Why acappella only?

[Frisbee]

I really like the focus of the Restoration Movement, but I have one question regarding music and worship...

Why no musical instruments?

I read what the "official" response is, but there are a lot of things that could likewise be treated as such. For example bibles. They didn't have bibles in the early church, but they did have portions of the Old Testament and perhaps copies of letters passed from church to church. A complete 66 book bible was unheard of then. Of course having a bible is in addition to what they had then, so isn't having a guitar in addition to what they had then too?

[JDIBe]

I really like the focus of the Restoration Movement, but I have one question regarding music and worship...

Why no musical instruments?

I read what the "official" response is, but there are a lot of things that could likewise be treated as such. For example bibles. They didn't have bibles in the early church, but they did have portions of the Old Testament and perhaps copies of letters passed from church to church. A complete 66 book bible was unheard of then. Of course having a bible is in addition to what they had then, so isn't having a guitar in addition to what they had then too?
Hi. Welcome.

The analogy is not completely accurate. There are no earliest church writings decrying the use of Bibles or Holy Scripture (in fact, the earliest church fathers had a great respect for the Scriptures...). That is NOT the case with IM. They didn't use it. They told us WHY they didn't use it. It wasn't introduced until 700 years later (and then with great dissention) and actually not even common among Protestant churches until the 1800's.

Since you've already read the "official position", I don't want to turn this thread into a "why we don't use IM" one, but I'm sure someone will be along shortly to disagree with me.

But quite a few of us prefer to pass on instruments in worship.

[Frisbee]

You said that they told you why they didn't use them, and I am interested in where I can read abou that.

No need ot be defensive with me, I'm asking an honest question. I love the emphasis that you all put on earnestly seeking to restore the church to what the Apostles has originally intended. I am reading a book right now called "Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership" and am totally on board with the concepts and practices of the early church.

I would add and caution though that they did learn some leassons as they progressed (such as the Great Commission), so it isn't an entirely static world we're looking at. On the other hand I am not usually very well received when I point out what I feel are obvious deviations from scriptual worship, so if that's any indicator of the kind of treatment you're getting, I can and do understand the defensive posture.

[DerSchweik]

I really like the focus of the Restoration Movement, but I have one question regarding music and worship...

Why no musical instruments?

I read what the "official" response is, but there are a lot of things that could likewise be treated as such. For example bibles. They didn't have bibles in the early church, but they did have portions of the Old Testament and perhaps copies of letters passed from church to church. A complete 66 book bible was unheard of then. Of course having a bible is in addition to what they had then, so isn't having a guitar in addition to what they had then too?I'll take a stab at this. :)

There're other thread(s) dealing with the "doctrinal basis" for / against IM in worship - I won't tread there in this post.

My position is purely personal - with some very (I think) practical reasons why I think acapella is "better." This is of course a value judgment but I hope my reasons go beyond mere values.

I became a Christian in a church wholly devoted to acapella music. As a congregation, we "knew" how to sing, meaning it was something we were taught - sopranos knew how to sing their staffs, altos, tenors, and bass' theirs as well. So we had true 4-part harmony in our singing. We didn't all necessarily know how to read music (I for example read music about as well as I read Russian), but we could follow the other voices that could.

We had a repertoire of songs and hymns we sung regularly - it was extensive, but limited too to those songs we loved to sing, whether because of their song quality, their inspiration, or both. All our songs were meant for congregations to sing - none were written for specific artists or musicians peculiar talents. Iow, they were in fact - singable!

Then we had a great church with good leadership all the way through the congregation. We were a vibrant, fruit-filled, growing congregation. There was a lot of Spirit-filled excitement and energy when we gathered. We were taught to encourage one another and love one another in all we did - which we did.

All that to say that when we sang, especially certain songs, we could literally "bring the house down." We felt, as a group, we were singing to the Lord and to one another. It was truly an experience and one unmatched in any church we've been part of some 20 years since.

In our current church, instruments are the norm. We worship in a chapel service rather than the main auditorium because the emphasis is less on instruments and amplification. But last Sunday was just plain discouraging - try as I might to have a proper attitude for worship, I just couldn't.

The "worship" started with 2 saxophones playing a duet for us. Then another song started that included bongo drums and tambourines. After that, the bongos continued with a Moog synthesizer accompanying a video on the overhead screen. And the "choir" for our little group of 40 people stood with microphones. As if all that weren't enough - the sound technician had the volume turned up so loud I had flashbacks to a Stones concert I once attended. Understand, we're in a little chapel room where one person could, without microphone, speak to the entire audience without raising his voice. My ears are still ringing and sore, it was, without exaggerating - physically painful.

It is argued by those who are pro-instruments that major musical stage productions are necessary today to "reach" today's generation. In my humble opinion, that is the purpose and power of the Gospel, and the gospel alone. Jesus employed a hill to preach to His audience, only because of their size. For some unknown reason, we feel artifice and man-made stage productions of massive proportions and over-powering cacaphonous volume is necessary today. For without them, people would not want to hear the gospel. I disagree.

I look out over the "audience" (for that is what we've become) being entertained by the modern stage productions and I see few people singing, mostly just weak lip movements mimicking the verses. As a church, we've lost our ability to sing. Goodness, we don't even display the music anymore, just the words! Words to songs, pretty songs I grant - but songs created by popular artists for THEIR voices and THEIR singing talents. I can't explain how many songs are truly "unsingable" by a congregation of unskilled singers. It's pathetic, really; and sad.

What bothers me with IM is that it is taking worship in song from the pews and putting it on stage. I don't like it, I think it's wrong and detrimental - but I can't give you "book, chapter, and verse" why.

All I know is this generation of Christians is going to heaven not having a clue how to sing, or possessing any genuine love for singing, who'll be expecting someone on stage to direct their worship to God. I just pray our "heavenly lips" are more capable than our earthly ones are to mouth the words.

But, that's just my opinion - I could be wrong - and usually am. :)

[Frisbee]

I don't think you're wrong. I agree with much of what you said!

I teach a men's group bible study on Saturday mornings and I play the guitar for worship prior to the bible study. I'm not very good, and the guitar acts more as a way for us to stay in the same sport, let alone the same ballpark. One of the guys has Down Syndrome and sings pretty loud, so anyone next to him has a difficult time even with the guitar to help keep it in key. To the one, we all aren't very talented muscially, so with us it definetely isn't about "stage production". But like I said, I agree with your point in principle, but that part just doesn't apply to us. we stink to put it mildly :eek:


One day about a year or so ago we were singing before bible study got started and it was the worst we ever sounded. It was like a herd of tom cats meowing at the full moon. Absolutley the worst thing you've ever heard. It was acappella, but that wasn't why we sounded so bad. We sounded so bad beause we were singing off key, off time and off beat (if that is possoble while you're already off time). Anyhow...

After we opened in prayer I asked the guys a simple question. I asked if God heard our hearts, or that horrible sound we just made? Everyone laughed, but we all agreed that God was deaf to the music we made and could care less what we sounded like, but likewise that He did indeed hear us trying with all of our hearts despite how bad we knew we sounded, and that that would have sounded sweet to His ears.

The Mormon tabernacle Choir sounds fantastic, but it's not the music that God hears. I'm convinced of that already. I don't even think He is impressed when we pick good sounds that have great words, like Amaing Grace for example. I think that God only wants to hear us worship Him. And worship comes from the heart, not the mouth.

[JDIBe]

You said that they told you why they didn't use them, and I am interested in where I can read abou that.

No need ot be defensive with me, I'm asking an honest question. I love the emphasis that you all put on earnestly seeking to restore the church to what the Apostles has originally intended. I am reading a book right now called "Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership" and am totally on board with the concepts and practices of the early church.

I would add and caution though that they did learn some leassons as they progressed (such as the Great Commission), so it isn't an entirely static world we're looking at. On the other hand I am not usually very well received when I point out what I feel are obvious deviations from scriptual worship, so if that's any indicator of the kind of treatment you're getting, I can and do understand the defensive posture.

My apologies if it came off that way. I have no issue with you. It's just this is the way it always seems to start. Someone asks. Someone tells. Someone else feels the need to rebut, point out that not all feel that way, and quote Ps. 150. Someone else counters with Ps. 118:27 and off we go.....

Also, my quotation marks were not sarcastic ones (which I admittedly use too often...) but simply there because there is really no "official position" as we have no creed, but rather a "general consensus" among many of us on the subject. I must admit there is a certain weariness on my part arguing this subject which seems to show through in that post, coupled with a really bad week....

Here is a link to an earlier post regarding historical sources on IM. My advice would be to consider them only in regard as to how they shed light on what the Scriptures say. Since the Scriptures are apparently not explicitly clear on the subject (hence the arguing) I feel they carry some weight in determining what the earliest Christians thought.

http://christianforums.com/t4616176-a-historical-view-of-im-for-informational-purposes-only.html

If you need more information, PM me and I'll try to find you some other info. Good luck in your search, and may you go where God and His Word lead you.

[DerSchweik]

I don't think you're wrong. I agree with much of what you said!

I teach a men's group bible study on Saturday mornings and I play the guitar for worship prior to the bible study. I'm not very good, and the guitar acts more as a way for us to stay in the same sport, let alone the same ballpark. One of the guys has Down Syndrome and sings pretty loud, so anyone next to him has a difficult time even with the guitar to help keep it in key. To the one, we all aren't very talented muscially, so with us it definetely isn't about "stage production". But like I said, I agree with your point in principle, but that part just doesn't apply to us. we stink to put it mildly :eek:


One day about a year or so ago we were singing before bible study got started and it was the worst we ever sounded. It was like a herd of tom cats meowing at the full moon. Absolutley the worst thing you've ever heard. It was acappella, but that wasn't why we sounded so bad. We sounded so bad beause we were singing off key, off time and off beat (if that is possoble while you're already off time). Anyhow...

After we opened in prayer I asked the guys a simple question. I asked if God heard our hearts, or that horrible sound we just made? Everyone laughed, but we all agreed that God was deaf to the music we made and could care less what we sounded like, but likewise that He did indeed hear us trying with all of our hearts despite how bad we knew we sounded, and that that would have sounded sweet to His ears.

The Mormon tabernacle Choir sounds fantastic, but it's not the music that God hears. I'm convinced of that already. I don't even think He is impressed when we pick good sounds that have great words, like Amaing Grace for example. I think that God only wants to hear us worship Him. And worship comes from the heart, not the mouth.
LOL - I agree. Our church ministered to the mentally handicapped - Down's and other mental handicaps. There were usually about 15 or 20 in attendance and they'd typically cluster in the pews in groups of 4 or 5. It was pure joy to be around them during singing. Like you said, they had voices like cowbells - and they would sing louder than anyone - they loved to sing to the Lord! At first, the temptation is to be offended - but you just couldn't when you saw how pure their hearts were for Him!

Our "voices" ran the gamut from cowbells to sirens, booming drums to soft breezes, fair tones to angelic. We loved that together we "made a joyful noise" to the Lord. The incredible thing was, when you put all those voices together, the individual cacaphony became an angelic symphony of song!

Our singing, not because we were good mind you, but our singing inspired our visitors. They loved to come and attend, not only to hear us, but to be around us. It was great Christian example - they saw Christ in our lives and in our singing and praise of God. I NEVER heard one visitor EVER describe our worship services as "entertainment." Most would hang around with us after services for fellowship and many would end up studying the bible with us and become Christians as a result.

But sadly, today we seem to feel the need to entertain our visitors in hopes they will hear the gospel. When the entertainment is over, they - along with most members, will "hit the gate at 98." And the auditorium will be emptied in a matter of minutes...

The "Entertainment Gospel" is no gospel at all. Instruments might be used to enhance singing, but there is NEVER a substitute for singing.

God bless! :)

[Frisbee]

Hey, no worries friend! And Amen!!!

[cremi]

Hey, no worries friend! And Amen!!!
I also wanted to point out too, without ruffling anyone's feathers too much here, that acapella is mostly a church of Christ tradition, as opposed to a Restoration Movement tradition. If you attend a Christian church or a Disciples of Christ church (both considered to be RM churches) you will most likely find instrumental music.

[DerSchweik]

I also wanted to point out too, without ruffling anyone's feathers too much here, that acapella is mostly a church of Christ tradition, as opposed to a Restoration Movement tradition. If you attend a Christian church or a Disciples of Christ church (both considered to be RM churches) you will most likely find instrumental music.Yes, and please forgive my "rant." :) Touched a chord I suppose, ha! (No pun intended).

[cremi]

Yes, and please forgive my "rant." :) Touched a chord I suppose, ha! (No pun intended).
You were ranting? I didn't see that at all...only sharing your view.:)

[ParsonJefferson]

I really like the focus of the Restoration Movement, but I have one question regarding music and worship...

Why no musical instruments?

I read what the "official" response is, but there are a lot of things that could likewise be treated as such. For example bibles. They didn't have bibles in the early church, but they did have portions of the Old Testament and perhaps copies of letters passed from church to church. A complete 66 book bible was unheard of then. Of course having a bible is in addition to what they had then, so isn't having a guitar in addition to what they had then too?

The bottom line is that the New Testament says absolutely NOTHING about the use - or non-use - of instruments in worship. Verses that are used to force the anti-instrumental position (such as Ephesians 5:19) are mis-interpreted and force-fitted to fit a predisposed mindset (actually, Ephesians 5:19 speaks of "psalms" which, by definition, are songs accompanied by stringed instruments...).

Considering that we "claim" to be people who live and walk by faith in the grace of God, expressed through the sacrifice of Jesus, I find it mind-boggling that people claim God is going to send people to Hell for doing something He never said we shouldn't do (use instrumental accompaniment in worship).

[ParsonJefferson]

I'll take a stab at this. :)

There're other thread(s) dealing with the "doctrinal basis" for / against IM in worship - I won't tread there in this post.

My position is purely personal - with some very (I think) practical reasons why I think acapella is "better." This is of course a value judgment but I hope my reasons go beyond mere values.

I became a Christian in a church wholly devoted to acapella music. As a congregation, we "knew" how to sing, meaning it was something we were taught - sopranos knew how to sing their staffs, altos, tenors, and bass' theirs as well. So we had true 4-part harmony in our singing. We didn't all necessarily know how to read music (I for example read music about as well as I read Russian), but we could follow the other voices that could.

We had a repertoire of songs and hymns we sung regularly - it was extensive, but limited too to those songs we loved to sing, whether because of their song quality, their inspiration, or both. All our songs were meant for congregations to sing - none were written for specific artists or musicians peculiar talents. Iow, they were in fact - singable!

Then we had a great church with good leadership all the way through the congregation. We were a vibrant, fruit-filled, growing congregation. There was a lot of Spirit-filled excitement and energy when we gathered. We were taught to encourage one another and love one another in all we did - which we did.

All that to say that when we sang, especially certain songs, we could literally "bring the house down." We felt, as a group, we were singing to the Lord and to one another. It was truly an experience and one unmatched in any church we've been part of some 20 years since.

In our current church, instruments are the norm. We worship in a chapel service rather than the main auditorium because the emphasis is less on instruments and amplification. But last Sunday was just plain discouraging - try as I might to have a proper attitude for worship, I just couldn't.

The "worship" started with 2 saxophones playing a duet for us. Then another song started that included bongo drums and tambourines. After that, the bongos continued with a Moog synthesizer accompanying a video on the overhead screen. And the "choir" for our little group of 40 people stood with microphones. As if all that weren't enough - the sound technician had the volume turned up so loud I had flashbacks to a Stones concert I once attended. Understand, we're in a little chapel room where one person could, without microphone, speak to the entire audience without raising his voice. My ears are still ringing and sore, it was, without exaggerating - physically painful.

It is argued by those who are pro-instruments that major musical stage productions are necessary today to "reach" today's generation. In my humble opinion, that is the purpose and power of the Gospel, and the gospel alone. Jesus employed a hill to preach to His audience, only because of their size. For some unknown reason, we feel artifice and man-made stage productions of massive proportions and over-powering cacaphonous volume is necessary today. For without them, people would not want to hear the gospel. I disagree.

I look out over the "audience" (for that is what we've become) being entertained by the modern stage productions and I see few people singing, mostly just weak lip movements mimicking the verses. As a church, we've lost our ability to sing. Goodness, we don't even display the music anymore, just the words! Words to songs, pretty songs I grant - but songs created by popular artists for THEIR voices and THEIR singing talents. I can't explain how many songs are truly "unsingable" by a congregation of unskilled singers. It's pathetic, really; and sad.

What bothers me with IM is that it is taking worship in song from the pews and putting it on stage. I don't like it, I think it's wrong and detrimental - but I can't give you "book, chapter, and verse" why.

All I know is this generation of Christians is going to heaven not having a clue how to sing, or possessing any genuine love for singing, who'll be expecting someone on stage to direct their worship to God. I just pray our "heavenly lips" are more capable than our earthly ones are to mouth the words.

But, that's just my opinion - I could be wrong - and usually am. :)

You make some great points! I personally despise the "rock concert you can sing along with, if you can" style of worship. But be careful of over-stating and over-generalizing.

The congregation I pastor uses instruments in worship, and usually background singers to help the congregation hear and sing their parts. It's an "acoustic-driven" style of music (if that makes any sense) and our worship leader is EXTREMELY careful with volumes and the mix of instruments. It is not showy at all.

Sometimes the singing is so loud you can barely hear the instruments. Sometimes I simply close my eyes and listen - and am almost always brought near to, or to, tears.

There are other Sundays when we have an all-accappella worship service where we sing only old hymns. We love that too!


Unfortunately, people on both sides of the "instrumental aisle" tend to make far too much of the debate about instruments. They are neither commanded or condemned in the New Testament (though clearly they were used in the Old Testament, and Revelation speaks of them being used in Heaven).

Our focus should be on worshiping God, not on our man-made traditions concerning exactly how we do it.

[DerSchweik]

You make some great points! I personally despise the "rock concert you can sing along with, if you can" style of worship. But be careful of over-stating and over-generalizing.

The congregation I pastor uses instruments in worship, and usually background singers to help the congregation hear and sing their parts. It's an "acoustic-driven" style of music (if that makes any sense) and our worship leader is EXTREMELY careful with volumes and the mix of instruments. It is not showy at all.

Sometimes the singing is so loud you can barely hear the instruments. Sometimes I simply close my eyes and listen - and am almost always brought near to, or to, tears.

There are other Sundays when we have an all-accappella worship service where we sing only old hymns. We love that too!

Unfortunately, people on both sides of the "instrumental aisle" tend to make far too much of the debate about instruments. They are neither commanded or condemned in the New Testament (though clearly they were used in the Old Testament, and Revelation speaks of them being used in Heaven).

Our focus should be on worshiping God, not on our man-made traditions concerning exactly how we do it.LOL - overstatement and generalization are a "burden" I must bear, ha! I think both are side-"blessings" of having recently graduated from OFU - "Old Fart U" - at least that's what my wife is always saying to me - 'you old fart you!"

True, I do tend to overstatement and generalization when it comes to my personal preferences - and that is all IM / Non-IM is for me. I agree, I think it severely straining to extract firm doctrinal positions about either from the NT. Still, I stick by my response to the OP - while personal preference, my experience with IM has thus far been negative, on the whole.

I tend to make a distinction between worship and praise. I view worship as bowing down before Him in reverence and awe, solemnly prostrating ourselves (figuratively or otherwise) before His majesty and might. I view praise as exalting him in thankfulness and joy for the salvation He has brought us.

Some churches seem to offer exclusively worship services; some seem to offer exclusively praise services; and some do both. IMO, the latter is perhaps most appropriate, some combination of the two. But both (praise and worship) must come from the heart. When the Psalms enjoin us to praise Him, often they do so inclusive of instruments - and that makes sense to me - it's PRAISE - it's exciting, fun, and joyful! Get in the mood! Sing, dance, play!! But there are times too when man encounters God and when worship is then the order of the moment - reverential, awesome, humbling... The mood, I'm sure most would acknowledge is entirely different than praise.

I guess this is my whole point on the issue of IM in church... there is a time and a place for both. I am saddened when, in our church, we feel a need to play amplified instruments for everything - song, tithe, prayer, Lord's Supper - everything - except of course announcements ;). There are some moments, like during the Lord's Supper, I am intent on worshipping Him and don't want bongo drums and tambourines banging and clanging in the background. And there are some songs / hymns that I don't want that either. But some songs are enhanced by IM too! Battle Hymn of the Republic might be a good example - "get with it folks! belt this one out!!!"

Old farts never die... they just linger on...

[ParsonJefferson]

LOL - overstatement and generalization are a "burden" I must bear, ha! I think both are side-"blessings" of having recently graduated from OFU - "Old Fart U" - at least that's what my wife is always saying to me - 'you old fart you!"

True, I do tend to overstatement and generalization when it comes to my personal preferences - and that is all IM / Non-IM is for me. I agree, I think it severely straining to extract firm doctrinal positions about either from the NT. Still, I stick by my response to the OP - while personal preference, my experience with IM has thus far been negative, on the whole.

I tend to make a distinction between worship and praise. I view worship as bowing down before Him in reverence and awe, solemnly prostrating ourselves (figuratively or otherwise) before His majesty and might. I view praise as exalting him in thankfulness and joy for the salvation He has brought us.

Some churches seem to offer exclusively worship services; some seem to offer exclusively praise services; and some do both. IMO, the latter is perhaps most appropriate, some combination of the two. But both (praise and worship) must come from the heart. When the Psalms enjoin us to praise Him, often they do so inclusive of instruments - and that makes sense to me - it's PRAISE - it's exciting, fun, and joyful! Get in the mood! Sing, dance, play!! But there are times too when man encounters God and when worship is then the order of the moment - reverential, awesome, humbling... The mood, I'm sure most would acknowledge is entirely different than praise.

I guess this is my whole point on the issue of IM in church... there is a time and a place for both. I am saddened when, in our church, we feel a need to play amplified instruments for everything - song, tithe, prayer, Lord's Supper - everything - except of course announcements ;). There are some moments, like during the Lord's Supper, I am intent on worshipping Him and don't want bongo drums and tambourines banging and clanging in the background. And there are some songs / hymns that I don't want that either. But some songs are enhanced by IM too! Battle Hymn of the Republic might be a good example - "get with it folks! belt this one out!!!"

Old farts never die... they just linger on...

Again, good points - especially for an old fart! :thumbsup:

[- DRA -]

I also wanted to point out too, without ruffling anyone's feathers too much here, that acapella is mostly a church of Christ tradition, as opposed to a Restoration Movement tradition. If you attend a Christian church or a Disciples of Christ church (both considered to be RM churches) you will most likely find instrumental music.

Never heard passages such as Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16, or James 5:13 referred to as a " church of Christ tradition." They are the basis for singing, what Christians are to sing, and how Christians are to sing.

As best as I can discern, Acts 2:47 doesn't exactly say the Lord adds the saved to a RM church - which gives Christians three options on which church to attend. Rather, He adds the saved to the church (i.e., His church). What needs to be determined is what His people should be doing in light of His word (i.e., doing that which He authorized per Colossians 3:17). Unless my history is bad, some folks involved in denominationalism many years ago realized they needed to return to the N.T. pattern. However, disagreement arose over instrumental music ... which was just starting to gain some acceptance among the denominations. Division arose within those trying to restore the church to what the N.T. teaches, and they separated themselves from the church of Christ. Like error has a tendency to do, over time folks fell farther and farther away from God's word. The mindset that separates the church of Christ (a cappella) from the church of Christ (instrumental), Christian Church, and the Disciples of Christ is really a matter of authority - how it is determined, how it is applied, etc. Once God's people abandon His word and His authority in one respect, the door is wide open for other unscriptural practices to follow. It may take time, but it will happen.

I read an interesting thought not long ago that left an impression on me. A writer stated that over time every faithful church will fall away and become unfaithful. However, it doesn't have to happen during our lifetime. I have made it my goal as a Christian and an elder to keep that very thought in mind continually and look for ways to strengthen myself and other Christians.

May we never give up the fight to resist evil and do what is right according to God's standards. :bow:

[- DRA -]

The bottom line is that the New Testament says absolutely NOTHING about the use - or non-use - of instruments in worship. Verses that are used to force the anti-instrumental position (such as Ephesians 5:19) are mis-interpreted and force-fitted to fit a predisposed mindset (actually, Ephesians 5:19 speaks of "psalms" which, by definition, are songs accompanied by stringed instruments...).

Considering that we "claim" to be people who live and walk by faith in the grace of God, expressed through the sacrifice of Jesus, I find it mind-boggling that people claim God is going to send people to Hell for doing something He never said we shouldn't do (use instrumental accompaniment in worship).

Okay, this is not the first time we've discussed this issue before.

Previously, you have declared that Eph. 5:19 has no application to the assembly. I begged to differ with you then, as I still do. Ephesians 5 is not dealing with the assembly per se, but it does apply. To illustrate, consider Eph. 5:18 - "Do not be drunk with wine." Per your reasoning (i.e., this has no application to the assembly), it would be unacceptable to be drunk with wine outside the assembly, but since the passage cannot be applied to the assembly, drunkenness in the assembly would be acceptable. Like it or not, this example shows your reasoning leaves much to be desired.

Granted ... the N.T. says nothing about the use or non-use of instruments in worship. However, unless I’m badly mistaken, God’s word DOES tell us that singing pleases Him. The types of songs are specified, as is how the songs are to be sung. Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16, and James 5:13 are examples of such teaching. I deny these verses are being “used to force the anti-instrumental position.” These verses plainly tell us what God commands and what pleases Him. If any “forcing” is being done, it is being done by those who try to force something into those passages that simply isn’t there.

As for the word “psalms” (the Koine Greek word psalmos) in Ephesians 5:19, we have also previously discussed this point.
“Psalmos” in the New Testament:
* Luke 20:42 - Now David himself said in the Book of Psalms: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand.
* Luke 24:44 - Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”
* Acts 1:20 – “For it is written in the book of Psalms: ‘Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it’; and, ‘Let another take his office.’
* Acts 13:33 - God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’
* 1 Corinthians 14:26 - How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.
* Ephesians 5:19 - speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord,
* Colossians 3:16 - Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

What I have asked you to do previously (several times), is to take the definition for “psalms” you offer, insert it into the passages where the word “psalms” appears, and see if the proposed definition makes sense. For some strange reason, you have balked every single time and have been unwilling to do what you ask others to do. I believe it is clear and evident that “psalms” as used in the New Testament simply refers to the book of Psalms, or an excerpt from that book.

Those who “claim” to walk by faith should be willing to examine themselves per 2 Corinthians 13:5. Putting things in perspective, judgment belongs to the Lord. Simply stated, none of us determine who goes to hell, or who goes to heaven. Rather, our role as Christians is to “preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:2) and to “speak as the oracles of God (1 Peter 4:11a). Therefore, we should preach/speak what passages such as Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16, and James 5:13 say.

Previously, I have asked you about the silence of the Scriptures as it relates to Hebrews 7:13-14. Concisely stated in that context, Jesus is being presented as a priest after the order of Melchizedek versus the Levitical system. Under the law of Moses, God specified that the priests would be from the tribe of Levi. Jesus descended from the tribe of Judah. God was silent about the tribe of Judah concerning the priesthood (the point of Heb. 7:14). The point the Hebrew writer is making is that this silence did NOT authorize priests from Judah. Rather, it prohibited them – because God specifically said from whom the priests would descend. Therefore, of necessity, Jesus had to be a priest after a different order than the Levites. Note the conclusion of the point in Hebrews 7:21 and 8:4. With this principle in mind, let’s consider the basics of Ephesians 5:19: God tells Christians what action pleases Him – singing; what is to be sung – psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; and how we are to sing – from the heart. Applying the principle of Hebrews 7:13-14, we have to decide if silence authorizes or doesn’t authorize things not specified. It is clear in Hebrews 7 that silence prohibits where God has spoken. Why is it that “we” struggle so to apply this principle to Ephesians 5:19?

:confused:

[cremi]

Never heard passages such as Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16, or James 5:13 referred to as a " church of Christ tradition." They are the basis for singing, what Christians are to sing, and how Christians are to sing.

As best as I can discern, Acts 2:47 doesn't exactly say the Lord adds the saved to a RM church - which gives Christians three options on which church to attend. Rather, He adds the saved to the church (i.e., His church). What needs to be determined is what His people should be doing in light of His word (i.e., doing that which He authorized per Colossians 3:17). Unless my history is bad, some folks involved in denominationalism many years ago realized they needed to return to the N.T. pattern. However, disagreement arose over instrumental music ... which was just starting to gain some acceptance among the denominations. Division arose within those trying to restore the church to what the N.T. teaches, and they separated themselves from the church of Christ. Like error has a tendency to do, over time folks fell farther and farther away from God's word. The mindset that separates the church of Christ (a cappella) from the church of Christ (instrumental), Christian Church, and the Disciples of Christ is really a matter of authority - how it is determined, how it is applied, etc. Once God's people abandon His word and His authority in one respect, the door is wide open for other unscriptural practices to follow. It may take time, but it will happen.

I read an interesting thought not long ago that left an impression on me. A writer stated that over time every faithful church will fall away and become unfaithful. However, it doesn't have to happen during our lifetime. I have made it my goal as a Christian and an elder to keep that very thought in mind continually and look for ways to strengthen myself and other Christians.

May we never give up the fight to resist evil and do what is right according to God's standards. :bow:Ah DRA! How I have missed disagreeing with you!;)

Not much else to say...we'll only end up in circles and I don't really want to do that. I'm so far from RM doctrine now that I really have nothing to add to the disagreement already put forth here. Be blessed and as always continually seek His Face!:)

[- DRA -]

Ah DRA! How I have missed disagreeing with you!;)

Not much else to say...we'll only end up in circles and I don't really want to do that. I'm so far from RM doctrine now that I really have nothing to add to the disagreement already put forth here. Be blessed and as always continually seek His Face!:)

Not sure if it's intentional (but strongly suspect it is as many times as I've seen it happen), but you have a unique way of letting folks know that you have separated yourself from "RM doctrines and traditions" (borrowed from one of your previous posts) and find it hard to disguise your contempt for those who try to follow the N.T. pattern. Of course, you know that those practicing the truth have no doctrines or traditions other than those taught in God's word. Unless, of course, you've also dismissed the need for authority for all we say and do (Colossians 3:17), and that God's word completely equips us for all we need to please and do His will (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and that we should speak as the oracles of God (1 Peter 4:11a). If that's the case, I'm sure it's most comforting to undermine God's word and dismiss selected passages as the traditions of men.

Once upon a time, the Saul found himself kicking against the goads (borrowing from the language of Acts 9:5 in the KJV & NKJV). He finally realized he needed to stop fighting the Lord and His people. In 1 Corinthians 11:1 he admonishes the Corinthians (and us today) to follow his example.

Just a thought. :idea:

Have a nice day. :)

[cremi]

Contempt? No. Sadness more than anything.

I DO apologize, however, if offense has been taken by anything I've posted. I've not meant to offend or give the impression of contempt.

I suppose it comes across that way because the arguements are the same and I don't really see the purpose in continuing on in the arguements. They always end up in the same place. I will make an attempt to not be so snarky in my posts from here on.

I will say that the pattern of condescending to those who don't believe as you do is also quite old.
...and find it hard to disguise your contempt for those who try to follow the N.T. pattern. Of course, you know that those practicing the truth have no doctrines or traditions other than those taught in God's word. Unless, of course, you've also dismissed the need for authority for all we say and do (Colossians 3:17), and that God's word completely equips us for all we need to please and do His will (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and that we should speak as the oracles of God (1 Peter 4:11a). If that's the case, I'm sure it's most comforting to undermine God's word and dismiss selected passages as the traditions of men.
If I were as lost as you seem to indicate here, do you think your words here would really cause me to want to turn back?

What I have to say is that I haven't left Christ, that I'm a true believer and that I'm growing more spiritually right now than I've grown in years. I've not undermined God's word, but rather have begun to really understand what his grace is really about. It's as if the scales have really fallen off of my eyes and I am beginning to see clearly for the first time. That has allowed me to be Free in Christ in a way I did not know freedom before. I am awed at what Christ has done for me---a meager and undeservng sinner, who has been saved! I am spurred on to do what HE wants me to do and to share with others about HIS great and awesome power. I am excited and revitilized, but at the same time, see how foolish I was before, for pursuing foolish arguements that meant nothing to Him.

No...no contmept. More than anything, I wish you could see and know I what I do now. That's all. The simple gospel of God's unfailing love, his undeserved grace and righteous judgement.

[- DRA -]

Contempt? No. Sadness more than anything.

I DO apologize, however, if offense has been taken by anything I've posted. I've not meant to offend or give the impression of contempt.

I suppose it comes across that way because the arguements are the same and I don't really see the purpose in continuing on in the arguements. They always end up in the same place. I will make an attempt to not be so snarky in my posts from here on.

I will say that the pattern of condescending to those who don't believe as you do is also quite old.

If I were as lost as you seem to indicate here, do you think your words here would really cause me to want to turn back?

What I have to say is that I haven't left Christ, that I'm a true believer and that I'm growing more spiritually right now than I've grown in years. I've not undermined God's word, but rather have begun to really understand what his grace is really about. It's as if the scales have really fallen off of my eyes and I am beginning to see clearly for the first time. That has allowed me to be Free in Christ in a way I did not know freedom before. I am awed at what Christ has done for me---a meager and undeservng sinner, who has been saved! I am spurred on to do what HE wants me to do and to share with others about HIS great and awesome power. I am excited and revitilized, but at the same time, see how foolish I was before, for pursuing foolish arguements that meant nothing to Him.

No...no contmept. More than anything, I wish you could see and know I what I do now. That's all. The simple gospel of God's unfailing love, his undeserved grace and righteous judgement.

Contempt? Yes! And, to declare/infer/imply that it is following the traditions of men to do what passages such as Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16, and James 5:13 teach is to undermine God's word.

I have said before and will say again for the sake of any that are new to the discussion, studying an issue like singing versus mechanical instruments of music is more about how we handle God's word than just the issue at hand. I fully understand where the "Free in Christ" mindset leads. By the way, is this a reference to the book by that title by Cecil Hook? If so, I have a copy - and I have read the book. Plus, I've studied with several who parrot Hook's reasoning (Hookians, as I refer to them). Even if the book/movement isn't what you meant, I am confident the mindset is similar, if not the same. Tired of having to find scriptural authority for what is believed/practiced. Tired of having to be different from the "mainstream" Christian movement (i.e., those of the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches). So tired of so many things ... but yet somehow forgetting the church the Lord promised to build (Matt. 16:18), the church that He built (Acts 2:47), and the unity that characterized His church (Eph. 4:1-6). Even passages such as Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, and Romans 6:3-11 are pushed to the back of the mind and forgotten to accommodate folks with varying beliefs on what it takes to be saved under the gospel of Christ. These are first principle topics (note the latter part of Hebrews 5 and the discussion that continues into chapter 6).

As for how "my words" will impact you, I suggest taking things to a higher level. How 'bout assuming that it really doesn't matter what either of us says or thinks, but the emphasis needs to be on what God says. By all means, don't take my word for it. Check out Romans 3:4. The words came from the apostle Paul, who said he got them directly from the Lord (Gal. 1:11-12). I certainly can't speak for you, but I sure don't want to challenge Paul's (actually, the Lord's) teachings as Elymas did in Acts 13.

Ever seriously considered Rev. 3:1 (the latter part of the verse)? It's a sobering thought. To think one is alive and faithfully serving the Lord ... but isn't in the Lord's eyes! Sobering indeed. On a personal level ... it could happen to me, and it could happen to you. So, how do we ensure it doesn't? The only way I know is to be faithful to God's word. Not just the warm and fuzzy side where we talk about God's love, grace, mercy, and goodness. You know, where everybody's saved that says they are, and everybody goes to heaven regardless of the church they go to? Forget about the "other" side of God, right? Forget about the contrast in Romans 11:22 between the goodness and severity of God. Trust me. Those aren't my thoughts. However, I do believe them. Both aspects.

Just a few thoughts that you might find a little out of the norm.

I'm not afraid to step out of the box. :)

[cremi]

Wow...you assume much and are so incorrect, about what I meant or what I believe. It's been a long and painful journey for me, DRA---to leave the church of Christ--but not Christ and not the church. My husband and I have not taken our decision lightly, nor have we flitted about with every wind of doctrine. I've not heard of Cecil Hook, nor have I read any books about any particular movement, except for the bible, so I'm not sure what mindset you think I have.

I'll suffice it to say that only by reading and studying the bible have my husband I come to the conclusion that we were wrong about a great many things. I could go on and explain in depth and detail, but you have your own mindset about what is right and wrong. At this point, it seems you'd not even consider anything I have to say to be anything other than babble. You've gone as far as implying that I only think I am saved, but I'm only fooling myself. I have no doubts and my salvation is secure in the Lord's hands.

If you are wondering, Romans especially has been one of my favorite books of study over the last few years. Romans 8:1 - 4 speaks very well to what I'm talking about here. I could copy and paste verses all day long, but I'll leave it to these four verses for now.

Romans 8:1-4 (NIV)
1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

There is nothing further to add or to defend. The Lord is my defender and it is Him that you have maligned. I will not return to this particular discussion, but I do not leave in anger. (lest anyone assume I'm stomping off here) I will continue to lift you in prayer. May the Lord be with you as you continue to study.:amen:

[- DRA -]

Wow...you assume much and are so incorrect, about what I meant or what I believe. It's been a long and painful journey for me, DRA---to leave the church of Christ--but not Christ and not the church. My husband and I have not taken our decision lightly, nor have we flitted about with every wind of doctrine. I've not heard of Cecil Hook, nor have I read any books about any particular movement, except for the bible, so I'm not sure what mindset you think I have.

First, let me begin by pointing out something out: “To leave the church of Christ—but not Christ and not the church,” implies or infers the church of Christ is not the Lord’s church, or something other than the Lord’s church. Perhaps you can explain why the church Jesus promised to build (Matt. 16:18) isn’t His, why the church He established (Acts 2:47) isn’t His, and why the church He purchased with His own blood (Acts 20:28) isn’t His. Clearly, there shouldn’t be any disagreement over whether or not the church of Christ is a scriptural name for His church. Since the book of Romans has been one of your favorite books of study, you must be familiar with 16:16, right? Of course you are. So, please try to help me understand what’s really on your mind. How is the church of Christ of today unlike/unscriptural/etc. the church we read about in the New Testament? I am assuming you believe that Jesus actually established the church that He promised, and that he did it in the first century, and that it’s the one we read about in the New Testament. If I’m mistaken, please set the record straight, because it is not my intent to misrepresent you in any way.

The mindset that concerns me is the one described in Ephesians 4:14 – “that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting.” I firmly believe that God’s word does just what 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, therefore, it’s where I go so I won’t be “carried about.” No doubt, we all must be aware of deception and the potential for apostasy (e.g., Romans 16:17-18, 1 Timothy 4:1-4). It can affect me … and it can affect you. Plus, there’s the mindset to consider that characterizes those who don’t have a love for truth. Simply stated, folks that want things their way will find exactly what they are looking for per 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12. The problem is the result is not desirable - destruction. To me, this is one of the most sobering texts of Scripture. I think of it as an honest reality check that I must continually do while studying and contemplating God’s word. It’s not about what I want or about being right in doctrine or practice per se, but about being fair with God’s word and understanding it the way He would have it understood. Without such a love for truth, the door is wide open for error in its many forms. Cecil Hook’s teaching is just one of many out there.


I'll suffice it to say that only by reading and studying the bible have my husband I come to the conclusion that we were wrong about a great many things. I could go on and explain in depth and detail, but you have your own mindset about what is right and wrong. At this point, it seems you'd not even consider anything I have to say to be anything other than babble. You've gone as far as implying that I only think I am saved, but I'm only fooling myself. I have no doubts and my salvation is secure in the Lord's hands.

I never said anything about your thoughts being babble. What I addressed was your contempt for the church of Christ that continually comes from your writings.

As for salvation, you and I can think what we want. The bottom line is whether or not our reasoning is in accordance to God’s word. Matthew 4:5-7 is an example I like to use to illustrate Jesus’ teaching on discerning truth. In that text, the devil quotes Psalm 91:11-12. He quotes it accurately and applies it correctly to Jesus. However, his understanding of this Psalm is that God will deliver Jesus from harm if Jesus deliberately jumps from the top of the temple. Jesus counters with Deuteronomy 6:16. To deliberately jump from the top of the temple would be to tempt God – the principle in Deut. 6 God’s people are warned about. So, in a nutshell, we have two understandings of Psalm 91:11-12 before us. According to the Lord, one is wrong because it doesn’t harmonize with other passages. With these things in mind, a lot of folks claim salvation though the blood of Christ. Sadly, “many” have been deceived and will not be accepted by the Lord per Matthew 7:21-23. I am certainly not above being deceived. To ensure I’m not, my salvation is based upon the teachings of New Testament – particularly the conversions in the book of Acts, and other relevant passages that directly discuss salvation. I firmly believe the truth on any subject can only be found when harmony exists among the Scriptures. To illustrate, John 3:16 isn’t a sole passage that discusses salvation, but an understanding derived from that passage, first, should be considered in its context, and then harmonized with other relevant passages (e.g., Acts 8:12, Acts 16:30-34).

Now, let’s assume we are agreed concerning how one is saved under the gospel of Christ. Then, the issue at hand is remaining faithful to enter the promised land. I use that language with 1 Corinthians 10:1-13 in mind. It is a stern warning to both the Corinthians and us today to be careful to NOT follow the unfaithful example of the Israelites who came out of Egyptian bondage. Long story made short, they sinned, died, and did not enter the promised land. The point? The Corinthians were in danger of following in their footsteps. You are I are no different. We need to heed the warning. I say these things because I firmly believe your path of separation from the Lord’s church is leading you away from God. If, as you say, we (those in the church of Christ) are wrong about a great many things, then you could indeed do us a great justice by pointing out the things that are amiss.


If you are wondering, Romans especially has been one of my favorite books of study over the last few years. Romans 8:1 - 4 speaks very well to what I'm talking about here. I could copy and paste verses all day long, but I'll leave it to these four verses for now.


Romans 8:1-4 (NIV)
1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

Thanks for posting these passages. However, I fail to see how they support your premise. The passage teaches God’s people are no longer condemned (have their sins forgiven or taken away e.g., Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16), and are no longer under one law (the law of sin and death) but under a different law (the law of the Spirit of life – synonymous with the law of Christ in Gal. 6:2 and the perfect law of liberty in James 1:25). On a similar note, you might want to consider Romans 6:16-23. However, God’s people still have to serve God faithfully in accordance to His will. Going back to your original premise, if those who are members of the church of Christ today are not faithfully serving God, then please help us see what we are missing/lacking/etc.


There is nothing further to add or to defend. The Lord is my defender and it is Him that you have maligned. I will not return to this particular discussion, but I do not leave in anger. (lest anyone assume I'm stomping off here) I will continue to lift you in prayer. May the Lord be with you as you continue to study.:amen:

I disagree. I see nothing amiss from what I believe or practice in light of Romans 8:1-4 to make me change a thing. I have NOT maligned the Lord. I am simply questioning why you have done what you have done, and why you do what you do now.

Not returning to the discussion is your choice. No hard feelings if you don’t. Frankly, we are “slightly” off-topic, but I hoped our time would be profitable because it really gets more to the heart of the matter about why we don’t see things eye-to-eye.

If you should desire to study more, contact me. I sincerely would like to know which particular passages you have in mind that you have studied and led you away from the church of Christ.

I appreciate being lifted up in prayer. Thank you. Likewise, I will pray to God on your behalf.

[wmssid]

Hello, Cremi:

Chapter 7, of Romans, is about the futility of living without the supernatural Spirit of the Living God.

Chaper 8, ia about "walking ... according to the Spirit."

Here is a short discourse of the Spirit (which the churches do not teach).

Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding (One Spirit; #1), Counsel (One Faith; #2), Might (One God; #3). Knowledge (One Hope; #4), Fear of He Is (HWHY) (One Dipping; #5), Judge {-ment] (One Lord; #6), Righteousness (One Body; #7) - Isaiah 11.2-4; Eph 4.4-6.

Read James 1.5-8, telling how hard these spirits are to receive by prayer.

wmssid

[dharma66]

Dare I ask a question?

Three passages were mentioned repeatedly early on in this thread, and it seems to me that the purpose of mentioning them was to suggest scriptural restriction against the use of instrumental music in worship. If that understanding is incorrect, please ignore the rest of this post.

Assuming I do understand correctly, the three passages are (from NRSV):

Ephesians 5:19
"as you sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs among yourselves, singing and making melody to the Lord in your hearts,"

Colossians 3:16
"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; teach and admonish one another in all wisdom; and with gratitude in your hearts sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs to God."

James 5:13
"Are any among you suffering? They should pray. Are any among you cheerful? They should sing songs of praise."

What I don't understand is what it is about these passages that can be taken to mean that no instruments should be used. Surely its not just because no instruments are mentioned? Taking that approach we could say that as melody is mentioned explicitly, but harmony is not, then we should not sing with harmony. Or rhythm, for that matter.

Also, most peoples understanding of 'song' is something that includes instruments. I suspect that this was as true two thousand years ago as it is now? Maybe not? If the people to whom these words were originally spoken counted 'songs' as being generally a cappella, then maybe the assumption of the speaker is that a cappella would be understood?