What's Wrong With Solos? - Page 2

Semper Fidelis · #41 (**permalink**) 09-07-2007, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdlongmire

Quote:

1 Corinthians 14:26
What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.

In category - a lesson and an interpretation (reckon that is exegesis he is referring to here?

) is taught solo - even if you reject the other elements as a cessationist - he is still talking solos not corporate, here - all approved for building up - so singing a hymn (however that is defined) solo is approved for corporate worship.

Did you actually read the context of that verse before you quoted it, J.D.? I'm actually really shocked you just completely saw in that verse a thing that Paul was commending. In fact, he is condemning the Corinthians for the fact that this is what characterizes their worship - it is disorganized. You actually are advocating that everybody brings to Church their own songs, lessons, interpretations, etc and just pipes in whenever they feel like it. This is what Paul is referring to above.

panta dokimazete · #42 (**permalink**) 09-07-2007, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdlongmire

Quote:

1 Corinthians 14:26
What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.

In category - a lesson and an interpretation (reckon that is exegesis he is referring to here?

) is taught solo - even if you reject the other elements as a cessationist - he is still talking solos not corporate, here - all approved for building up - so singing a hymn (however that is defined) solo is approved for corporate worship.

Did you actually read the context of that verse before you quoted it, J.D.? I'm actually really shocked you just completely saw in that verse a thing that Paul was commending. In fact, he is condemning the Corinthians for the fact that this is what characterizes their worship - it is disorganized. You actually are advocating that everybody brings to Church their own songs, lessons, interpretations, etc and just pipes in whenever they feel like it. This is what Paul is referring to above.

Rich - is he really condemning or prohibiting the elements he is describing, or is his condemnation directed toward the manner in which they are practiced?

I seriously doubt that the early church was as stratified and formalized as we are today, but even today we still have music leaders, teachers, interpreters of Scripture and each one, not every one brings what they have to offer. And they are commended if they build up the body and follow this directive:

Quote:

40 But all things should be done decently and in order.

I am not advocating anything - I am describing the text.

Peace, brother...shocked, indeed...your tone is shocking - I doubt you would speak this way to me in person - I certainly hope you don't teach this way.

Semper Fidelis · #43 (**permalink**) 09-07-2007, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdlongmire

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdlongmire

In category - a lesson and an interpretation (reckon that is exegesis he is referring to here?

) is taught solo - even if you reject the other elements as a cessationist - he is still talking solos not corporate, here - all approved for building up - so singing a hymn (however that is defined) solo is approved for corporate worship.

Did you actually read the context of that verse before you quoted it, J.D.? I'm actually really shocked you just completely saw in that verse a thing that Paul was commending. In fact, he is condemning the Corinthians for the fact that this is what characterizes their worship - it is disorganized. You actually are advocating that everybody brings to Church their own songs, lessons, interpretations, etc and just pipes in whenever they feel like it. This is what Paul is referring to above.

Rich - is he really condemning or prohibiting the elements he is describing, or is his condemnation directed toward the manner in which they are practiced?

J.D.,

Which is it? Is he advocating that each person bring a lesson and a hymn and a tongue individually to Church or is he not? You quoted the verse as meaning that Paul is telling people they should be doing this and presented the verse as a command for the practice. Does the verse support people individually bringing these things to the Church or doesn't it?

Quote:

I seriously doubt that the early church was as stratified and formalized as we are today, but even today we still have music leaders, teachers, interpreters of Scripture and each one, not every one brings what they have to offer. And they are commended if they build up the body and follow this directive:

Quote:

40 But all things should be done decently and in order.

What does "stratification" have to do with the exegesis of the text. What does Paul intend to say here? Is he advocating individuals bringing lessons, tongues, and songs in this verse or is he not. What does the exegesis of the text demand?

Quote:

I am not advocating anything - I am describing the text.

You described it by saying that Paul's intent behind the passage was that individuals doing what you quoted were "...all approved for building up...." Is that what the exegesis of the passage demands?

Quote:

Peace, brother...shocked, indeed...your tone is shocking - I doubt you would speak this way to me in person - I certainly hope you don't teach this way.

I would speak to you this way in person and I do teach this way. I want people to be careful in their use of Scripture. There is no need to be insulted or shocked by somebody when they ask you to back up the exegesis of a text. The verses that surround this text and this text especially are classic texts that teach against disorder and individualism in worship. The verses are railing against self-edification and self-promotion. They can hardly be used to establish a positive command for solo singing.

My shock was and is warranted on this point. I would hope you don't think that a careless treatment of the Scriptures should be greeted with a yawn or disinterest from someone who loves the Word. I would hope that someone who, in like manner, loves the Word would want to extend their remarks, show the surrounding context, and demonstrate that what they stated is supported by the text rather than get offended. Do you believe Arminians are warranted at being offended when you try to contextualize their quoting of John 3:16?

If you have an argument for the positive command of solos from this verse then please demonstrate that I am missing a key element here. I just taught on 1 Corinthians last week and I see nothing in this text that remotely sees Paul as advocating these things. Rather, he is describing what they are doing and telling them that they're wrong for doing it. How can that be turned into a warrant for any positive command?

panta dokimazete · #44 (**permalink**) 09-07-2007, 09:32 PM

I formally exit this this thread - so long and thanks for all the fish.

Semper Fidelis · #45 (**permalink**) 09-07-2007, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdlongmire

Hold on - not "should be", Rich - ARE - I am saying he is describing common elements in early church worship - at least at this church. He does not prohibit ANY of these elements. Does he? He tacitly APPROVES the practices, just not the manner in which they are performed.

No J.D. he does not approve the practices. This you have not established. You have quoted a verse and I frankly don't know where you're conceiving of this stuff about "early church worship" and Paul organizing for the Corinthians in some sort of democratic way.

Would you please produce one NT scholar or commentator that agrees with your exegesis of this passage? It is so novel that I really don't have time to undo everything you just wrote. The very point of 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 is to rail against self-edification. The very context of the passage is to rail against disorder. The very point of Paul against the tongues speaking is that something that is done to self-edify in the Church is not from God. When Pentecostals read these passages about tongues edifying themselves they miss Paul's complete point: nothing should be done for self-edification. The Church is completely out of control and the passage you quoted is Paul saying that the idea that everyone is coming with a teaching, a tongue, a prophesy, and an interpretation is completely out of control.

Quote:

Now, I know you are a cessationist, so I made allowances for your position. You reject the modern practice of tongues and I think you would deny prophetic utterances while allowing for "prophecy" and potentially "interpretation" to include Scriptural exposition.

But, if you were reading the passage in context you would see, as I noted, that Paul is condemning there tongue-speaking as "self-edifiying". Nothing in worship is for the self. Disorder is in view here. I don't know what to do here J.D. because the passage is so obviously condemning worship where everybody is just out of control. People showing up early, eating all the bread, drinking all the wine, everybody has a tongue, everybody has a teaching, everyone a prophesy, everyone a song, etc. In short, it's like modern Pentecostal worship where everyone is "...led by the spirit..." but Paul says that it's not the Spirit that produces this caucophony.

Quote:

That being said, I know you would **at least** support the practice of singing and teaching (preaching) within worship, so these elements are supported, if not explicitly here, then certainly by the clear teaching of Scripture.

Of course, but it's the contextual use of this Scripture to establish something. You're even using it to establish a notion of a "primitive Church" that didn't believe in congregational worship. Where are you getting this from? I honestly have no idea.

Quote:

Now - the passage is clearly indicating that EACH ONE, not EVERY ONE brings some or all of these elements when they gather together. Who are the EACH ONEs? Certainly he is not acknowledging ALL, since he clearly excludes women from acceptable practice. Is it EVERY MAN in the gathering EVERY TIME they meet? I don't see that, and neither do you.

Yes, I do see that everyone is speaking and out of control and this is what Paul is railing against. He's telling women, in fact, to be quiet because they're the one's talking too. Isn't it fascinating that in the Pentecostal Churches, those who prophesy the most are the women. They also have a lot of women pastors. Contextually, this is exactly the problem: that everyone (or practically everyone) is just going into worship and doing their own thing. You'd have to jump right into 1 Cor 14 and miss the first 13 Chapters, especially Chapters 11-12, to miss this obvious problem.

Quote:

Anyway, this is beside the point - my point was that Paul was CLEARLY contextualizing in these verses that these elements mentioned were commonly practiced solo.

In violation of the way they were supposed to be practiced.

Quote:

Maybe not EXCLUSIVELY, certainly in the case of singing, but clearly solo in this context. Thus for the elements we would both agree are still relevant for the church today - these elements may be performed solo as long as they are done decently and in order - for building up.

No, that is completely improper because you have exegeted the passage improperly.

Quote:

That is, unless you contend they were teaching and preaching congregationally? We both know that is not the case. You are interpreting these Scriptures based on your own programmed biases.

Are you referring to this "programmed bias":

Quote:

Ephesians 4
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you[a] all.
Spiritual Gifts

7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore He says:

“ When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”[b]

9 (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first[c] descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)
11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;

Are you saying that Paul only appointed Elders in Ephesus but not in Corinth? Are you saying that discord was normative for the "primitive Church" of Corinth but a more "structured" form of worship and intent was evolved by the time Paul wrote to the Ephesians? What, exactly, are you arguing for here?

Quote:

I am shocked that you have trouble seeing this...well, I guess, not really, since you contend I am a careless handler of Scripture, anything I propose is suspect.

You've seen my PM. Review the rules again as to who the burden of proof for a-confessional mattters falls upon. My patience is running thin in this thread. In this case I do believe your handling of the Scriptures is extremely careless. Now, you can be offended by this but if you can produce a single NT scholar that remotely agrees with your novel presentation here then I'd like to see it.

PuritanCovenanter · #46 (**permalink**) 09-07-2007, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Peace, brother...shocked, indeed...your tone is shocking - I doubt you would speak this way to me in person - I certainly hope you don't teach this way.

This comment was totally uncalled for. And I think Rich made some good points and just wanted a fair response. Eisegesis seems to be leavening the lump here. And I don't think it is Rich doing it.

victorbravo · #47 (**permalink**) 09-08-2007, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Covenant Joel

I do have one more fundamental question that I'm not sure anyone has brought up yet, one that has puzzled me for a while. Why do we automatically assume that the injunction in verse 15 is for corporate worship? There doesn't appear to me to be any sure indication that the text is referring to corporate worship.

Joel, I'd answer that simply: nobody is using this verse to command corporate worship. We'd look for that elsewhere and cumulatively. Still, it obviously assumes corporate worship because the things mentioned can only be done corporately.

The point of discussing this passage was not to prove corporate worship or that solo singing is prohibited. Rather, it was to show that a plain reading indicates that singing was corporate. As was pointed out elsewhere, under the regulative principle, we don't go looking for express prohibitions. (And I don't think you are demanding this).

Quote:

I may be mistaken on this, but does a reciprocal pronoun necessitate that the activity all take place at the same time?

I think this isn't actually the point. I'm not advocating that everything takes place at the same time, merely that whatever they are doing, they are doing together.

Quote:

But everyone's role may be slightly different, yes? Even when involved in the same general pattern of activities?

Certainly, in the sense that I sing baritone and my wife sings alto. The analogy I used was not meant to really imply that a congregation was a "team" with quarterbacks and linemen. I sort of regret using it. But still, to the extent that there are people directing things to maintain order (elders, for example), I think the analogy works.

Quote:

Perhaps neither you nor I is exegetically capable of commenting on this part, but even though it does seem clear that a corporate action is described, does that mean that it necessarily requires corporate singing (all voices in unison at once)? It seems that it could be a general corporate instruction to sing, while not defining whether that happens as a big choir, or with singing done in different ways at different times.

I'm sure there is an exegetical rule equivalent to the medical diagnostic rule: "when you hear hoofbeats, think first of horses, not zebras." It's really a matter of taking the text at face value. People clearly are gathered, they clearly are told to sing. Nothing further is given, nothing further needs to be read into it. If we think of everbody singing as a body, we are thinking horses. If we say, "well the passage doesn't prohibit special music," we are thinking zebras--introducing something new that isn't supported by evidence.

Finally, I was thinking about this on my commute home. The church in Collosae apparently wasn't having the problems that Corinth was having. Paul was encouraging them in what they were doing. He didn't need to set out detailed instructions. Among other things, he told them to sing together.

Quote:

I don't have an agenda here. Indeed, I am somewhat cautious of the "let's have special music" mindset. But then again, I also want to not say more than the text does. Nor less.

I hope that is all I've done too.