


Letter LV. or Book II. of Replies to Questions of Januarius. (a.d. 400.)

Chap. VII.

Augustin notes the old familiar guilt or blame game: "Yes, I am guilty of violating Scripture about music but then you are guilty for not washing feet!" He notes that he is not put off by such threats:

12. We are therefore bound to denounce with abhorrence and contempt the ravings of the astrologers (music from the music of the spheres), who,

when we find fault with the empty inventions by which they cast other men down into the delusions where into they themselves have fallen, imagine that they answer well when they say,

"Why, then, do you regulate the time of the observance of Easter by calculation of the positions of the sun and moon?"-

as if that with which we find fault was the arrangements of the heavenly bodies, or the succession of the seasons,

which are appointed by God in His infinite power and goodness,
and not their
perversity in abusing,

for the support of the most absurd opinions,
those things which God has ordered in perfect wisdom.

If the astrologer may on this ground forbid us from drawing comparisons from the heavenly bodies

for the mystical representation of sacramental realities,
then the augurs may with equal reason prevent the use of these words of Scripture, "Be harmless as doves;" and the
snake-charmers may forbid that other exhortation, "Be wise as serpents"

while the play-actors may interfere with our mentioning the harp in the book of Psalms.

Let them therefore say, if they please, that,

because similitudes for the exhibition of the mysteries of God's word are taken from the things which I have named,

we are chargeable either with consulting the omens given by the flight of birds, or with concocting the poisons of the charmer,

or with taking pleasure in the excesses of the theatre,-a statement which would be the clime of absurdity.

XVIII: 34. I am surprised at your expressing a desire that I should write anything in regard to those ceremonies which are found different in different countries, because there is no necessity for my doing this; and, moreover,

one most excellent rule must be observed in regard to these customs,

when they do not in any way oppose either true doctrine or sound morality,
........... but contain some incentives to the better life,

viz., that wherever we see them observed, or know them to be established, we should not only refrain from finding fault with them,

but even recommend them by our approval and imitation, unless restrained by fear of doing greater harm than good

by this course, through the infirmity of others. We are not, however, to be restrained by this,

if more good is to be expected from our consenting with those who are zealous for the ceremony, than loss to be feared from our displeasing those who protest against it.

In such a case we ought by all means to adopt it,

especially if it be something in defence of which Scripture can be alleged: as in the singing of hymns and psalms, for which we have on record both the example and the precepts of the Lord and of His apostles.

In this religious exercise, so useful for inducing a devotional frame of mind and inflaming the strength of love to God, there is diversity of usage,

and in Africa the members of the Church are rather too indifferent in regard to it; on which account the Donstists reproach us with our grave chanting of the divine songs of the prophets in our churches,

while they inflame their passions in their revels by the singing of psalms of human composition,
which rouse them like the stirring notes of the trumpet on the battle-field.

But when brethren are assembled in the church, why should not the time be devoted to singing of sacred songs, excepting of course while reading or preaching is going on, or while the presiding minister prays aloud, or the united prayer of the congregation is led by the deacon's voice? At the other intervals not thus occupied, I do not see what could be a more excellent, useful, and holy exercise for a Christian congregation.

Gregory of Nyssa on Scripture as Authority

b. c. 335,, Caesarea, in Cappadocia, Asia Minor [now Kayseri, Turkey]
d. c. 394, ; feast day March 9

And in this assertion they do not go beyond the truth; for we do say so. But the ground of their complaint is that their custom does not admit this, and Scripture does not support it. What then is our reply?

We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine.
For if custom is to
avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom;

and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs.
Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and

the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.

Robertson's Notes on Music and the Guilt Clause

7. Finally we are exhorted not to have too many laws; obedience is always grudgingly offered to laws regarding trifling matters. The authority of the New Testament in regard to all matters which, resting on his own private opinion, the Christian may think to be of little value, is thus set aside;

the Redeemer's own sentiment ignored, that he that is unfaithful in little will be unfaithful also in much.

And we venture to think that not those who disapprove of,

but those who introduce services and peculiarities which are trifling and insignificant,
are the guilty parties here.

If you listen to an organ discussion, or read a ritualistic paper,

you cannot fail to discover
that "liberty" is identified with
additions to common notions.

The people who seek to hold men to unadorned notions,

instead of being accounted friends of liberty,
are held up to execration as
bigots, tyrants, men of contracted notions and shallow minds;

with whom to identify liberty, is held to be as absurd as would have been for Gordon, of Jamaica, to have expected justice from a court martial of aristocratic cadets and martinets.

But the truth is that the ways which are now old-fashioned, were then new. Men had had a long trial of rites and ceremonies, -

of trumpets, and psalteries, and harps, - and they were new "MAKING THE EXPERIMENT OF CHANGE."

Shall we put it so? Is it so as Peter puts it? Let us recall his words,

"Now, therefore, why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear."

Alexander Campbell

"I saw another messenger flying through the midst of heaven, having everlasting good news to proclaim to the inhabitants of the earth, even to every nation and tribe, and tongue, and people-- saying with a loud voice, Fear God and give glory to him, for the hour of his judgments is come: and worship him who made heaven, and earth, and sea, and the fountains of water.--JOHN.

Great is the truth and mighty above things, and will prevail.

"Mark them who cause Divisions."

"THE Pope and his angels preached from this text half a century, while Luther, Zuingle, Melancthon, &c. were exposing the filthiness of the Mother of Harlots.

As Luther gave the Pope no quarters, he wreaked his vengeance on the Reformers, denouncing them as heretics, schismatics, sowers of discord among brethren, haughty, self-willed, and contumacious dignitaries.

"He learned that lesson from his predecessors, who denounced the Messiah and his Apostles by similar arguments. Jesus was not a good man, for he made divisions among the people; and the Apostles were heresiarchs, for they turned the world upside down.

"Elijah, too, was a disturber of the peace of Israel; and Daniel greatly marred the harmony of the devout fraternity who paid court to Nebuchadnezzar.

In short, from the time that Moses caused divisions in the kingdom of Pharaoh, down to the last Dover Association, this text,

"Mark and avoid them that cause divisions," has never been unseasonable amongst the opponents of reform and of change; for as there can be no reformation without change--and as all who preach reformation preach a change,

the consequence must be, that those who will not change, must, to justify themselves, denounce the reformers; and no text does better than this--"Mark them who cause divisions, and avoid them." EDITOR.

[The Millennial Harbinger (December 1832): 604.]

Martin Luther on Romans 15

5. The best rule to follow in such matters is the rule of love. You should hold the same attitude toward these two classes that you would toward a wolf and a sheep.

Suppose a wolf were to wound almost fatally a sheep,

and you were to proceed with rage against the sheep,
declaring it to be
wrong in being wounded, that it should be sound;

and you were violently to compel it to follow the other sheep to the pasture and to the fold, giving it no special care;
........... would not all men declare you inconsiderate?

The sheep might well say: "Certainly it is wrong for me to be wounded, and unquestionably I ought to be sound;

but direct your anger toward the inflicter of my wounds, and assist in my recovery."
So should these Romans have done and have faithfully repelled the
wolf-like teachers.

At the same time, the consciences weakened and discouraged by false doctrines should have received consideration. The Church at Rome ought not to have denounced nor ignored them,

but rather to have carefully healed their spiritual disorder and ultimately eradicated the wrong doctrines,

in patience bearing with their weak brethren lest they should cause them to err.

John Calvin

The last and principal charge which they bring against us is, that we have made a schism in the church.

And here they boldly maintain against us, that in no case is it lawful to break the unity of the church.
How far they do us injustice, the books of our authors bear witness. Now, however, let them take this brief reply -- that we neither dissent from the church, nor are aliens from her communion.

When they, by the command of God, inveighed freely against idolatry, superstition, and the profanation of the temple, and its sacred rites; against the carelessness and lethargy of priests; and against the general avarice, cruelty, and licentiousness; they were constantly met with the objection which our opponents have ever in their mouths

that by dissenting from the common opinion, they violated the unity of the church. The ordinary government of the church was then vested in the priests.

They had not presumptuously arrogated it to themselves, but God had conferred it upon them by his law. It would occupy too much time to point out all the instances. Let us, therefore, be contented with a single instance, in the case of Jeremiah.

J. W. McGarvey on the Organ

Nor does God permit us to drive some of the brethren from the church

to avoid doing what they believe to be sinful.
To do so
is to cause division in a way that God condemns. and if we thus sin,
he demands that
we be marked and avoided as schismatics.

So it matters not how the effort may result, it condemns us in the sight of God. If the brethren submit and debauch their conscience by doing that which they believe to be wrong, we sin against them and against Christ, says Paul. (1 Cor. 8: 12.)

If we drive them from the church which they have to leave to avoid condemning themselves in this way,

we are guilty of the sin of causing division,
........... to which we have referred.

In any event, therefore, our conduct is just as positively forbidden as is blasphemy or adultery.

It will not do to say that this is a matter of expediency, and one, therefore, on which God has left us free.

Things of expediency on which God has left us free to act by majorities must be considered as such by both parties.

If one party believe it sinful, it may not be forced on them as a matter of expediency.

The eating of meats was conceded to be a matter of expediency, innocent in itself. and yet when this "liberty" would result in evil to a brother, it was forbidden.

To insist on it, then, after knowing that it would cause one to stumble and indulge in it as a matter of expediency was to commit a double sin a sin against the brother and a sin against Christ.

Nor will it do to say that brethren have no right to hold to such conscientious objections to the use of the organ.

It is simply a fact that they do thus regard its use in the worship
........... as forbidden by the law of the Lord, and

those so holding will compare favorably in intelligence and piety with those who think differently. and we have to deal with the fact as it is, and not as some of us would have it to be.

Nor will it do to plead conscience on the part of those who favor the organ as well as on the part of those who oppose it. There can be no such ground for conscience, unless it is considered as divinely required so that they cannot worship without it without feeling that they sin against Cod.

But the use of the organ is not urged on that ground. hence there is no ground for the advocacy of conscience in the case.

In a case like this, where alienation and division are involved, conscience can require us to persist only when the issue is something that the word of God absolutely requires us to do;

but it is not held that God requires us to use an organ in the worship; it is only held that he permits it, and we have seen plainly that he permits nothing of this nature when such consequences result.

On this point many good brethren reason falsely, I think. They say: "We conscientiously believe that the use of the organ would be for the advancement of the cause and the good of the church. We are as conscientiously in favor of it as others are opposed to it; therefore our conscience in the matter is equal to theirs and is to be equally respected."

These good brethren fail to see that they apply the word "conscience" alike to two very different classes of things. If A conscientiously believes that, on the ground of expediency, the use of the organ will result in harm, and B, on the same ground, conscientiously believes that it will result in good, the conscience of one is just equal to that of the other;

If A believes that the use of the organ in the worship is divinely prohibited, so that he sins in its use,

and B believes that it is divinely required, so that he sins if he worships without it the conscience of one is just equal to that of the other.

But when A believes that it is divinely forbidden

and B simply holds that it would be for the best, as a matter of expediency,

there is the breadth of the heavens between the two.

B must believe that it is divinely required as an item of the faith, and hence a sin to dispense with it, before his conscience in the matter is of the same nature as that of A, and equal to it, who believes that God has forbidden it and that to use it is a sin.

Jesus - Stand in the Gap: The First Guilt Clause

Everyone understood that the "musical" instruments were instruments of warfare and triumph over the enemy. The Jewish leaders were evil and mercinary when Jesus Came. When He taught righteousness and Justice the leaders knew that they would not conform. And if they did not there would be trouble with Rome. The solution, therefore, was to continue to be evil but blame Jesus:

"The priests shall blow the trumpets of massacre, and the Levites and all the blowers of the ram's horn shall sound a battle alarm,

and the foot soldiers shall stretch out their hands against the host...
and at the sound of the
alarm they shall begin to bring down the slain.
All the people shall cease their

but the priests shall continue to blow the trumpets of massacre."  - DSS War Scroll

This is why God in Numbers 10:7 out lawed this "alarm" or triumph-over the enemy for the congregational assembly. It was also prophetic of the ancient or modern Judas who attempts to pollute Jesus by forcing Him to join with us in our singing, playing instruments and dancing.

The Thanksgiving Hymns (1QH) from the Dead Sea Scrolls interprets Psalm 41: The people "stand in the gap" with musical instruments were out to murder Jesus:

They come to inquire of Thee 
from the mouth of lying prophets deceived by error (Eze 13 and Ezek 33)
Who speak with strange lips to Thy people,
.........and an alien tongue,
That they may cunningly turn
.........all their work to folly.

For Thou, O God, hast sheltered me
.........from the children of men

And hast hidden Thy Law within me
.........against the time when Thou shoudst
.........reveal Thy salvation to me. (Isaiah 11:1-3)

All who have eaten my bread
.........have lifted their heel against me (cf John 13:18)

And all those joined to my Council
.........have mocked me with wicked lips. (Children piping)

Thy members of my Covenant have rebelled
.........and have murmured round about me;

They have gone as talebearers
.........before the children of mischief
.........concerning the mystery which Thou hast hidden in me...

They have overtaken me in a narrow pass without escape (the gap)
.........And there is no rest for me in my trial.
.........They sound my censure upon a harp
.........and their murmuring and storming upon a zither." Ps.41:11 of Judas
.........whose "bag" carried the "mouthpieces of wind instruments."

Anguish seizes me the pangs of a woman in travail, (John 16:21)

and my heart is troubled within me.I am clothed in blacknessand tongue cleaves to the roof of my mouth. (Vermes, 165f)

Saying, I will DECLARE thy name unto my brethren,
in the midst of the church [ekklesia or synagogue] will I
sing praise (hymn) unto thee. Heb 2:12

FIRST: DECLARE in Greek is:

Apagello (g518) ap-ang-el'-lo; from 575 and the base of 32; to announce: - bring word (again), declare, report, shew (again), tell.
Aggelos (g32) ang'-el-os; from aggello, [prob. der. from 71; comp. 34] (to bring tidings); a messenger; esp. an "angel"; by impl. a pastor: - angel, messenger
Liddell, Scott: Apang-ellô , fut. -angelô, Ion. 1. of a messenger, bring tidings, report, bring back tidings, report in answer, 2. of a speaker or writer, report, relate, 3. recite, declaim,
This does not mean to entertain but to do the work of an EVANGELIST: Speak means Preach to teach and admonish.
Euaggelizo (g2097) yoo-ang-ghel-id'-zo; from 2095 and 32; to announce good news ("evangelize") espec. the gospel: - declare, bring (declare, show) glad (good) tidings, PREACH (the gospel).

Apalgeo (g524) ap-alg-eh'-o; from 575 and algeo (to SMART); to GRIEVE out, i.e. become APATHETIC: - be past feeling

Humneo 2. descant upon, in song or speech, I. with acc. of person or thing sung of, sing of, also in Prose, celebrate in a hymn, commemorate, II. tell over and over again, harp upon, repeat, recite, recite the form of the law,

Edward Fudge Modern Guilt Clause. MOST doctors of the law MISS the fact that Israel rejected the Covenant of Grace--The Book of the Covenant--by the musical idolatry of the Egyptian trinity at Mount Sinai. God TURNED THEM over to worship the STARRY HOST according to Stephen in Acts 7 and many other passages. This sentence was confirmed when Israel's elders FIRED God and demanded a king LIKE THE NATIONS so that--as God grasped--they could WORSHIP like the nations.

The sacrifice of animals to PAY for their own sins was not commanded by God. Rather, they were added because of the MUSICAL TRANSGRESSION which was idolatry. God NEVER commanded instruments for worship. Fudge may be thinking of the events--removed from one another by almost 300 years--where the temple was so vile that God would not even let them slaughter innocent animals.

The COMMAND was for the CIVILIAN or GOVERNMENT part of the Temple and national PURIFICATION ritual. This was in ADDITION to the trumpets under the religious leaders.

The CIVILIAN population was quarantined from these rituals and their worship never went beyond assemblying as a synagogue or "church in the wilderness" to READ or REHEARSE the Words of God.

There is NO EXAMPLE of congregational singing with instrumental accompaniment called WORSHIP in the whole Bible.

This does not prevent Edward Fudge from falsely claiming:

"God expressly commands instruments in the Old Testament," I told him, " but the New Testament does not specifically command them for Christian use. Some Christians therefore think it obvious that God still wants accompanied praise today, since he didn't say that he has changed his mind.

Others think it obvious that God has changed his mind, since he didn't repeat the command in the New Testament. Both, of course, are reasoning from silence.

"Less explicitly, the New Testament commands us to sing Psalms (which include commands to use instruments).

Wrong! See our review of Tom Burgess:  ALL passages which associates instruments with singing ALSO also point 100% to sexual and homosexual practices: a male would not sing and play without being DRUNK or PERVERTED.

FOR THE FIRST TIME READ THE BIG LIE: Edward etal picks one verse our of the context of Hezekiah's PLAN hatched up on his own to purge the temple of the exact musical instruments which would habe been used in the holy places and for burning infants in the chapter BEFORE the proof text and AFTER the prooftext.  The instruments under the KING and COMMANDERS of the army were the military component of animal sacrifices which did NOT include the civilians.

A psalm has as its FIRST INSTRUMENT OF CHOICE the human voice and heart.

The word PSALLO just means to TOUCH or PLUCK. No one can find ONE EXAMPLE of the word ever being used UNLESS the writer tells us WHAT is to be plucked. It might be a BOW to send real or LOVE arrows, a harp string but NEVER with the plectrum or PUBIC hair being plucked so the musicians could also PERFORM in the men's symposia.

Edward Fudge: It portrays instruments in heavenly worship (Revelation). And the earliest Jewish believers in Christ continued to frequent the Temple where instruments were used. [Wrong! unless you are a dead virgin]

No one PLAYS instruments in heaven: the voices SOUND like harpers harping or rushing waters or THUNDER.  The Greek theater--always religious--had machines for producing these shounds such as rolling a spiked iron ball down a plank.  A musical instrument is a ORGANON "a machine for doing hard work or for producing shock and awe" which was always the purpose of 'bringing the gods on stage."

The other angel's message TO THE LIVING was to PREACH THEGOSPEL.

These are facts which I would think deserve to be considered in determining the larger question. "I am confident that God loves vocal music also (since he did command Christians to sing) [Wrong!], and many Churches of Christ have excelled at offering that sacrifice of praise. We frequently have visitors at our congregation from other denominations which use instruments, and they often find our unaccompanied singing to be a highlight of the occasion. "Your whole church sings like a choir," they say.

"Of course, these same Christian visitors would think us lacking both biblical and logical support -- and rightly so -- if they heard us condemning instrumental music [Wrong!], or denouncing other Christians who interpret the scriptural data as allowing (or even encouraging) its use.

"A Capella singing is our tradition [Wrong!] and we might decide it deserves continuation as our regular practice. If we do it well, we might even commend it to others, at least part of the time. However, we must learn to distinguish between our own traditions and the clear Word of God.

And we ought to give thanks to God, it seems to me, for the gifts of instrumental music which most others of his children offer him also as a gift of devotion and praise. [Wrong!]

We do not all have to be alike. If you don't believe God loves variety, just go visit the nearest zoo. See Edward's defense of music.

Speaking of the religious ritual condemned by Amos and others we note that:

"The marzeah had an extremely long history extending at least from the 14th century B.C. through the Roman period. In the 14th century B.C., it was prominently associated with the ancient Canaanite city of Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra), on the coast of Syria... The marzeah was a pagan ritual that took the form of a social and religious association... Some scholars regard the funerary marzeah as a feast for--and with--deceased ancestors (or Rephaim, a proper name in the Bible for the inhabitants of Sheol)." (King, Biblical Archaeological Review, Aug, 1988, p. 35, 35) ---- "These five elements are: (1) reclining or relaxing, (2) eating a meat meal, (3) singing with harp or other musical accompaniment, (4) drinking wine and (5) anointing oneself with oil." (King, p. 37).

"With the wine-drinking (which is the literal meaning of the Hebrew for feasting), went music and dancing." (Heaton, E. W., Everyday Life in Old Testament times, Scribners, p. 93)

"Worship was form more than substance; consequently, conduct in the marketplace was totally unaffected by worship in the holy place. Amos spoke from the conviction that social justice is an integral part of the Mosaic covenant, which regulates relations not only between God and people, but also among people." (King, p. 44).

"In pagan traditions, musical instruments are invented by gods or demi-gods, such as titans. In the Bible, credit is assigned to antediluvian patriarchs, for example, the descendants of Cain in Genesis 4:21. There is no other biblical tradition about the invention of musical instruments." (Freedman, David Noel, Bible Review, Summer 1985, p. 51).

The definition of the organ as a "machine for doing hard work" is used of Jubal: the word HANDLED means WITHOUT AUTHORITY.

The Bible says that LUCIFER brought musical instruments into the garden of Eden to wholly seduce Eve. The SERPENT is defined as a Musical Enchanter.

Jack Guess, Baptist, The Argument From Silence is Used by Instrumentalists

"Some, in trying to get around the plain New Testament teaching on the type of music to be used in the church, have endeavored to argue from silence.

"According to this method, because the New Testament does not say,

"Thou shalt not use the instrument,"
and since there is no express condemnation of the practice,
it must be acceptable to God.

"This is a false conclusion derived from the erroneous premise that the silence of the word of God is as much a guide for men as its positive commands. In other words, some wrongly believe that a thing is all right for worship unless explicitly forbidden. But it can easily be demonstrated that this type of reasoning will not work.

The clergy with Judas the "inside agent" managed to get Jesus crucified because this was the will of God. However, they did not triumph over Him by forcing Him into the effeminate dancing and singing while they played the wind instruments. Click For More.

The Jewish clergy, whom Jesus fired, placed the blame on Jesus. And when Paul preached the true gospel which included doctrine (whatever Jesus taught or inspired), the "on the make" clergy claimed that he was the troublemaker.

Don't be surprised that if you use the Bible to object to the most obscene and effeminate forms of worship you will be branded as sowing discord for objecting. Hitler would have said no less and Jesus suffered no less. After all, being a disciple of Jesus does not mean that you too will not have to stand in the gap while the girls dance all over you emotionally. Even physical violence will show up in being functionally disfelowshiped for questioning "god's annointeds." So, get used to it.

Kenneth Sublett

Promise Keepers

Musical Worship Index

Home Page


Counter added 12.18.04 4:40p 2794 Rev 5.28.07 826  4.05.07 6000 1.03.10 6140

<img src="/cgi-bin/Count.cgi?df=piney/counter_MuGuilt.html.dat">