Do Church of Christ Believe....

[jesusfreak0791]

that you will go to Hell for using instruments in church?

[- DRA -]

that you will go to Hell for using instruments in church?

While I can speak only for myself, I will share with you what I believe about this particular topic. We are told what to do to please God in passages such as Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16, and James 5:13. Acts 16:25 is an example of two Christians doing what these passages teach. Therefore, I believe those who have faith in God, sincerely desire to please Him, obey Him, and are continually thankful for the grace He extends to us won't have to be anxious over being rejected by Him and being condemned to hell.

[cremi]

that you will go to Hell for using instruments in church?Many do believe that, but many don't. Depends on which congregation you attend and how conservative or progressive they are.

[crawfish]

I think there's a small, very vocal (and combative) minority who believe it, a larger group who would deny it and an even larger group who simply stays silent on it.

There is no overall "CofC" doctrine where all such things are spelled out. The more conservative/legalistic churches believe that and many other such absolutes. My CofC has an instrumental service.

[jesusfreak0791]

Thanks you guys. This has been a really big question for me towards the COC. I've heard many things about the COC and was just wanting to get it cleared up.

[AJB4]

About 20% probably do think that those who use instruments go to hell, as they are the same figure who think that they're the only true Christians. With the RM forums here, I doubt that you'll find too much uniformity on various issues such as these. Generally, the RM agrees on church autonomy, believers baptism, and weekly communion. Beyond that, it's every man for himself.

To be honest, I think it's disgusting. Certainly not what Jesus intended (i.e. 1 Corinthians 1:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=1&verse=10&version=9&context=verse)). ;)

[Splayd]

In my 20+ years of attending and preaching at various Churches of Christ... I've personally only come across 2 people that might suggest as much. 1 of them in the forums (whose never said so explicitely and may just be misunderstood by me) and the other is a "missionary" from the US who "planted" a church in our town, where there already is a CofC (but we use instruments ;)). Incidentally, he's been here for 10 years (I think) and his church peaked at 5 members (including him and his wife).

[AJB4]

In my 20+ years of attending and preaching at various Churches of Christ... I've personally only come across 2 people that might suggest as much. 1 of them in the forums (whose never said so explicitely and may just be misunderstood by me) and the other is a "missionary" from the US who "planted" a church in our town, where there already is a CofC (but we use instruments ;)). Incidentally, he's been here for 10 years (I think) and his church peaked at 5 members (including him and his wife).
LOL Splayd. Two thumbs up for you. :D

[hugheschase9]

St least 20% of people think that but I don't. Who ever believes in god therefore should not go to Hell.:amen:

[WesWoodell]

that you will go to Hell for using instruments in church?

No.

[OneInTheLordJC]

There have been many threads about this particular subject as it pertains to the Church of Christ. There have been good arguments on both sides. And the CoC is not the only church that doesn’t use instruments. But there was one answer on this thread that I felt was hateful to the more conservative belief.

About 20% probably do think that those who use instruments go to hell, as they are the same figure who think that they're the only true Christians.

Where did you come up with your statistic? It looks like you are making the assumption that there are only a few and that they are exclusive people. (By the way, all Christians are exclusive to a point. You have to be a follower of Christ to be a Christian, and that does cut some people out! J)

To be honest, I think it's disgusting. Certainly not what Jesus intended (i.e. 1 Corinthians 1:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=1&verse=10&version=9&context=verse)).

The division he was referring to was because there were “contentions” among members. People were coming to church mad at each other. Although, I do agree that a church body should have the same core beliefs, it is not what you believe that dictates what is right, but what the Bible says on the subject.

Forgive me if I was misled by your statements. I don’t think anything bad about you, I just read into anger for your fellow brothers and sisters, which I truly hope is not there. I just wanted to clear up some of the things that you said.

[annie1speed]

Nicely put!

[Splayd]

Yeah - I'm really not sure about AJ's stat's either or where they come from... BUT in fairness to AJ - there are some CofC's who actually believe they are the only Christians and it sounds like his own church is one of them. Ackowledging their beliefs isn't hateful and repeating them isn't causing division... the church is doing that on it's own.

As I relayed earlier - there is a very small church in my town that feels that way. They honestly teach that of the dozen (or so) churches in our town, they alone are the only true christians. The reason our church isn't christian: instruments. To suggest that the rest of us are the ones causing division is kinda silly.

To be honest - the real challenge for me was to recognise that this church's beliefs aren't indicative of all non-IM churches. As this was the only non-IM church I was aware of for some time, there was a natural tendency to assume all others were like that. I know better now - mostly through this forum. For someone like AJ, who attends a church like that, it would be an even bigger challenge... BUT recognising that "only 20%" are like that (however arbitary the figure) is certainly a start towards trying to make sense of it all, rather than anything malicious.

Peace

[JDIBe]

"24% of all statistics are made up just to prove a point." :)

[AJB4]

Where did you come up with your statistic? It looks like you are making the assumption that there are only a few and that they are exclusive people. (By the way, all Christians are exclusive to a point. You have to be a follower of Christ to be a Christian, and that does cut some people out! J)

I didn't really come up with that statistic. It's what I've read elsewhere. It's just an estimate. Of course I'm not sure if it's a true statistic.

The division he was referring to was because there were “contentions” among members. People were coming to church mad at each other. Although, I do agree that a church body should have the same core beliefs, it is not what you believe that dictates what is right, but what the Bible says on the subject.

Forgive me if I was misled by your statements. I don’t think anything bad about you, I just read into anger for your fellow brothers and sisters, which I truly hope is not there. I just wanted to clear up some of the things that you said.

You may have noticed in my post that you quoted was that there was a wink. I would have thought that was an indication that it was a joke.

BTW, I am angry. I'm angry that I've been raised my entire life in a church that sincerely teaches that they are the only group of people on this earth who are saved, and I am angry over the inner distress this has caused me over the past year. I'm also angry that whenever I try and question it, they try and tell me that "I don't believe in God" or "I don't believe in scripture" or that "I'm denying the Lord". I'm hoping, however, that Jesus Christ is worth the struggle.

OneInTheLordJC, just out of curiosity, do you think that those using instruments in church will go to hell, and do you think that only those part of the non-instrumental CoC will be saved?

[OneInTheLordJC]

Sorry, this is long...

I am truly sorry for the way that your church behaves when you ask them legitimate questions about faith and doctrine. I don’t know what would prompt them to say such things when you ask them reasonable questions. Usually when people are in that type of discussion and they don’t have a sound argument for what they believe (meaning that they are only comfortable in what they were taught and to question that belief might shake the foundation of their whole perspective) they will make dramatic proclamations about things.
I don’t think that answering yes or no to the question you prompted me is going to be suffice in truly telling you what I believe. Sometimes you believe something so hard until you come across an exception to the rule or simply just a situation where your answer that you have held on to so dearly doesn’t seem to make sense anymore. I grew up in a conservative CoC where none of its members even questioned the lack of instruments. I just thought that we simply did not use them. It set us apart from Baptists or Methodists or Catholics in the area. I never thought it to be a salvation issue.
I, of course, went to a conservative CoC college (guess as you will) and my rebellion was to go to churches with instrumental worship. I mean, it can’t hurt, can it? Then I came across the argument against instrumental worship. There’s a certain website (by a primitive Baptist church if you can believe that) http://www.albatrus.org/english/church-order/worship/instrumental%20_music_in_nt_worship.htm (http://javascript<b></b>:ol('http://www.albatrus.org/english/church-order/worship/instrumental%2520_music_in_nt_worship.htm');).
It had very sound reasoning why instruments are not used in the worship service. I could go into the several different reasons, but you can read the website, it’s pretty well-written.
Do I think you are going to go to hell if you use instruments in worship? Is it right for me to dictate whether one person goes to heaven or another goes to hell? No. Do I think it’s wrong to use instruments in a worship service? Yes. I think that it’s risky to do something that is not what the apostolic church used. I have personally seen churches “go that route” and get lost on the wrong path. In my experiences, the issue isn’t just the instruments, but there was usually other thoughts and beliefs behind it as well.
Honestly, both sides need balance. Churches shouldn’t be crude when sharing beliefs, and people shouldn’t be assuming that the whole “20%” behave in the same fashion. Ultimately, what I believe plus a nickel is worth five cents. It’s what the Bible says that we should truly come together and understand. I hope you find a church that accepts you and loves you for the family that you are.
Peace.

[SEA89]

i don't really agree with using instruments in the church, but i do belive that it wouldn't hurt your chances of going to heaven

[Apollos1]

The RM was established upon the premise of Bible authority – having “Bible” for everything that you teach and practice in religion.

Simply put, “We shall speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent.” This was applied to the worship and work of the church.

In Matthew 28:18-20 it was recognized that Jesus Christ had been given ALL authority in ALL places (heaven and earth). That didn’t leave any for me or anyone else. What Jesus say – goes!

The matter of instrumental music involves the worship of the church. Outside of scripture we don’t know how to worship God, or even that He wants to be worshipped, unless God has revealed that to us in His word.

In the matter of the specific type of music God authorizes in scripture, I believe God has authorized vocal music only in worship - Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16.

If there are scriptures that some believe authorize mechanical music in worship, they should present those scriptures for consideration. But typically, no appeal is made to Bible authority for instrumental music to be used in worship… opinion and rationalization usually prevail. I can at least have some respect for those that offer scripture for what they practice, even if I disagree with them.

I don’t spend my time condemning people to Gehenna. God alone will be the Judge of all men - I don't intend to stick my nose into His end of business. But because I believe that instruments of music can not be authorized by scripture, I believe that using such puts their eternal soul at risk. Simply put, God never gave permission to use instruments!

In everything we teach and practice in religion, we are to have His authority – Colossians 3:17.

(Aside: When Noah entered the ark unto the saving of his house, I doubt the small number (8 people) made him want to stay out.)

[crawfish]

Apollos1 -

I also don't see where the Bible authorizes church buildings. Or pews. Or crackers instead of bread. Or youth ministers. Or four-part harmonies.

At some point, you have to ask yourself, "if it was so important to God, then why didn't He make it more clear?"

The problems I see with instruments actually have nothing to do with instruments themselves. They can become a distraction, a way to focus on things other than the Gospel, a matter of pride, materialism, and many other such sinful things; but you don't need instruments to have those things anyway. I've seen many "doctrinally correct" CofC's who justify their own sins by looking down on what they perceive are the sins of others.

[ParsonJefferson]

There is, of course, also very sound reasoning behind the use of instruments in worship.

It really comes down to the question of whether or not the silence of Scripture means something is prohibited.

The acappella brethren feel silence means it IS prohibited, while others of of us feel becomes a matter of discernment. We do hold to the Restoration Movement plea of "Where the Scripture speaks, we speak. Where the Scripture is silent, we are silent."

The favorite Scriptures cited - on both sides of the aisle - are not conclusive.

There are many things used for & during modern worship that the New Testament does not say we should use - nor direct us to use. Still, we use them. For instance, we are not explicitly told to use electronic sound systems, communion trays or cups, pews, hymnals, etc.


Personally, I have found that it comes down to a pointless argument that we waste far too much time on.

[ParsonJefferson]

Apollos1 -

I also don't see where the Bible authorizes church buildings. Or pews. Or crackers instead of bread. Or youth ministers. Or four-part harmonies.

At some point, you have to ask yourself, "if it was so important to God, then why didn't He make it more clear?"

The problems I see with instruments actually have nothing to do with instruments themselves. They can become a distraction, a way to focus on things other than the Gospel, a matter of pride, materialism, and many other such sinful things; but you don't need instruments to have those things anyway. I've seen many "doctrinally correct" CofC's who justify their own sins by looking down on what they perceive are the sins of others.

Good points. Thank you.

[Apollos1]

Hi crawfish –

You said - I also don't see where the Bible authorizes church buildings. Or pews. Or crackers instead of bread. Or youth ministers. Or four-part harmonies.


Whether you know this or not, what you are saying is that YOU have lots of things and do LOTS of things for which you have NO Bible authority for. THEREFORE YOU don’t have to have Bible authority for your music in worship. Is this right?

I guess one could argue the same for having a “pope” in Rome – they do and have things for which there is no authority…

Is this really the way you want to approach the authority of the scriptures?


You said - At some point, you have to ask yourself, "if it was so important to God, then why didn't He make it more clear?"

Hmmm – are you impeaching the integrity of God that He could not give man a complete and intelligible word to save him? It is clear to me (Eph. 3:4) and it is important to God (2 Peter 1:3). If there is no authority for a religious teaching or practice, then it is UNauthorized
(1 Peter 4:11, 2John9). Look up the definition of “iniquity”. Perhaps you are not aware that authority can be specific, or it can be generic.

You said - The problems I see with instruments actually have nothing to do with instruments themselves. They can become a distraction, a way to focus on things other than the Gospel, a matter of pride, materialism, and many other such sinful things…

I have the belief that God "looks" at instruments of music differently than you do. God’s wisdom is great and is probably reflected in HIS choice of the type of music He wants in worship to Him. But God did not state the WHY in His choice of music – but God did give us the WHAT, which is vocal music. No one debates that VOCAL music is correct and proper.

You said - I've seen many "doctrinally correct" CofC's who justify their own sins by looking down on what they perceive are the sins of others.

Let’s concern ourselves with the type of music God wants in worship and not how men seek to “justify” themselves outside of the word of God in reference to their sins.

Do you believe MECHANICAL music is proper in worship? If you do…

Do you have a scripture that makes you think that such is okay with God???
Or, does personal opinion and rationalization dictate how you choose to worship?

Best regards…

[Apollos1]

PJ –

You said - There is, of course, also very sound reasoning behind the use of instruments in worship.

For that reasoning to be “sound” (2 Tim. 1:13) it would have to be in accordance with God’s word. I don’t believe this can be done.

You said - It really comes down to the question of whether or not the silence of Scripture means something is prohibited.

Good point! Can you demonstrate here HOW silence authorizes anything? You will be the first to show me HOW this can be done – IF you do this.

You said - The acappella brethren feel silence means it IS prohibited…

More accurately, the acapella brethren would say that silence does not authorize, and therefore to employ such can not be “by faith”.

You continued - …while others of us feel becomes a matter of discernment.

For anything to fall into the area of expediency or discernment,
IT MUST FIRST BE AUTHORIZED!
This is a key point that must be acknowledged and the very point that Paul makes in 1 Corinthians 6:12 and 10:23.

You said - We do hold to the Restoration Movement plea of "Where the Scripture speaks, we speak. Where the Scripture is silent, we are silent."

I am not meaning to pick on you, but if you subscribe to the idea that silence puts things into an area of “discernment”, then you are NOT subscribing to the RM plea – regrets. Silence does not authorize – silence does not grant choice.

You said - The favorite Scriptures cited - on both sides of the aisle - are not conclusive.

I have been there – the scriptures ARE conclusive for any who seek Bible authority for all religious teaching and practice.

You said - There are many things used for & during modern worship that the New Testament does not say we should use - nor direct us to use.

This is the same argument that crawfish uses above. See my reply to him above.

You said - Personally, I have found that it comes down to a pointless argument that we waste far too much time on.

Personally? Wow! What "it" comes down to is…
Will we follow the Bible or NOT ???
Will we have “Bible” for all we do religiously? ---or---
Will we just have a “free-for-all” in religious matters???

It is serious… It is important. Once you do ONE thing without “Bible”, what is left to stop you?

[Splayd]

You said - The favorite Scriptures cited - on both sides of the aisle - are not conclusive.

I have been there – the scriptures ARE conclusive for any who seek Bible authority for all religious teaching and practice.That seems a tad condescending. I've been there too. I've spent countless hours working through scripture on this matter and have confidently arrived to the conclusion that IM is a matter of liberty.

You said - There are many things used for & during modern worship that the New Testament does not say we should use - nor direct us to use.

This is the same argument that crawfish uses above. See my reply to him above. Your argument is self-defeating. If we must necessarily conclude that everything's prohibited unless specifically authorised, you still need to justify the use of all the peripherals that were mentioned by AJ. More to the point, the need to justify them becomes both essential and impossible. They aren't authorised - case closed.

Peace

[BigRichard]

jeebusnation.com has the truth!

[ParsonJefferson]

PJ –

You said - There is, of course, also very sound reasoning behind the use of instruments in worship.
For that reasoning to be “sound” (2 Tim. 1:13) it would have to be in accordance with God’s word. I don’t believe this can be done.
That verse has nothing to do with the use of instruments in corporate worship. Proof-texting is neither helpful nor Biblically sound.

You said - It really comes down to the question of whether or not the silence of Scripture means something is prohibited.
Good point! Can you demonstrate here HOW silence authorizes anything? You will be the first to show me HOW this can be done – IF you do this.
That's the whole point.
Silence of Scripture does NOT - as you insist - mean something is prohibited. You CANNOT insist that without prohibiting everything imaginable.

You said - The acappella brethren feel silence means it IS prohibited…
More accurately, the acapella brethren would say that silence does not authorize, and therefore to employ such can not be “by faith”.
Silence of Scripture means either everything or nothing.
You cannot have it both ways.
Silence does NOT authorize you to use hymnals - yet you do.

You continued - …while others of us feel becomes a matter of discernment.
For anything to fall into the area of expediency or discernment,
IT MUST FIRST BE AUTHORIZED!
This is a key point that must be acknowledged and the very point that Paul makes in 1 Corinthians 6:12 and 10:23.
Interesting that you would use a verse - 1 Corinthians 6:12 - that is (in context) speaking of sexual/physical matters.
You're taking these verses out of context. This is another example of proof-texting.

You said - We do hold to the Restoration Movement plea of "Where the Scripture speaks, we speak. Where the Scripture is silent, we are silent."
I am not meaning to pick on you, but if you subscribe to the idea that silence puts things into an area of “discernment”, then you are NOT subscribing to the RM plea – regrets. Silence does not authorize – silence does not grant choice.
Once again, you're picking and choosing what you want to prohibit in corporate worship.
Where do you get your authority to use hymnals, pulpits, PA systems, pews and even printed Bibles in worship?

You said - The favorite Scriptures cited - on both sides of the aisle - are not conclusive.
I have been there – the scriptures ARE conclusive for any who seek Bible authority for all religious teaching and practice.
No, the scriptures absolutely are NOT conclusive regarding the use of instruments in corporate worship.

You said - There are many things used for & during modern worship that the New Testament does not say we should use - nor direct us to use.
This is the same argument that crawfish uses above. See my reply to him above.
Your response to Crawfish doesn't say anything.
Where do you get the authority to use hymnals, pulpits, pews, printed Bibles and various other things?

You said - Personally, I have found that it comes down to a pointless argument that we waste far too much time on.
Personally? Wow! What "it" comes down to is…
Will we follow the Bible or NOT ???
Will we have “Bible” for all we do religiously? ---or---
Will we just have a “free-for-all” in religious matters???
Your response is a perfect example of why this debate is pointless.
You are completely ignoring EVERY example of why "silence does not equal prohibition".

It is serious… It is important. Once you do ONE thing without “Bible”, what is left to stop you?
This is the very same question you must ask yourself!
You are using all manner of things in worship that are NOT called for in Scripture. What's next?


I find it interesting that though God accepted Old Testament worship that included all manner of instruments, and the book of Revelation speaks of instruments in heaven, we're supposed to believe that - for some reason - God prohibits it during the Church Age. It is also interesting that the definition for "psalms" - as used in Ephesians 5:19 - is "songs accompanied by a stringed instrument." Unless both the definition and understanding of psalms changed between the Old and New Testaments, it would seem there's evidence of Paul telling people to sing "songs accompanied by a stringed instrument."

I will not debate this matter further. What I said about this being a pointless and fruitless argument has been proven, without question, to be true.

[sidekick]

I'd like to add some thoughts. It really boils down to whether acapella or musical instruments is the kind of worship authorized. Acapella is a type of music. Instrumental, on the other hand is another type of music. I believe that using another type of something not authorized is against God's authority. For example, when Noah built the ark, he was told to use gopherwood. Is this type of wood authorized? yes. Is another type of wood authorized? no. When we partake of the emblems of the Lord's Supper, are the unleavened bread and fruit of the vine types of emblems authorized?yes. If we substitute potatoes for bread, and milk for the fruit, are these types authorized? no. So, I believe that God has given the type of music that pleases Him when He specifies singing in the NT. I know these are only 2 examples, but I hope this helps. Also, I don't believe that using a hymnal, platter, sound system, etc is not authorized. These are simply aids to fulfill the command. When we are told to teach, it doesn't matter whether it is by one-on-one, books, lectures, chalkboard, radio, or power point. These are all aids to fulfill the command to teach. Same thing goes for the church building. Basic maintenance, heating, cooling, cleaning, driveway, etc. are authorized to aid our assembly place. When we are told to baptize, we need a baptistry, heater, towels, etc. These would be aids to fulfill the command to baptize. When we are told to sing, hymnals and pitch pipe are the aids. So, in this respect, instruments would simply not aid the singing, but I believe would be another type/kind of music, hence not authorized. We can read in scripture what happens to those who do things not authorized. This is why there are so many divisions today, people want to do whatthey think pleases God, instead of what they can put their finger on. Isn't that dangerous?

[sidekick]

Another thing, since the singing is congregational, and some say that instruments are to be used, does this mean we would all have to play an instrument?

[ParsonJefferson]

I'd like to add some thoughts. It really boils down to whether acapella or musical instruments is the kind of worship authorized. Acapella is a type of music. Instrumental, on the other hand is another type of music. I believe that using another type of something not authorized is against God's authority. For example, when Noah built the ark, he was told to use gopherwood. Is this type of wood authorized? yes. Is another type of wood authorized? no. When we partake of the emblems of the Lord's Supper, are the unleavened bread and fruit of the vine types of emblems authorized?yes. If we substitute potatoes for bread, and milk for the fruit, are these types authorized? no. So, I believe that God has given the type of music that pleases Him when He specifies singing in the NT. I know these are only 2 examples, but I hope this helps. 1.) Also, I don't believe that using a hymnal, platter, sound system, etc is not authorized. These are simply aids to fulfill the command. When we are told to teach, it doesn't matter whether it is by one-on-one, books, lectures, chalkboard, radio, or power point. These are all aids to fulfill the command to teach. Same thing goes for the church building. Basic maintenance, heating, cooling, cleaning, driveway, etc. are authorized to aid our assembly place. When we are told to baptize, we need a baptistry, heater, towels, etc. These would be aids to fulfill the command to baptize. 2. When we are told to sing, hymnals and pitch pipe are the aids. So, in this respect, instruments would simply not aid the singing, but I believe would be another type/kind of music, hence not authorized. We can read in scripture what happens to those who do things not authorized. This is why there are so many divisions today, people want to do what they think pleases God, instead of what they can put their finger on. 3. Isn't that dangerous?

1. That is precisely the point, thank you. These "aids to fulfill the command" are exactly the same as instruments - in that instruments are "aids to fulfill the command" to sing praise to God.

2. Isn't a pitch-pipe a musical instrument, with varying notes that can be played?

3. Is it dangerous to use instruments in corporate worship? No - no dangerous than it would be to use instruments in personal worship, which is what we are to do daily.

[ParsonJefferson]

Another thing, since the singing is congregational, and some say that instruments are to be used, does this mean we would all have to play an instrument?

Not at all.

Would you please address the definition of Psalmos, used in Ephesians 5:19, and 1 Corinthians 14:15 (two favorite verses used by non-instrumentalists)?
The definition of Psalmos is "a striking or twitching with the fingers (on musical strings); then, a sacred song, sung to musical accopaniment, a psalm."


Why would God use silence to change the meaning of a commonly-known word, and condemn as unholy something that was commonly done by His Chosen People? This makes no sense. God has always made His commands clear. Why would He, on this one minor topic, give us a command through silence?

[sidekick]

1. That is precisely the point, thank you. These "aids to fulfill the command" are exactly the same as instruments - in that instruments are "aids to fulfill the command" to sing praise to God.

2. Isn't a pitch-pipe a musical instrument, with varying notes that can be played?

3. Is it dangerous to use instruments in corporate worship? No - no dangerous than it would be to use instruments in personal worship, which is what we are to do daily.
1. an aid is just that, an aid, not a substitution or an addition. If you change from acapella music to instrumental music, it is changing from one type to another.
2. a pitch pipe is an aid to find the correct key, and it isn't played through the whole song, unlike an instrument.
3. not all worship is pleasing to God, so we are obligated to find out what pleases Him.

[ParsonJefferson]

1. an aid is just that, an aid, not a substitution or an addition. If you change from acapella music to instrumental music, it is changing from one type to another.
2. a pitch pipe is an aid to find the correct key, and it isn't played through the whole song, unlike an instrument.
3. not all worship is pleasing to God, so we are obligated to find out what pleases Him.

With all due respect, I think you're really, really grasping at straws here.

[crawfish]

Hi crawfish –

You said - I also don't see where the Bible authorizes church buildings. Or pews. Or crackers instead of bread. Or youth ministers. Or four-part harmonies.


Whether you know this or not, what you are saying is that YOU have lots of things and do LOTS of things for which you have NO Bible authority for. THEREFORE YOU don’t have to have Bible authority for your music in worship. Is this right?

I guess one could argue the same for having a “pope” in Rome – they do and have things for which there is no authority…

Is this really the way you want to approach the authority of the scriptures?

Do you worship in a church building, rather than in each other's home? Do you do ANYTHING at worship that isn't authorized by the bible? If so, then you've drawn a line in the sand at which point you think it's "safe" to stay behind and be pleasing to God, based only on your own opinions on what God would or would not allow. Then you call heresy on somebody who draws the line somewhere else.

My position is, if it was important to God, then he would make it absolutely clear. which brings us to:

You said - At some point, you have to ask yourself, "if it was so important to God, then why didn't He make it more clear?"

Hmmm – are you impeaching the integrity of God that He could not give man a complete and intelligible word to save him? It is clear to me (Eph. 3:4) and it is important to God (2 Peter 1:3). If there is no authority for a religious teaching or practice, then it is UNauthorized
(1 Peter 4:11, 2John9). Look up the definition of “iniquity”. Perhaps you are not aware that authority can be specific, or it can be generic.

Huh? Aren't you being a little presumptuous in assuming that God doesn't want instruments? If you can't make a clear case to me USING BIBLICAL PASSAGES ONLY, then you are effectively doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of by demonizing it.



You said - The problems I see with instruments actually have nothing to do with instruments themselves. They can become a distraction, a way to focus on things other than the Gospel, a matter of pride, materialism, and many other such sinful things…

I have the belief that God "looks" at instruments of music differently than you do. God’s wisdom is great and is probably reflected in HIS choice of the type of music He wants in worship to Him. But God did not state the WHY in His choice of music – but God did give us the WHAT, which is vocal music. No one debates that VOCAL music is correct and proper.

I have never seen a compelling argument against the use of musical instruments in worship based on only biblical sources. I have seen very compelling arguments that it's OK based on only biblical sources. It seems very clear to me.

You said - I've seen many "doctrinally correct" CofC's who justify their own sins by looking down on what they perceive are the sins of others.

Let’s concern ourselves with the type of music God wants in worship and not how men seek to “justify” themselves outside of the word of God in reference to their sins.

Do you believe MECHANICAL music is proper in worship? If you do…

Do you have a scripture that makes you think that such is okay with God???
Or, does personal opinion and rationalization dictate how you choose to worship?

Best regards…

I see nothing to say God only wants a capella worship. I repeat this again. The arguments are uncompelling. By making instruments a salvation issue, you have effectively added to God's word and are in direct violation of it. My God would forgive you, but I'm not sure yours will.

This isn't Ken Sublett, is it? You sound awfully familiar (although a bit more clear than Ken tends to be).

[crawfish]

1. an aid is just that, an aid, not a substitution or an addition. If you change from acapella music to instrumental music, it is changing from one type to another.
2. a pitch pipe is an aid to find the correct key, and it isn't played through the whole song, unlike an instrument.
3. not all worship is pleasing to God, so we are obligated to find out what pleases Him.


Again...

to argue that God changed from the OT covenant to the NT covenant his views on the use of musical instruments in worship of Him through silence and a patently unclear biblical message is quite a bit out there. There are many OT laws that are superceded by NT teachings; why would God decide that this one was so clear that he didn't need to come out and say it?

[Apollos1]

Hey Splayd –

I don’t mean to be condescending or would I waste time trying to be. That is a problem with the written word – sometimes it is difficult to discern (or not) the underlying tones of comment. And it causes us to spend time on “personal” matters when I can be discussing doctrinal matters.

You said - I've spent countless hours working through scripture on this matter and have confidently arrived to the conclusion that IM is a matter of liberty.

Okay, share with me how you came to this conclusion – that having instruments of music in worship to God is a matter of liberty. You could do this by showing a passage(s) that you think authorizes such in worship, or show a passage(s) that grants such liberty in matters of worship in general. There may be other ways to illustrate such liberty from scripture – I will let you decide how to illustrate this to me. Perhaps you can use command, example, or inference?

You said - Your argument is self-defeating. If we must necessarily conclude that everything's prohibited unless specifically authorised, you still need to justify the use of all the peripherals that were mentioned by AJ. More to the point, the need to justify them becomes both essential and impossible. They aren't authorised - case closed.

I am hoping your mind is not closed – the “case” certainly isn’t.

If you will read more closely above, I mentioned that authority can be SPECIFIC or it can be GENERIC. It seems you rushed to a conclusion that I did not make – that everything must be “specifically authorized”. Now this is “self-defeating”.

Yet in all of this, you make the same inductive argument made by crawfish and PJ above – “We do things and have lots of things for which we have no authority…” and I guess this approach to scripture “authorizes” what for you religious teaching and practice?

It authorizes NOTHING! This makes NO appeal to scripture for what you practice and teach!

I hope you will take the time to share with me the information I requested above in how you came to your conclusion.

Best regards…

[Apollos1]

P-J -

Thanks for your response.

You said - That verse [2Tim. 1:13] has nothing to do with the use of instruments in corporate worship. Proof-texting is neither helpful nor Biblically sound.


I believe this passage helps define what “sound” doctrine is, although it is not the only passage that does so. The word “sound” in the passage is used figuratively to express the idea of being “true in doctrine”. You must show that the use of instruments of music in worship to God is “sound” according to God’s word. I am saying that you can NOT do this – nor have you here. You can not show “sound reasoning” for the use of instruments in worship, as I originally said.

You said - That's the whole point. Silence of Scripture does NOT - as you insist - mean something is prohibited. You CANNOT insist that without prohibiting everything imaginable.

Silence does not prohibit anything, just as I have been saying… BUT…
Silence does not AUTHORIZE. You seem to be taking the position that if something is NOT prohibited or if there is silence, then it is okay or authorized.
If we are to “live by faith” and required to have authority for all we teach and practice in religion (Colossians 3:17), you got to have some “Bible” for it.
(Oh, those bothersome “proof-texts”!)

So let me ask you again – Can you demonstrate HOW silence authorizes anything?

You said - Silence of Scripture means either everything or nothing. You cannot have it both ways. Silence does NOT authorize you to use hymnals - yet you do.

You beg the question here a bit by assuming that there is NO way to establish Bible authority for hymnals. I believe there is. But before we get into specifics, it is important that we establish what Bible authority is, how to establish it, and how “silence of the scriptures” is to be applied. How do YOU apply “silence” ???

Last time I said - For anything to fall into the area of expediency or discernment,
IT MUST FIRST BE AUTHORIZED!
This is a key point that must be acknowledged and the very point that Paul makes in
1 Corinthians 6:12 and 10:23.
(I would add that Paul says expedients must also EDIFY.)
You said - Interesting that you would use a verse - 1 Corinthians 6:12 - that is (in context) speaking of sexual/physical matters. You're taking these verses out of context. This is another example of proof-texting.

I hope that this is not an attempt to obfuscate what we are really talking about by accusing me of using scripture improperly. I am not!

Even a quick reading of the beginning of 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 shows a varied CONTEXT the first being that of “going to law” against a brother.
In verse 8 Paul shifts gears to talk about those who will not inherit the kingdom of God mentioning all types of sins – which are NOT limited to just “sexual matters”.
In verse 11 Paul reminds the Corinthians how they had been washed, sanctified, and justified from those sins.
And in verse 12 Paul speaks in regards to expediency and edification. “All things” covers more than that sexual/physical matters.
In verse 13 Paul discourses in reference to fornication.

So please, before you incorrectly tell someone else they have taken a passage “out of context”, take the time to review the passage(s) for a better understanding of the context.

You said -Once again, you're picking and choosing what you want to prohibit in corporate worship.
Where do you get your authority to use hymnals, pulpits, PA systems, pews and even printed Bibles in worship?

This is startling – that you are using things for which you think there is NO authority for. We started this discussion with your saying that there was “sound reasoning” for using instruments of music in worship. Where is your support for that? You obviously believe that NONE of these need Bible authority. So YOUR position is clear! NO Bible authority is needed.

But to ease your mind, let’s take one example you listed and show how Bible authority can be established for the practice.

Hymnals – Christians are told to SING psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs – Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16.

The passages authorize a TYPE of music – VOCAL. All others TYPES are excluded.
The passages authorize a TYPE of song – psalms/hymns/spiritual songs. All other TYPES are excluded.
Unless there is another passage(s) giving further authorization, only VOCAL music of PSALMS/HYMNS/Spiritual SONGS are authorized.

By inference you must have psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to fulfill the directive to sing.
Hymnals provide that which is inherent in fulfilling the command – psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. An overhead projector could display them on the wall. Single pages could be passed out or the “songs” could be memorized, etc. But you must have SINGING and have psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to fulfill the directive. The “songs” are authorized, the manner of having “songs” is therefore an expedient as long as it edifies – see 1 Corinthians 6:12, 10:23 again.

But instruments of worship are a different TYPE of music, are not authorized by these passages, and therefore can not be considered even an expedient in fulfilling the directive. Instruments only “aid” someone to make a different TYPE of music. The command to sing does not necessitate instruments - only a voice.

You said -No, the scriptures absolutely are NOT conclusive regarding the use of instruments in corporate worship.

PJ, you are still welcome to present your “sound reasoning” for using instruments of music in worship to God. Where is it? Your only response has been
“Where do you get authority for blah, blah, blah…”as well as
“You are using all manner of things in worship that are NOT called for in Scripture.”

Neither of these have any appeal to Bible authority in service to God!
It is inductive reasoning and rationalization. What I do or don’t do in religious practice won’t change the authority of the Bible! Do have ANY Bible to offer for what you are practicing ???

You said - I find it interesting that though God accepted Old Testament worship that included all manner of instruments, and the book of Revelation speaks of instruments in heaven, we're supposed to believe that - for some reason - God prohibits it during the Church Age.

Lol! Not only was it given to the Jews ONLY, the OLD Testament is no longer authoritative. Perhaps you think animal sacrifices should still be offered or that having 18 wives like David would be okay today?

And we are not in heaven or creatures of heaven –are we? No, we are here on earth subject to the authority that was given to Jesus Christ – Matthew 28:18-20, Galatians 6:2. These “examples” that you have given are signs of desperation because you have nothing else to offer for "auhority"!

You said - It is also interesting that the definition for "psalms" - as used in Ephesians 5:19 - is "songs accompanied by a stringed instrument." Unless both the definition and understanding of psalms changed between the Old and New Testaments, it would seem there's evidence of Paul telling people to sing "songs accompanied by a stringed instrument."

CONTEXT (see above discussion on 1 Corinthians 6) dictates the meaning of any word used in the verse. I noticed that you gave us just part of the definition for “psalmos”. Why is that?

Strong says that “psalmos” is a sacred ode accompanied by the voice OR instrument.
Thayer gives the definition of “pslamos” as “striking, twanging; a pious song, a psalm.”
BUT – of the phrase used in these 2 passages Thayer says:
“…it is used of one who has it in his heart to sing or recite a song of the sort…”.

Given that Ephesians 3 sets the word in the context of “speaking” and “singing” and that Colossians 3 sets the context as in “teaching” and “singing” – you are going to be hard pressed to “authorize” any instruments. Will you try to do that for me?

You said - I will not debate this matter further. What I said about this being a pointless and fruitless argument has been proven, without question, to be true.

P-J, if you have no Bible authority for what you want to practice in religion, just admit it!

[sidekick]

Not at all.

Would you please address the definition of Psalmos, used in Ephesians 5:19, and 1 Corinthians 14:15 (two favorite verses used by non-instrumentalists)?
The definition of Psalmos is "a striking or twitching with the fingers (on musical strings); then, a sacred song, sung to musical accopaniment, a psalm."


Why would God use silence to change the meaning of a commonly-known word, and condemn as unholy something that was commonly done by His Chosen People? This makes no sense. God has always made His commands clear. Why would He, on this one minor topic, give us a command through silence?
You are right, God has always made His commandments clear. I am not a Greek scholar,but many sources say that psallo means to sing, like verses Rom 15:9 or 1 Cor 14:15. In Eph. 5:19 , I found psalmos,which you defined, however, in this case, the instrument is specified in Eph 5:19, which is the human heart, not a mechanical instrument.

[ParsonJefferson]

You are right, God has always made His commandments clear. I am not a Greek scholar,but many sources say that psallo means to sing, like verses Rom 15:9 or 1 Cor 14:15. In Eph. 5:19 , I found psalmos,which you defined, however, in this case, the instrument is specified in Eph 5:19, which is the human heart, not a mechanical instrument.

A Psalm psalmos is clearly defined - and that IS the Greek word used in Ephesians 5:19. There is no etymological evidence that the "instrument" used for psalmos ever changed from a physical instrument - such as a harp - to a symbolic instrument, such as a person's heart.

[ParsonJefferson]

Sound reasoning for instruments in worship:

1. God accepted the worship, accompanied by instruments, in the Old Testament. NOWHERE is it stated that the God, who never changes, changed His mind about that. Additionally, we see heavenly worship - with harps - mentioned in Revelation. Why would something that was accepted by God in OT times, and will be accepted by Him in heaven, be prohibited here and now?

2. The meaning of the word Psalm psalmos clearly is "a song accompanied by a stringed instrument." This IS the word used in Ephesians 5:19. And to say that the meaning of the word somehow magically changed, between the OT and NT, is to force something we have absolutely no etymological or historical evidence for.

3. God has ALWAYS been very clear about His commands, His invitations, and His prohibitions. He tells us what He wants us to do. He tells us what He does NOT want us to do. Why would God suddenly "sneak this one through" concerning a sudden change of mind, concerning musical accompaniment? If congregational singing with musical accompaniment was some sort of sin, God would have told us so. Saying "Silence = Prohibition" is absurd.

[crawfish]

"Authorize" is a key to this entire debate. Are we ONLY allowed to worship in a way that is overtly authorized? Or has God defined a template for worship that we are to follow in a culturally relevant way?

I believe the latter. God doesn't directly address corporate worship in the NT; the passages used to prove the no-instrument policy have no corporate distinction. Again, why would God supercede OT law with silence and clearly ambiguous wording in the NT?

[sidekick]

Again...

to argue that God changed from the OT covenant to the NT covenant his views on the use of musical instruments in worship of Him through silence and a patently unclear biblical message is quite a bit out there. There are many OT laws that are superceded by NT teachings; why would God decide that this one was so clear that he didn't need to come out and say it?
God is the one who commanded the use of mechanical instruments in the OT 2 Chron. 29:25, and we can see the example set forth. In the NT, I only find the word sing. I can find no scripture of the early church using instruments, and no implication.

[crawfish]

God gave laws about clean & unclean meat in the OT.

In Acts 10:14, he says "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

God has superseded the OT law.

You can apply this to quite a few OT laws. The Sabbath, animal sacrifice, etc. etc. etc.

With these clear examples, why would God choose to supersede another law with ambiguous, out-of-context comments if he really wanted us to worship sans musical instruments?

The lack of instrumental use in early churches is the only real compelling argument about leaving them out. However, without CLEAR bible instruction, I'd have to put that down to cultural issues and NOT to salvation issues. Do you really think God is judging us based on our knowledge of cultural archeology?

[sidekick]

"Authorize" is a key to this entire debate. Are we ONLY allowed to worship in a way that is overtly authorized? Or has God defined a template for worship that we are to follow in a culturally relevant way?

I believe the latter. God doesn't directly address corporate worship in the NT; the passages used to prove the no-instrument policy have no corporate distinction. Again, why would God supercede OT law with silence and clearly ambiguous wording in the NT?
Do you tell your children everything they are NOT supposed to do? It doesn't make logical sense. For example:
Dad to child> "I didn't say you could stay the night at so-and-so's house; wash the cat; drive the car" etc.
Child to Dad>"You didn't say I couldn't, either!" We live according to positive authority, not negative. Same goes for God's Word. If He wants us to do something He will tell us and that's it. I believe we are ONLY authorized to worship from overt statutes. I don't believe culture has any effect on it either, because God's Word is the standard.
Please define "coporate" worship.

[Apollos1]

Hey crawfish –
Thank you for your reply.

You asked - Do you worship in a church building, rather than in each other's home?
Yes I do.
Do you do ANYTHING at worship that isn't authorized by the bible?
No I don’t! I haven’t drawn any lines in the sand.

Do you do anything that YOU think is not authorized by scripture for your religious teaching or practice? It appears you think you do – and yet, you are okay with that. I guess “Bible authority” and the RM plea have no true appeal or meaning to you.

You said - My position is, if it was important to God, then he would make it absolutely clear.
I choose to place my faith in God and His word, not in opinion. Upon what scripture(s) do you base your “position” above?

Which scripture tells you that “if it was important to God, then he would make it absolutely clear” ??? You have an opinion - do you have a verse for it ???
Is this your approach to Bible authority?

You said - Aren't you being a little presumptuous in assuming that God doesn't want instruments? If you can't make a clear case to me USING BIBLICAL PASSAGES ONLY, then you are effectively doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of by demonizing it.

The NT is quite clear that VOCAL music is okay – even YOU agree! What you and no one else here in this forum can do is illustrate from scripture that INSTUMENTS are okay! You, Slayd, and P-J have not shown me ONE verse to show that it is okay to have instruments of music in worship! Why is that?! And you think that I am presumptuous? Hardly! Where are YOUR passages for mechanical music in worship???

You said - I have never seen a compelling argument against the use of musical instruments in worship based on only biblical sources.
You have now.
You said - I have seen very compelling arguments that it's OK based on only biblical sources. It seems very clear to me.
And I am still waiting to see it. Where is it? How many times must I ask you for it?

You said - I see nothing to say God only wants a capella worship.
I asked for the scripture you think makes instruments okay in worship. I “see” nothing”…

You said - By making instruments a salvation issue, you have effectively added to God's word and are in direct violation of it. My God would forgive you, but I'm not sure yours will.

It is a “salvation” issue if obeying and worshipping God in the way He has directed is important to Him. How have I “added” to His word by doing what He has plainly stated for me to do? Even YOU agree! Again, VOCAL music is not in question, but rather the instruments of music you “add” without authority. You must have none, otherwise I am certain you would have presented it by now.

If YOU have “Bible” for ALL that you teach and practice in religion, WHERE IS IT???

Addition:

Crawfish said to sidekick above…

Again...to argue that God changed from the OT covenant to the NT covenant his views on the use of musical instruments in worship of Him through silence and a patently unclear biblical message is quite a bit out there. There are many OT laws that are superceded by NT teachings; why would God decide that this one was so clear that he didn't need to come out and say it?

Is this the best you can do to “authorize” mechanical music in God’s worship? Lol!
I guess your argument is “They had under the Old, therefore we got it under the New!” ??? Prove you point!

If the OLD testament teaches anything, it teaches how God deals with man, that God keeps His word, and that God always provides a way for the faithful!

Silence did not authorize “strange fire”.

Lev. 10:1-2 – Because “strange fire” was offered on the altar, which God commanded them not, Nadab and Abihu were killed.

Silence did not authorize different actions.

Numbers 20:11-12 – Moses, instead of just speaking to the rock, also struck the rock twice, and was denied entry into the promised land!

Duet. 4:2 – Even Israel could not “add to” or “diminish from” the word God spake to them in that day.

And so today…

Christ was given ALL authority - Matthew 28:18-20. Christ is King – although many try to act like He isn’t! What Christ says goes! We either have His authority to act in religious matters or we do not.

Colossians 3:17 – we have to have authority in our teaching and practices –
cf. 1 Peter 4:11, 2John9.

It is complete and understandable – Ephesians 3:4, 2 Peter 1:3, Jude 3.

Stop making excuses about what is not clear to you. Study! Give me “Bible” - and I mean NT authority for your religious teachings and practices – or give your idols up!

[Apollos1]

To P-J…

Sound reasoning for instruments in worship: (????)

1. God accepted the worship, accompanied by instruments, in the Old Testament. NOWHERE is it stated that the God, who never changes, changed His mind about that. Additionally, we see heavenly worship - with harps - mentioned in Revelation. Why would something that was accepted by God in OT times, and will be accepted by Him in heaven, be prohibited here and now?

Great rationalization – Where is your scripture to authorize instruments under the NT ???

2. The meaning of the word Psalm psalmos clearly is "a song accompanied by a stringed instrument." This IS the word used in Ephesians 5:19. And to say that the meaning of the word somehow magically changed, between the OT and NT, is to force something we have absolutely no etymological or historical evidence for.

See my post above #36 above for the following – which among many other points you have not answered… At least here you attempt an appeal to scripture.

CONTEXT dictates the meaning of any word used in the verse. I noticed that you gave us just part of the definition for “psalmos”. Why is that?

Strong says that “psalmos” is a sacred ode accompanied by the voice OR instrument.
Thayer gives the definition of “pslamos” as “striking, twanging; a pious song, a psalm.”
BUT – of the phrase used in these 2 passages Thayer says:
“…it is used of one who has it in his heart to sing or recite a song of the sort…”.

Given that Ephesians 3 sets the word in the context of “speaking” and “singing” and that Colossians 3 sets the context as in “teaching” and “singing” – you are going to be hard pressed to “authorize” any instruments. Will you try to do that for me?

3. God has ALWAYS been very clear about His commands, His invitations, and His prohibitions. He tells us what He wants us to do. He tells us what He does NOT want us to do. Why would God suddenly "sneak this one through" concerning a sudden change of mind, concerning musical accompaniment? If congregational singing with musical accompaniment was some sort of sin, God would have told us so. Saying "Silence = Prohibition" is absurd.

More rationalization! Where is your NT scripture(s) to authorize your practice???
LOL!

[crawfish]

Do you tell your children everything they are NOT supposed to do? It doesn't make logical sense. For example:
Dad to child> "I didn't say you could stay the night at so-and-so's house; wash the cat; drive the car" etc.
Child to Dad>"You didn't say I couldn't, either!" We live according to positive authority, not negative. Same goes for God's Word. If He wants us to do something He will tell us and that's it. I believe we are ONLY authorized to worship from overt statutes. I don't believe culture has any effect on it either, because God's Word is the standard.
Please define "coporate" worship.


Of course I don't tell my kids everything they're not supposed to do. However, if I say they can or should do something and then circumstances force me to change my mind and require that they don't, I will make sure to point it out to them in no uncertain terms.

Again, by ONLY worshiping in a way that's overtly authorized you are severely limiting yourself, and 100% of the CofC's are in violation of doing things the bible does not authorize.

You don't possibly believe that God doesn't take culture into account. Do you women in your church wear veils on their head in public? If not, they're in direct violation of biblical law. Most CofC's accept this as a "cultural" law that no longer applies to us, but they never explain how they pick and choose among the various passages to decide which ones are purely cultural and which are literal (except the most overt, that would draw the most public attention, seem to top the list).

Corporate worship refers to the "worship service". Read Colossians 3 in its entirely, and then read 3:16 in context. It's not referring to some weekly church service; it's referring to daily worship as a part of the Christian lifestyle. Do you listen to instrumental music, play an instrument, or sing with instruments unaccompanied outside of church? Then technically, you are in violation of your own law here.

[crawfish]

You asked - Do you worship in a church building, rather than in each other's home?
Yes I do.

Do you do ANYTHING at worship that isn't authorized by the bible?
No I don’t! I haven’t drawn any lines in the sand.

From the above statement, it's obvious that you do. I'd gather that quite a bit goes on in your congregation that doesn't have overt authorization

[You said - My position is, if it was important to God, then he would make it absolutely clear.
I choose to place my faith in God and His word, not in opinion. Upon what scripture(s) do you base your “position” above?

Which scripture tells you that “if it was important to God, then he would make it absolutely clear” ??? You have an opinion - do you have a verse for it ???
Is this your approach to Bible authority?

I don't think you're understanding the full implications of your theology here.


You said - Aren't you being a little presumptuous in assuming that God doesn't want instruments? If you can't make a clear case to me USING BIBLICAL PASSAGES ONLY, then you are effectively doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of by demonizing it.

The NT is quite clear that VOCAL music is okay – even YOU agree! What you and no one else here in this forum can do is illustrate from scripture that INSTUMENTS are okay! You, Slayd, and P-J have not shown me ONE verse to show that it is okay to have instruments of music in worship! Why is that?! And you think that I am presumptuous? Hardly! Where are YOUR passages for mechanical music in worship???

Pick the ones from the OT, then notice they aren't superseded in the NT. Also, understand that the definitions that lead you to assume to refer to vocal music only are not necessarily so; scholars have some debate over those facts. You are adding meaning to the bible that is not there.

You said - I have never seen a compelling argument against the use of musical instruments in worship based on only biblical sources.
You have now.

Errr...no. I've heard nothing new.

You said - I have seen very compelling arguments that it's OK based on only biblical sources. It seems very clear to me.
And I am still waiting to see it. Where is it? How many times must I ask you for it?

Again, take the OT passages. Take away your assumption that the translated words mean something that they don't. Then take up the fact that the NT does not supersede the law. Sounds easy enough to me.

You said - By making instruments a salvation issue, you have effectively added to God's word and are in direct violation of it. My God would forgive you, but I'm not sure yours will.

It is a “salvation” issue if obeying and worshipping God in the way He has directed is important to Him. How have I “added” to His word by doing what He has plainly stated for me to do? Even YOU agree! Again, VOCAL music is not in question, but rather the instruments of music you “add” without authority. You must have none, otherwise I am certain you would have presented it by now.

If YOU have “Bible” for ALL that you teach and practice in religion, WHERE IS IT???

See above. Again. Read the verses in Ephesians and Colossians AGAIN, this time in context of book and chapter. Lose your assumptions about the meaning of "psallos" and accept that the meaning is truly ambiguous. Then, your entire argument falls on its face.

I'm out of time. It's been fun, but I have to head out now. I have been studying this issue and it's very obvious that the hardline CofCers have it wrong.

I'm about 95% certain you're Ken. You sound just like him, at least. :)

[ParsonJefferson]

To P-J…

Sound reasoning for instruments in worship: (????)

1. God accepted the worship, accompanied by instruments, in the Old Testament. NOWHERE is it stated that the God, who never changes, changed His mind about that. Additionally, we see heavenly worship - with harps - mentioned in Revelation. Why would something that was accepted by God in OT times, and will be accepted by Him in heaven, be prohibited here and now?

Great rationalization – Where is your scripture to authorize instruments under the NT ???

2. The meaning of the word Psalm psalmos clearly is "a song accompanied by a stringed instrument." This IS the word used in Ephesians 5:19. And to say that the meaning of the word somehow magically changed, between the OT and NT, is to force something we have absolutely no etymological or historical evidence for.

See my post above #36 above for the following – which among many other points you have not answered… At least here you attempt an appeal to scripture.

CONTEXT dictates the meaning of any word used in the verse. I noticed that you gave us just part of the definition for “psalmos”. Why is that?

Strong says that “psalmos” is a sacred ode accompanied by the voice OR instrument.
Thayer gives the definition of “pslamos” as “striking, twanging; a pious song, a psalm.”
BUT – of the phrase used in these 2 passages Thayer says:
“…it is used of one who has it in his heart to sing or recite a song of the sort…”.

Given that Ephesians 3 sets the word in the context of “speaking” and “singing” and that Colossians 3 sets the context as in “teaching” and “singing” – you are going to be hard pressed to “authorize” any instruments. Will you try to do that for me?

3. God has ALWAYS been very clear about His commands, His invitations, and His prohibitions. He tells us what He wants us to do. He tells us what He does NOT want us to do. Why would God suddenly "sneak this one through" concerning a sudden change of mind, concerning musical accompaniment? If congregational singing with musical accompaniment was some sort of sin, God would have told us so. Saying "Silence = Prohibition" is absurd.

More rationalization! Where is your NT scripture(s) to authorize your practice???
LOL!

This is a perfect example of the arrogant condescension that makes these debates pointless.

You have refused to answer repeated questions as to where you find authorizations for what you do. Where is your authorization for using hymnals? And how in the world can you split hairs and say that a pitch pipe is okay, but every other instrument is wrong? You simply brush them off by saying, "Oh, that's different!"

You have failed to answer why God - who has always been clear in what He commands us both to do and not do to - would suddenly not only change His mind on instrumental accompaniment, but fail to actually tell anybody about it! Accompanied worship was accepted in the OT, and will be accepted in heaven. Why is it different now?

You have failed to admit that one of your favorite Scriptures - Ephesians 5:19 - uses the word psalmos, which is clearly defined as "a song accompanied by an instrument." Further, you have failed to provide ANY historic or etymological evidence that the definition of psalmos somehow changed between OT and NT times.

And speaking of authority... Can you provide for me a NT Scripture that expressly tells us to sing congregationally?


Now... I realize that you're simply going to refuse to answer these questions, ask the same questions I've already answered, and repeatedly use the word "rationalization" and "lol!". But again, this is why this discussion is pointless.

[Apollos1]

Hey crawfish –

What I notice – really notice about your posts here, as well as the other posts form those advocating instruments of music in worship, is the LACK of scripture being offered to support your point.

Look at your last post to me. Not ONE, even ONE scripture was offered to support your belief as you side-stepped and hem-hawed around the issue. You commented on many point, but offered no scripture and no support of your position.

Now we know WHY that is… don’t we? You can not support your position any better than the other instrument promoters here, huh?

NO Bible, no scripture, and no Bible authority for mechanical music in worship…
Pretty sad for your side! (Colossians 3:17 – What does this mean to you?)

There are only a couple of things worth commenting on from you last post to me…

You said - Again, take the OT passages. Take away your assumption that the translated words mean something that they don't. Then take up the fact that the NT does not supersede the law. Sounds easy enough to me.

This is the best you can do?

You want to drag over parts and pieces of an OLD covenant made with the children of Israel only, that only the Jews only were under, and make it a part of the NEW and different covenant that Christ died to make and ratify and force it upon Christians. LOL! (cf. Acts 15:10.)
I would ask you for the scripture(s) they allow you to do this, but I know I won’t get any more “Bible” for this than I did for your instruments. (2John 9).

You said - Lose your assumptions about the meaning of "psallos" and accept that the meaning is truly ambiguous.

What I noticed is that, like so many who run from truth, you refused to comment directly on the information I provided. You gave a cutesy comment, accused me of “taking the passage out of context” (just as P-J did on another verse), and then you want me to accept your idea of the verse which was given without substantiation.
I know the tactics of those who run from the truth. (Proverbs 28:1.)

I gave the definitions of “psalmos” from Strong and Thayer…WHERE is YOUR comment on that? (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16).
I gave Thayer’s remarks on the phraseology of “psalmos”… Where is YOUR comment on that?
I gave the CONTEXT of the word “psalmos” within the verse showing how it was set with the words “SPEAKING” and “SINGING” and TEACHING” and “SINGING”.
WHERE is your comment on that??
WHERE is your definition??? Oh, you did not even give one!

The truth is crawfish, none of the instrument promoters here will attempt to deal with the SUBSTANCE of my arguments!!!

You are choosing instead to ignore my questions, ignore the questions so that you may “dance” around the issues of true discussion and truth. You choose to debate with rationalizations and innuendo. THIS is what Mechanical Music in worship is supported by.

And please note… NOT ONE NT PASSAGE HAS YET BEEN OFFERED IN SUPPORT OF INSTRUMENTS OF MUSIC IN WORHSIP TO GOD AS YET IN THIS FORUM !!!

You wimped - I have been studying this issue and it's very obvious that the hardline CofCers have it wrong.

Given all the scriptural evidence YOU provided and the “sound” arguments YOU provided? Oh yes, I can see why YOU believe yourself! Lol!

[Apollos1]

P-J –

You said - This is a perfect example of the arrogant condescension that makes these debates pointless.

You are a perfect example of someone that wants to claim they follow the Bible but doesn’t! You want to claim you follow the RM plea, but you don’t! You like the idea of “Bible authority” for all we do and teach in religious matters, but you don’t like the application!

I know that it is frustrating to you to know that you have NO Bible authority for your instruments in worship, and that I have pointed that out to you, but you can still repent.

You said - You have refused to answer repeated questions as to where you find authorizations for what you do. Where is your authorization for using hymnals?
You really do need to pay attention. I answered this question in post #36. You are yet to comment on this as you are so many other points that have been made to you. Let me repeat that here…

(From Post #36 -)
But to ease your mind, let’s take one example you listed and show how Bible authority can be established for the practice.

Hymnals – Christians are told to SING psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs – Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16.

The passages authorize a TYPE of music – VOCAL. All others TYPES are excluded.
The passages authorize a TYPE of song – psalms/hymns/spiritual songs. All other TYPES are excluded.
Unless there is another passage(s) giving further authorization, only VOCAL music of PSALMS/HYMNS/Spiritual SONGS are authorized.

By inference you must have psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to fulfill the directive to sing.
Hymnals provide that which is inherent in fulfilling the command – psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. An overhead projector could display them on the wall. Single pages could be passed out or the “songs” could be memorized, etc. But you must have SINGING and have psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to fulfill the directive. The “songs” are authorized, the manner of having “songs” is therefore an expedient as long as it edifies – see 1 Corinthians 6:12, 10:23 again.

But instruments of worship are a different TYPE of music, are not authorized by these passages, and therefore can not be considered even an expedient in fulfilling the directive. Instruments only “aid” someone to make a different TYPE of music. The command to sing does not necessitate instruments - only a voice.

PJ, can I count on a thoughtful reply now?

Will YOU finally answer my question:
Where is the NT scripture(s) that authorize MECHANICAL MUSIC in worship to God??


You complained - You have failed to answer why God - who has always been clear in what He commands us both to do and not do to - would suddenly not only change His mind on instrumental accompaniment, but fail to actually tell anybody about it!
Is this really the best argument that Instrument Promoters can do??? You really do like this rationalization don’t you? What is not clear about God’s word?

God told us in Matthew 28:18-20 that CHRIST (not Moses, not you) has ALL authority! We are now to do and teach “Whatsoever [Christ] commands us!”

Passages such as Hebrews 8:6 tell us that Christ is the mediator of a BETTER covenant (than the old) and that this NEW covenant is based upon BETTER promises!
(Go ahead and read through verse 13 of this passage!)

What are you missing? Christians (followers of Christ) are NOT and NEVER were under any portion of the OLD testament! The body of Christ follows CHRIST and the tenets set forth in a NEW testament! Only the Jews were under the OLD testament – Christians never were!

In your desperation to find something to cling to as you saw your instruments being swept away by logic and Biblical authority, you rationalized this “OT” scenario hoping to survive. You aren’t going to!

So where is that NT scripture to AUTHORIZE instruments of music in worship??????


You claimed - You have failed to admit that one of your favorite Scriptures - Ephesians 5:19 - uses the word psalmos, which is clearly defined as "a song accompanied by an instrument."

Stop just a minute! WHOSE DEFINITION is this??? Where did it come from. Methinks that this definition had been altered just a tad. What is the SOURCE???

I have already given my reply on the word “psalmos” twice – once to you and once to crawfish. I used STRONG and THAYER! YOU need to reply DIRECTLY to the information contained there before you complain anymore!

You said - Further, you have failed to provide ANY historic or etymological evidence that the definition of psalmos somehow changed between OT and NT times.

LOL! I would think that in the OT times that HEBREW was used, and that “psalmos” a GREEK word, was used in the NT times. Your desperation is getting out of hand.

You said - And speaking of authority... Can you provide for me a NT Scripture that expressly tells us to sing congregationally?
PJ, you ask for so much and yet offer and answer so little in return. You don’t get to ask all the questions and you need a lot of study. But one is in 1 Corinthians 14:26 – which includes the word “psalmos”. I think I will let you “mull” this over before I comment further. Be careful how you may reply.

You closed with - Now... I realize that you're simply going to refuse to answer these questions, ask the same questions I've already answered, and repeatedly use the word "rationalization" and "lol!". But again, this is why this discussion is pointless.

I have certainly answered more than you. And you DO rationalize – look at that pathetic OT argument! But the discussion is not pointless unless you continue to not answer questions yourself and address the valid arguments given.

PJ, do YOU believe that we need Bible authority for all we do and teach in religion?
Colossians 3:17. Do you?
Do YOU believe we are under the NEW or the OLD testament today?
Do YOU believe that Christ has ALL authority in religion?

My guess is that YOU won’t be CLEAR and you won’t answer these questions! You will just continue to complain about how you perceive my posts.

[crawfish]

Ken,

A day later, and the fallacy of trying to argue with you is quite clear. I had some fun but I knew it would be pointless. I'll make one more post and be on my way.

My assertion by saying that the use of instrumental music was not superseded by the NT in no way indicates that I believe we are held to the OT law. Far from it - we are free from the grip of law and in the open hands of grace. We have "guidelines" for worship, meant to build a community of believers united in Christ. We are NOT given a strict set of how God wants things done to be judged against how closely we came.

You are trapped in the throes of legalism and part of the dying leg of the churches of Christ. I pray that Christ will someday penetrate your heart as well as your mind.

[Apollos1]

crawfish –

(I don’t know who “Ken” is, so please stop wasting time with this distraction.)

My last post to you said it all. You are just another who gives “lip service” to following the Bible and having Bible authority for all we practice in religion.

That post, as the ones before it, contain NO scripture. You are happy with your opinion which is based on nothing (as far as I can tell from the evidence you presented – which is…………. Nothing!)

You said - My assertion by saying that the use of instrumental music was not superseded by the NT in no way indicates that I believe we are held to the OT law.
And what scriptural evidence did you present for this thought? 1 Opinion 1:1.

You said - Far from it - we are free from the grip of law and in the open hands of grace.
Explain HOW OT use of instruments “leaked” over into NT worship.
OH – but you can’t do that! No Bible here – just opinion.

You said - We have "guidelines" for worship, meant to build a community of believers united in Christ.
Guidelines? What scripture(s) about worship would that be ???

You said - We are NOT given a strict set of how God wants things done to be judged against how closely we came.
Which Bible examples and what scripture(s) make you believe this?

You said - You are trapped in the throes of legalism and part of the dying leg of the churches of Christ.
It was too easy to accuse someone who really wants to follow the Bible of being a “legalist”. You are a “whateverist” or maybe just an “opinionist” – it is hard to tell. But I know that you have little concern for actually following what the Bible says – in that you appear to be but just a “traditionalist”. You claim it but you don't follow it.

You claimed - I pray that Christ will someday penetrate your heart as well as your mind.
He has. I pray that someday Christ will penetrate your WILL – that you would desire to follow Him as King and the law of His which you ignore.

ANYONE else??? Where is the CHAMPION for instrumental music in worship to God??

P-J, Slayd, and crawfish have pathetically failed to produce even ONE NT passage to authorize musical instruments for the body of Christ, the church, in worship today.
Are none of you embarrassed that you have not even ONE passage to stand on??? I am embarrassed for you!:blush:

Where is it???!!! Who will step forth? Send out your Goliath… LOL!!!

[crawfish]

I was just implying that you were Ken until you said whether or not I was right. Thanks for playing. :) I guess I shouldn't be surprised that more people than one are programmed with these arguments.

Tell you what...I'll justify musical instruments with Bible verses if you justify four-part harmonies with them. Specifically, one part singing while the rest listen. Give me God's authority for spending our money on church buildings. Give me the verses that authorize a kitchen in a house of worship. Give me God's authorization for using more than one cup when taking the Lord's supper. Give me authorization for using unsalted crackers rather than unleavened bread.

If you can't, then you're in the same sad, sinful situation we instrumental-justifying pseudo-Christians are.

[sidekick]

Of course I don't tell my kids everything they're not supposed to do. However, if I say they can or should do something and then circumstances force me to change my mind and require that they don't, I will make sure to point it out to them in no uncertain terms.

Again, by ONLY worshiping in a way that's overtly authorized you are severely limiting yourself, and 100% of the CofC's are in violation of doing things the bible does not authorize.

You don't possibly believe that God doesn't take culture into account. Do you women in your church wear veils on their head in public? If not, they're in direct violation of biblical law. Most CofC's accept this as a "cultural" law that no longer applies to us, but they never explain how they pick and choose among the various passages to decide which ones are purely cultural and which are literal (except the most overt, that would draw the most public attention, seem to top the list).

Corporate worship refers to the "worship service". Read Colossians 3 in its entirely, and then read 3:16 in context. It's not referring to some weekly church service; it's referring to daily worship as a part of the Christian lifestyle. Do you listen to instrumental music, play an instrument, or sing with instruments unaccompanied outside of church? Then technically, you are in violation of your own law here.

Exactly, God doesn't tell us everything we are not supposed to do, either. Does that mean we assume it is ok? Do your children assume it is ok to do something without your direct authority? Again, it's just not logical. When we have the authority, we are safe, but when we act on silence, we are in danger. And like I mentioned earlier, an aid is something to help fulfill the command, therefore lawful. It cannot be a substitution or addition.
Obviously there are cultural differences, but these would be liberties. God's Word should not be compromised because of demographics. I can't find the verse commanding the wearing of veils. Can you show me?
Coloss. 3:16 to me says singing, which is what we are to do. How is it done? How do we teach one another? Do we go to each and every brother and sing to them? We could. We can also accomplish this by congregational singing, when we are assembled. Everyone sings to another in a way to teach, admonish, and uplift. If your defintion is correct, and instruments are required, then everyone would be in violation of God's Word since not everyone can play an instrument.

[crawfish]

Exactly, God doesn't tell us everything we are not supposed to do, either. Does that mean we assume it is ok? Do your children assume it is ok to do something without your direct authority? Again, it's just not logical. When we have the authority, we are safe, but when we act on silence, we are in danger. And like I mentioned earlier, an aid is something to help fulfill the command, therefore lawful. It cannot be a substitution or addition.
Obviously there are cultural differences, but these would be liberties. God's Word should not be compromised because of demographics. I can't find the verse commanding the wearing of veils. Can you show me?
Coloss. 3:16 to me says singing, which is what we are to do. How is it done? How do we teach one another? Do we go to each and every brother and sing to them? We could. We can also accomplish this by congregational singing, when we are assembled. Everyone sings to another in a way to teach, admonish, and uplift. If your defintion is correct, and instruments are required, then everyone would be in violation of God's Word since not everyone can play an instrument.

1 Corinthians 11. And don't give the "hair as a covering" argument, because verses 5 and 6 contradict that reading.

Also, you didn't answer my question on whether you listen to instrumental music outside of church. I can buy that you'd extend it into congregational singing with your interpretation, but I cannot see how the context would allow you to listen to instrumental music at all.

[RefrusRevlis]

An interesting thread. I'm glad God only included what he wants me to do in the N.T. and not everything He doesn't want me to do. I imagine a book of that size would generate a rather powerful gravitational field. Also it would be really hard to remember all the things that shouldn't be done in worship (no liturgical dog acts, Lord's supper pie eating contests etc etc).

The prohibitive nature of silence is understood in everyday life. If I were to write a list of things my children should buy at the store with my money, I would expect all things on the list to be bought and no extras (chocolate, comics and the like). If I were to attempt a list of everything I didn't want my children to buy, I suppose one day someone would find my skeleton somewhere clutching a pen with a really long piece of paper filling the house I was in.

We are servants of Christ, our time and our lives are His. He has told us what he wants. Everything else is excluded. Who are we trying to please, God or ourselves?
Refrus

[mtmichaelson]

An interesting thread. I'm glad God only included what he wants me to do in the N.T. and not everything He doesn't want me to do. I imagine a book of that size would generate a rather powerful gravitational field. Also it would be really hard to remember all the things that shouldn't be done in worship (no liturgical dog acts, Lord's supper pie eating contests etc etc).

The prohibitive nature of silence is understood in everyday life. If I were to write a list of things my children should buy at the store with my money, I would expect all things on the list to be bought and no extras (chocolate, comics and the like). If I were to attempt a list of everything I didn't want my children to buy, I suppose one day someone would find my skeleton somewhere clutching a pen with a really long piece of paper filling the house I was in.

We are servants of Christ, our time and our lives are His. He has told us what he wants. Everything else is excluded. Who are we trying to please, God or ourselves?
Refrus
Amen

[ParsonJefferson]

Ken,

A day later, and the fallacy of trying to argue with you is quite clear. I had some fun but I knew it would be pointless. I'll make one more post and be on my way.

My assertion by saying that the use of instrumental music was not superseded by the NT in no way indicates that I believe we are held to the OT law. Far from it - we are free from the grip of law and in the open hands of grace. We have "guidelines" for worship, meant to build a community of believers united in Christ. We are NOT given a strict set of how God wants things done to be judged against how closely we came.

You are trapped in the throes of legalism and part of the dying leg of the churches of Christ. I pray that Christ will someday penetrate your heart as well as your mind.

It has been said that a definition of insanity is doing the exact same thing and expecting different results.

It has also been my experience - many times over - that it is absolutely pointless to try to talk to non-instrumentalists about worship. It's always the same response: A cult-like mantra that denies definition of Bible words, puts words in the mouth of God that He did not speak, and a convoluted picking & choosing of which things are okay for worship, despite the silence of Scripture, but instrumental accompaniment is prohibited.

It's really rather unfortunate, but I see absolutely not benefit in trying to discuss Biblical things with people who refuse to honestly study what Scripture does and does not say. That is insanity.

[crawfish]

It has been said that a definition of insanity is doing the exact same thing and expecting different results.

It has also been my experience - many times over - that it is absolutely pointless to try to talk to non-instrumentalists about worship. It's always the same response: A cult-like mantra that denies definition of Bible words, puts words in the mouth of God that He did not speak, and a convoluted picking & choosing of which things are okay for worship, despite the silence of Scripture, but instrumental accompaniment is prohibited.

It's really rather unfortunate, but I see absolutely not benefit in trying to discuss Biblical things with people who refuse to honestly study what Scripture does and does not say. That is insanity.

I do it more for myself than them. I don't anticipate changing anybody's mind on the internet. :)

I have to discuss these things with family at times, because I've broken away from the more conservative CofC belief and attend a more progressive CofC. It helps me to hone my arguments to people that matter to me.

[Splayd]

And like I mentioned earlier, an aid is something to help fulfill the command, therefore lawful. It cannot be a substitution or addition.I'm having trouble finding scriptural support for your argument. Can you list the verses that demonstrate we have authority to use aids and what constitutes an aid.

Personally - I don't have a huge problem with the concept, I'm just not sure where it comes from. Regardless - I'm confused as to why instruments can't be considered "aids". I know you suggested that IM is a substitute, but I disagree. If we all went along and played instruments without singing, you might have a point.

[Splayd]

He has told us what he wants. Everything else is excluded.Firstly - this seems to contradict Paul here
1Co 10:23 Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible but not everything is constructive.
Secondly - even if you're right... God already gave us the go ahead to use instruments in the OT. If He's still fine with it, He needn't tell us again, BUT if He's not - one might expect some instruction to clarify as much. No?

[JDIBe]

I'm having trouble finding scriptural support for your argument. Can you list the verses that demonstrate we have authority to use aids and what constitutes an aid.

Personally - I don't have a huge problem with the concept, I'm just not sure where it comes from. Regardless - I'm confused as to why instruments can't be considered "aids". I know you suggested that IM is a substitute, but I disagree. If we all went along and played instruments without singing, you might have a point.

Splayd,

Would you consider IM as you have experienced it an "aid", or an integral part of worship?

(Seems like we've been here before haven't we, my friend?... :sigh: )

[RefrusRevlis]

Firstly - this seems to contradict Paul here

Quote:
1Co 10:23 Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible but not everything is constructive.
Secondly - even if you're right... God already gave us the go ahead to use instruments in the OT. If He's still fine with it, He needn't tell us again, BUT if He's not - one might expect some instruction to clarify as much. No?

Re: 1 Cor 10:23. Context is important here. Do you really think Paul means everythingwhen he says everything is permissible? Does it include murder, animal sacrifice, offering our children to Molech (extreme examples, I know)? The statement needs to be qualified and the context does this. The context relates to things which are rights as Christians, but which if we exercise might have negative effects on the brethren (ie will not edify them). Specifically it relates to partaking of meat offered to idols (read to the end of chapter 10). The passage cannot (or should not) be used to say we are permitted to do anything which the bible is silent about. The context is not the worship assembly.

Regarding the O.T.: we are no longer bound to it, and more than this, we are no longer to follow its examples, commands, injunctions (even if they were to include instrumental music). I don't see many people trying to bring in animal sacrifice.
Hebrews 10:9 tells us that the first [law of moses] was taken away that the second [New Testament] might be established. Are we under the O.T. - no! We cannot be under both the O.T. and the N.T. at the same time. There is nothing in the N.T. that permits the use of instrumental music (nor for that matter kangaroo wrestling), don't you think God would have included it in the N.T. if he wanted it?
Refrus

[Splayd]

At our chuch we have instruments, but we don't have that many instrumentalists, so depending on the day - you might come along and find us singing with a whole band, a single guitar, a single piano or no instruments at all.

Are the instruments an integral part of our worship? The worship comes from our hearts in any of those scenarios. It's expressed vocally in all of those scenarios. None of that changes regardless of the instrumentation or lack thereof at one of our services.

Then what are the primary benefits of using instruments in our services? The most obvious one that comes to mind is that we find it easier. The instruments indicate the pitch before we even start singing and continue to aid with keeping us on key throughout. They provide us with the tempo and they anticipate breaks and changes in the song. In each of those instances it's demonstrable that instruments are an aid.

Are they more than an aid? Not in and of themselves. No. However the instrumentalist can also be playing the instruments as an act of worship. More than that even, they should be. Every single thing we say and do, from the trivial to the mundane should be done as an act of worship. That's not so suggest that one act of worship is done as a replacement of another though. I don't visit the elderly instead of singing praise to God, but each is an act of worship.

Peace

[JDIBe]

At our chuch we have instruments, but we don't have that many instrumentalists, so depending on the day - you might come along and find us singing with a whole band, a single guitar, a single piano or no instruments at all.

Are the instruments an integral part of our worship? The worship comes from our hearts in any of those scenarios. It's expressed vocally in all of those scenarios. None of that changes regardless of the instrumentation or lack thereof at one of our services.

Then what are the primary benefits of using instruments in our services? The most obvious one that comes to mind is that we find it easier. The instruments indicate the pitch before we even start singing and continue to aid with keeping us on key throughout. They provide us with the tempo and they anticipate breaks and changes in the song. In each of those instances it's demonstrable that instruments are an aid.

This has not been my experience at most places with IM. My experience has been places with IM generally have the worst singing, if the congregation sings at all. (This is to say nothing about the heart. I cannot judge that. I only refer to the physical part which you claim it helps above.)
If they are an aid, they are a very ineffective one.


Are they more than an aid? Not in and of themselves. No. However the instrumentalist can also be playing the instruments as an act of worship. More than that even, they should be. Every single thing we say and do, from the trivial to the mundane should be done as an act of worship. That's not so suggest that one act of worship is done as a replacement of another though. I don't visit the elderly instead of singing praise to God, but each is an act of worship.

Peace

Does the instrumentalist always sing? Most places I have seen they don't. You say "playing the instrument can be an act of worship." Then it follows it is not "an aid", particularly if the player is not singing. It IS replacing one act of worship for another.

One more thing. I have never heard anyone ever say, "You know, the music was nice but I couldn't hear the organ for all that singing...". In most cases, the instrument is at least as loud if not louder than the singing! An aid assists something. It does not replace or become as important as what it is aiding. I respect and understand you position on IM, but I really don't think you can call it "an aid".

[crawfish]

Re: 1 Cor 10:23. Context is important here. Do you really think Paul means everythingwhen he says everything is permissible? Does it include murder, animal sacrifice, offering our children to Molech (extreme examples, I know)? The statement needs to be qualified and the context does this. The context relates to things which are rights as Christians, but which if we exercise might have negative effects on the brethren (ie will not edify them). Specifically it relates to partaking of meat offered to idols (read to the end of chapter 10). The passage cannot (or should not) be used to say we are permitted to do anything which the bible is silent about. The context is not the worship assembly.

Do you have any verses giving us instruction on when context is important and when it is not? Because to non-IM people, it doesn't seem to matter in 1 Timothy and Colossians.

Regarding the O.T.: we are no longer bound to it, and more than this, we are no longer to follow its examples, commands, injunctions (even if they were to include instrumental music). I don't see many people trying to bring in animal sacrifice.
Hebrews 10:9 tells us that the first [law of moses] was taken away that the second [New Testament] might be established. Are we under the O.T. - no! We cannot be under both the O.T. and the N.T. at the same time. There is nothing in the N.T. that permits the use of instrumental music (nor for that matter kangaroo wrestling), don't you think God would have included it in the N.T. if he wanted it?
Refrus

There is nothing in the NT to authorize a building specifically designed to hold the church body; nothing authorizing the use of such a building for non-worship purposes. Nothing authorizing more than one cup being used for the Lord's supper.

You just don't understand the can of worms you're opening by subscribing to such a philosophy.

OK. I'm really out now. I think it's out of my system. :D

[Splayd]

This has not been my experience at most places with IM.
I appreciate that and I believe you. I find this argument to be the most commonly voiced one on most differences in belief and practice. We tend to point to the excesses which exist everywhere with everything and apply them across the board to different traditions. We all know from experience that Catholics worship Mary, OSAS Baptists have easy-believism, pentacostals are experience driven and mega-churches are all about the show etc... etc... It almost doesn't matter if it's actually a universal truth if our own experience of it indicates as much.

That's not to deny the validity of the experience, just to note that we need to be careful not to generalise.

My experience has been places with IM generally have the worst singing, if the congregation sings at all. (This is to say nothing about the heart. I cannot judge that. I only refer to the physical part which you claim it helps above.)In fairness, I can't evaluate that as I've never been to a church which never uses instruments. I have been to ones that use limited instrumentation and some that regularly don't have them as they don't have many musicians. To be honest - I haven't found a corellation at all. I've experienced great singing and terrible (under the breath muttering) singing at both.
If they are an aid, they are a very ineffective one.A generalisation that's certainly true in some instances but far from true at others.

Does the instrumentalist always sing? Most places I have seen they don't.In our services they actually lead the singing.
You say "playing the instrument can be an act of worship." Then it follows it is not "an aid", particularly if the player is not singing. It IS replacing one act of worship for another.You completely missed my point. It's not always an either/or thing. Everything can and should be an act of worship. That doesn't negate other acts of worship though. If I hand out the song books or change the overheads that in itself can be an act of worship, but it isn't offered instead of singing.

One more thing. I have never heard anyone ever say, "You know, the music was nice but I couldn't hear the organ for all that singing...".That in itself is telling really.

At the end of the day - I recognise that instruments can become a focus and/or a distraction. If they are for you then it might be appropriate that you don't have them. On the other hand one only has to look at the extremes on matters like communion (where some churches almost ignore it and others literally worship the elements) to realise that just because they are getting something wrong doesn't mean the thing itself is wrong.

Peace

[RefrusRevlis]

Nothing authorizing more than one cup being used for the Lord's supper.

Amen to that!

Refrus

[RefrusRevlis]

Do you have any verses giving us instruction on when context is important and when it is not? Because to non-IM people, it doesn't seem to matter in 1 Timothy and Colossians.


I'm sorry, could you please elaborate on this - I'm not sure what your argument is. Context is always important.

There is nothing in the NT to authorize a building specifically designed to hold the church body; nothing authorizing the use of such a building for non-worship purposes.

The Bible gives both specific authority and general authority for practises. General authority is something like "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations.." How to do this is not specified. If the verse had said "Go therefore in pairs riding on donkeys and make disciples of all the nations.." We would have had a more specific command. It would in that instance be wrong to "go and make disciples" in any other manner, unless we had other scripture authorising other ways of doing it. Regarding building church buildings and the like; these facilitate the public worship which Christians are to partake in. These buildings are not an essential part of obeying the commands (ie. They are not mandatory) - though they in some cases may make it easier. Most importantly they do not change the nature of the worship that goes on within them.

If the Lord had merely said "make music in worship", or even "make a noise" this would have allowed musical instruments. But he specified the type of music "singing".

You just don't understand the can of worms you're opening by subscribing to such a philosophy.
On the contrary, the can of worms is opened when one does not recognise that if the Bible doesn't authorise something then we should not do it. Singing is authorised, musical instruments are not.

Refrus

[Splayd]

Central to the non-instrumental argument are some concepts that are presented as a matter of fact. One is the concept that "aids" are acceptable with or without explicit instruction, but if something can be considered more than an aid it isn't acceptable. Is this argument based on reason or scripture? Could someone demonstrate a relevant NT scripture that highlights as much?

Thanks

[JDIBe]

In our services they actually lead the singing.


Splayd, I agree with the fact that sometimes we tend to think things are the same with everyone as they are with us. That is why I do try to preface things with, "It has been my experience that...". You never know when you might find out something different. That being said, on this point I do feel comfortable generalizing given what I know. Typically, I feel, IM tends to lead to more people listening and not singing. It leads to playing and not singing as well. (These attributes tend to increase with the size of a congregation, I have found)

I know from personal experience that when I am playing a new song, it is very difficult for me to strum, change chords, and sing at the same time. (Well for me, ANY song...) Playing is a distraction. I understand there are people who are much more skilled than I am and can handle that distraction much better than I.

But it is still a distraction, however great or small it may be.

Can you honestly say that every worship setting you have been to or participated in, the musicians...
1. always sang all the time?
2. made a good faith effort to sing all the time?



You completely missed my point. It's not always an either/or thing. Everything can and should be an act of worship. That doesn't negate other acts of worship though. If I hand out the song books or change the overheads that in itself can be an act of worship, but it isn't offered instead of singing.

Peace

But sometimes it is not both, either. For example, softball. According to your definition of worship, softball is worship. It fosters teamwork and Christian fellowship. There is nothing wrong with softball.

But it would be unwise to hold a softball game in the auditorium during the sermon. It distracts from the matter at hand! As Paul says in I Cor 10:23 (and I believe this is a partial answer to your question above to non IM's....)

1Co 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.


Respectfully,

[Splayd]

Can you honestly say that every worship setting you have been to or participated in, the musicians...
1. always sang all the time?
2. made a good faith effort to sing all the time?No. To be fair though - I'm not sure I've ever been to a church where every person sang. Having travelled around the country visiting different churches my experiences have been great and varied and I guess if I had to generalise (for Australia) ... I'd suggest that when there's minimal (or no music) some people become more self-conscious about their singing and barely whisper a tune. Inversely, I've also found that when there is a huge, loud band, people can become distracted and not sing too. BUT I've also found the best singing can often be found at both extremes.

Nevertheless I appreciate and relate to your point. I'm a singer first and foremost and when I first started playing guitar I found it very difficult to do both at the same time. The same is true of most people and there are certainly those who stop singing to focus on their playing. On the other hand, I'm often requested to sing songs at school, camps etc... and there's some songs where my stock, standard response has become... "Not without a guitar. I can't sing that one without a guitar." Truly, in those instances the instrument has definitely become an aid.

Please understand that my point is not and never has been that IM is preferable. I would never argue that IM is always right for all people involved all the time. I'd be hard pressed to make that claim about any preference in a worship service (ie:sitting vs standing, overhead vs books, etc...). I simply don't think we can make the inverse claim either (ie: that it is always inappropriate).

Ultimately - I think it has less to do with the thing (an instrument) and more to do with what and how we use it.

Peace

[Tomes]

I greet all of my brothers and sisters in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Psalms. 148: 11-12-13
"Kings of the earth, and all people; princes, and all judges of the earth:
Both young men, and maidens; old men, and children-

Let them praise the name of the LORD: for his Name alone is excellent; his glory is above the earth and heaven."

Psalms. 150:1-6
"1 .Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.

2. Praise Him for his mighty acts: praise him according to his excellent greatness.

3. Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp.

4. Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.

5. Praise him upon t