Instrumental Music In Worship???

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

williemac

New Member
Apr 29, 2012
1,094
65
0
Canada
snr5557 said:
I've only just read the more recent comments on this discussion, so if this was already asked I apologize. But what would be the reason why using instruments as part of worship bad? How is using a piano somehow wrong in the eyes of God? How are instruments evil? I just don't understand why this is.
Exactly. Rom.14:14 "...nothing is unclean of itself. But to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean". Though this passage is about food, it is probably true here as well. The entire chapter is about each person's own convictions concerning various things. But if instruments are evil now, then why were they not in the days of Ps.150?

The only thing we should be concerned about is the "appropriate" use of things. Evil proceeds from within,out of the heart, and does not originate from inanimate objects, tools, or instruments.
Risen Angel said:
Do you perceive God as some angry old man, looking down at his children, wondering - what are those crazy kids doing now? Using 'instruments' in worship!?

Did God suddenly decide that flowers were no longer beautiful when Christ came? Perhaps he thought they were all the more beautiful, after having witnessing them in the flesh. Why would a father strip away something that brings love into the heart of his children? Don't let Satan blind you into his way of thinking. Examine the truth, not just some academic reasoning.

You can read the manual of how to drive a car, how to build an engine, memorize all the diagrams and blueprints - yet still have no experience in operating a vehicle.
Applause!!!!
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Not everything in the OT was law. The book of Psalms had elements of the Law, but it was not the Law. So, animal sacrifice was in the Law, but musical instruments was not. My goodness! That should be so simple it shouldn't need explaining!

Now, to say, "Well, we are just told to sing, not play musical instruments!" is also rediculous. Did the NT say not to? So to say grace is given through faith and to incorrectly quote Gal 5:1 as saying the OT was a yoke does warrent some concern. You are placing limitations and burdens on praising God that neither Jesus nor Moses did.

And its also untrue. Jesus used music and dancing in the parable of the prodigal son, no? That was fortelling something to come, not OT. Furthermore, Eph 5:19 says [to speak] to yourselves in psalms and hymns.

God still has harps in heaven playing (see Rev 5:18, 14:2 and 15:2), so I don't think he's against it.

All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient and not all things edify. Can you really tell me that musical instruments aren't expedient and can't edify God? And yet, you want to make it unlawful in Church.
 

BornAgain

New Member
Jan 15, 2014
24
4
3
USA
williemac said:
You are mistaken. No one is adding to the NT. There is no question that things changed when God fuliflled His promise of a new covenant. But those things that were changed were identified and explained in detail. Therefore if anything is not changed, then there would be no need to give instructions to not change them. Those things would simply remain the same as they were.

You question and remarks that criticize the use of instruments are worth considering. However, if they are logically valid now, then they should also have been logically valid at the time of the writing of Ps.150, to name one.
Did they need these things, to be "moved"? Were their feelings a problem with God? No. That was an inspired scripture. Why then would these things now suddenly be a problem with God? Things in our world may have changed, but praise and worship have been going on from before the foundation of the world. It is not a part of any covenant. It is a perpetual offering to God. Why would anyone even imagine that the use of instruments in it was 'temporarily' valid for only a moment in history?

The errant logic that you and others are using is that since there is no instruction to use instruments, then this means that they are not to be used. False logic. Since they were already in use, then God would not have remained silent, but would have needed to address the subject specifically and would have given specific instructions to cease the practice. He did this exact thing in regards to everything else that was changed. This is His pattern. Your pattern is irrelevant.

You are insisting that a change was made, from using them to not using them. God's silence on the subject is not a red light to stop, but rather a "carry on"...green light. You want to really test all things, or do you merely want to make assumptions based on your own personal biases?
In the Old Testament, God has always regulated His worship. Under the old covenant, mechanical instruments were part of the old covenant worship. They also accompanied animal sacrifices and they were part of the old law system. In Numbers 10:10 and 2 Chronicles 29:20-36, they were associated with the Levitical order. The reason that mechanical instruments were part of old covenant, Old Testament worship was because they were brought in and established by the divine authority of God Himself.

In 2 Chronicles 29:25. The Bible says, “And he”,( King Hezekiah), “stationed the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with stringed instruments, and with harps according to the commandment of David, of Gad the king's seer, and of Nathan the prophet,” : “for thus was the commandment of the Lord by His prophets.” ” Why were mechanical instruments part of the Old Testament, the old covenant system? Because they were commanded from God and they were commanded through His prophets.

We are not under that law system today as there has been a change of covenants. There has been a change of law. And not just bits and pieces, but the whole law system has changed. In the entire book of Hebrews, it talks about the difference between these two covenants. Hebrews 7:12 says, “For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.”

The Bible says that when the priesthood changed, law also had to change. In Hebrews 10:10, the Bible says, “By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all.” The Bible says in Hebrews 10:10 that it's the sacrifice of Christ, but when you go back to verse 9, look at what His will was. See what God's will was. “’Behold I have come to do your will, O God.’ He takes away the first that He may establish the second.” It happened with the sacrifice of Jesus He took away the first law, that first covenant, and He has established a second law and a second covenant. And since that first law has been taken out of the way, guess what? We cannot use it to try to justify the thing that we are doing today.

Old Testament practices cannot be used to authorize New Testament practice. It is an old law and that Old Testament is a law that nobody, no man can be justified by. In Acts 13:39, Acts 13:39, the Bible says, “By Him everyone who believes,” talking about Christ, “is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.” The Bible says you cannot be justified by the law of Moses. You cannot be justified by the law of Moses, but today the Bible says that the old law, the old covenant is a dead law. It is a dead covenant. Romans 7:4, the Bible says, “Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another- to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.” A dead law has absolutely no authority whatsoever. You can't go to a law that's no longer in force and try to act based upon that law. And that old law, that old covenant is not for us today.

The bible teaches in Deuteronomy 5:1-5 that that law was never for us. I see that I can't be justified from the old law and that it's a dead law, and if I try to go to the old law to use it to justify my actions, the Bible tells us what happens and what is going to happen in Galatians 5:4. If you attempt to be justified by the Old Testament law, the Bible says this, that “you have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.” The Bible says that you have fallen from God's grace if you attempt to be justified by the Old Testament law. We have to go to the New Testament, the new covenant. The Bible teaches in Romans 3:27 that's the law of faith. Galatians 6:1-2, that's the law of Christ. James 1 and 2, that's the law of liberty, the law of liberty. That is what we are under and what we are to follow today.

In the NT, the music that is established is vocal music. Romans 15:9, the Bible says, “’For this reason I will confess You among the Gentiles, and I will sing to Your name.’” We are to sing with, with the spirit, 1 Corinthians 14:15, we are to “sing with the understanding”, 1 Corinthians 14:15, and we are to sing with grace in our hearts (Colossians 3:16). Ephesians 5:19 also says to sing. So, these are not assumptions as you say, but biblical truth's.
 

Ernest T. Bass

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2014
1,845
616
113
out in the woods
williemac said:
The problem is that you are changing the subject, here. Paul wrote more than a few letters to among other things, correct wrong thinking. The church at large is made up of fallible humans. There is also an enemy that roams about introdicing false ideas, contradictions, and errant doctrines. No one organization or sect is immune from these attacks. As well, there are many things in scripture that give license to "be all things to all people". In the world, there are many different cultures, many different political situations, and many different focuses at various times that are specific to each location or group. What some people view as contradictions are sometimes the evidences of all of the above.

As well, there are things that are universally considered to be essential doctrine and other things that are open to various interpretations without eternal consequence. This issue is one of those latter.
But please read my above reply. It speaks into this so called contradiction.

In short, your position is that God never said to use instruments. My position is that He never said not to. And since they were already in use, He would have had to say "stop" if He wanted us to stop. The new covenant is not a "reset" of all things. It is a change in the way to justification. And it is the fulfillment of the promise that all within the covenant would know God, through the new birth and the indwelling presence of God. Praise and worship have been going on from well before either. Instruments were not a problem before. Why now? And the real quesiton...just who is having a problem with them? God? NOT!
One cannot be in error (outside of God's truth) and still be saved, one must be in truth to be saved. Therefore one's interpretation must be correct or he is in biblical error/falsehoods/false doctrines. Singing has been commanded and is not up to any person's "intrepretation" to make singing to mean what ever they desire to. And since singing has been commanded, commands are essential to follow. Not following God's commands is what the bible calls doing unrighteousness, sinning, disobedience, law-breaking and those that do such cannot be saved, Rom 1:18; 1 Tim 1:9

Again you post "My position is that He never said not to."


I have demonstrated already that this argument has no logical foundation at all. You do not even hold your self to this bad logic. Another example: Your employer tells you to be at work by 8:00am yet you show up at 3:00pm and tell your employer "you 'never said NOT to' be at work at 3:00pm" This bad logic will get you fired for when your employer said be at work by 8:00am that forbid you to be there at 3:00pm WITHOUT the employer specifically forbidding 3:00pm.


Again, since God "never said not to use" oak wood, that meant Noah could build the ark out of oak and still be doing as God commanded?

Since Christ 'never said not to use' orange juice and peanuts for the Lord's Supper Christian can use those items and still be partaking of the Lords Supper as insituted by Christ?

Since God 'never said not to' remember Tuesday and keep it holy, then the Jews could keep Tuesday as their holyday and still do as God said?

Again, you can continue to use this "never said not to" argument but it has no logical bases at all.


You post "And since they were already in use, He would have had to say "stop" if He wanted us to stop."

Musical instruments were NEVER in use in the church under Christ's NT law and have never been commanded to the church by God. So you cannot stop something that never was started.


You post "The new covenant is not a "reset" of all things. It is a change in the way to justification"

And this is why no one can go back to the OT law to find justification for NT music. There is no justification unde rthe OT law else Christ died in vain..."I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." Gal 2:21


You post "Praise and worship have been going on from well before either. Instruments were not a problem before. Why now? And the real quesiton...just who is having a problem with them? God? NOT!"

You do not understand that Christ took the OT, all of it from Genesis to Malachi, out of the way making it void and of no effect and replaced it with His NT law, Col 2:14, Heb 10:9


As I have posted before, but eveidently it is being ignored, here are the errors you are incontering by going back to the OT to find justification to use instruments:

The Galatian epistle is about the Galatians returning back to the OT law thinking they could be justifiied by being circumcised. For leaving Christ's NT law and returning back to the law of Moses Paul told them they had left the gospel of Christ to another false gospel, they had quit obeying the truth, they were trying to make Christ's death in vain, they had fallen from grace. All these things would also be true of me if I went back to the OT to try and justify using musical instruments. One other thing Paul told these Galtains for going back to the OT law looking for justification was "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law" Gal 5:3 The implication here is that if one goes back to the OT law then they have an obligation to keep and contend for the whole law, all of it. You cannot just go back to the OT law and cherry-pick the use of musical instruments while not keeping all the other OT laws. James said "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" James 2:10 The is a curse upon those that do not keep ALL the law, Gal 3:10. If you buy a vehicle to drive on the public roadways, then you have an obligation to keep and contend for ALL the laws of the road, you cannot cherry-pick out just one law while disobeying all the others, you then are guilty of the law. Similarly if you go back to the OT law to contend for using instruments then you have an oblgaiton to keep all the law else you are guilty of ALL.


Lastly in Rom 7:1-6 Paul makes an analogy about a woman with two husbands and trying to keep two laws. If a woman has a husband and she marry another man then she is an adulteress for having two husbands. Likewise Christians are married to Christ and His NT gospel, so going back to keep the law of Moses also is trying to keep two laws and is spiritual adultery against Christ.

Yet if a woman's husband be dead she is free to marry another man. Likewise, "ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another". So by Christ's death He took the OT law out of the way making it nonactive, of no effect freeing one to be married to Christ. So Pauls' point in the context to Jewish Christians is they cannot go back to the law of Moses else they commit spiritual adultery against Christ. Christ died and freed them/made them dead to that OT law so they can now be married to Christ. Paul here was refuting the Judiazing teachers that were trying to falsely teach one cannot be saved unless he keep the law of Moses.

So there is gross error and sinful for the Christian to go back to the OT law.
 

williemac

New Member
Apr 29, 2012
1,094
65
0
Canada
BornAgain said:
In the Old Testament, God has always regulated His worship. Under the old covenant, mechanical instruments were part of the old covenant worship. They also accompanied animal sacrifices and they were part of the old law system. In Numbers 10:10 and 2 Chronicles 29:20-36, they were associated with the Levitical order. The reason that mechanical instruments were part of old covenant, Old Testament worship was because they were brought in and established by the divine authority of God Himself.

In 2 Chronicles 29:25. The Bible says, “And he”,( King Hezekiah), “stationed the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with stringed instruments, and with harps according to the commandment of David, of Gad the king's seer, and of Nathan the prophet,” : “for thus was the commandment of the Lord by His prophets.” ” Why were mechanical instruments part of the Old Testament, the old covenant system? Because they were commanded from God and they were commanded through His prophets.

We are not under that law system today as there has been a change of covenants. There has been a change of law. And not just bits and pieces, but the whole law system has changed. In the entire book of Hebrews, it talks about the difference between these two covenants. Hebrews 7:12 says, “For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.”

The Bible says that when the priesthood changed, law also had to change. In Hebrews 10:10, the Bible says, “By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all.” The Bible says in Hebrews 10:10 that it's the sacrifice of Christ, but when you go back to verse 9, look at what His will was. See what God's will was. “’Behold I have come to do your will, O God.’ He takes away the first that He may establish the second.” It happened with the sacrifice of Jesus He took away the first law, that first covenant, and He has established a second law and a second covenant. And since that first law has been taken out of the way, guess what? We cannot use it to try to justify the thing that we are doing today.

Old Testament practices cannot be used to authorize New Testament practice. It is an old law and that Old Testament is a law that nobody, no man can be justified by. In Acts 13:39, Acts 13:39, the Bible says, “By Him everyone who believes,” talking about Christ, “is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.” The Bible says you cannot be justified by the law of Moses. You cannot be justified by the law of Moses, but today the Bible says that the old law, the old covenant is a dead law. It is a dead covenant. Romans 7:4, the Bible says, “Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another- to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.” A dead law has absolutely no authority whatsoever. You can't go to a law that's no longer in force and try to act based upon that law. And that old law, that old covenant is not for us today.

The bible teaches in Deuteronomy 5:1-5 that that law was never for us. I see that I can't be justified from the old law and that it's a dead law, and if I try to go to the old law to use it to justify my actions, the Bible tells us what happens and what is going to happen in Galatians 5:4. If you attempt to be justified by the Old Testament law, the Bible says this, that “you have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.” The Bible says that you have fallen from God's grace if you attempt to be justified by the Old Testament law. We have to go to the New Testament, the new covenant. The Bible teaches in Romans 3:27 that's the law of faith. Galatians 6:1-2, that's the law of Christ. James 1 and 2, that's the law of liberty, the law of liberty. That is what we are under and what we are to follow today.

In the NT, the music that is established is vocal music. Romans 15:9, the Bible says, “’For this reason I will confess You among the Gentiles, and I will sing to Your name.’” We are to sing with, with the spirit, 1 Corinthians 14:15, we are to “sing with the understanding”, 1 Corinthians 14:15, and we are to sing with grace in our hearts (Colossians 3:16). Ephesians 5:19 also says to sing. So, these are not assumptions as you say, but biblical truth's.
Unfortunately you are viewing this whole thing from the perspective of law rather than liberty. Liberty is "the law". We can do all of what you are quoting from 1Cor.14:15, Ephesians 5:19, etc. WITH the use of instruments. As I shared earlier. Those passages do not resitrict our praise to 'singing only" . You are adding to them by making restrictions that are not mentioned as restrictions.

The fact is that in the day that these passages were written, the church was brand new, having been estranged from the traditional Jewish faith, not meeting with them, but rather in houses and caves, and secret places. They did not have the advantage of meeting in large buildings or in temples, so they did not have access to the former or usual props and instruments.

Paul was not in the habit of considering the future in his instructions to believers, but stayed in the present.

Like I said, there is no precident for considering the absense of the mention of instruments as though it represents a resitriction of the same. If they were to be restricted or banned, then the pattern is that there would have been an explanation present, a reason given. Commands are clear. The fact is, instruments are used in aid to singing. They help fulfill the instruction to sing. They do not hinder singing to God in any way, shape, or form. This argument from your perspective, with all due respect, is nothing less than a failure to grasp the concept of praise and worship ...and failure to understand the liberty and freedom that our covenant contains.

Ernest T. Bass said:
You post "And since they were already in use, He would have had to say "stop" if He wanted us to stop."

Musical instruments were NEVER in use in the church under Christ's NT law and have never been commanded to the church by God. So you cannot stop something that never was started.
I never siad they were in use in 'the church'. What I meant was that they were in use by God's people in praise and worship. Many of these same people were converted Jews, who were participants in the former meetings where instruments were used.

As I also shared, you and others are viewing these things from a legal perspective, in your observation that there is an absence of a "command" to use instruments. The other side of that coin is the absence of a "command" to NOT use them.

Since either side can make its case on that basis of the "absence of a command" , this defaults to the things that Paul mentioned in Rom.14. , where there are allowances within our liberty to go with personal conviction.

Don't forget, the church is "people". As Rom.14:5, says..."...let each one be fully convinced in his own mind"

You want to praise Him acapella? By all means. But why this desire to invent commands that do not exist?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just an observation. Nothing personal:
This subject is revealing a phenominon that the legal mindset gets wrapped up in. And that is, to take what is simply a guideline or instruction, and turn it into a "command". That word has inuendo written all over it, that suggests punishment for violation of it. And that is what law puts into the heart. Fear of punishment. The heart is meant to be motivated by love and assurance, not fear of rejection, punishment, or loss. Many Christians are still under law in their understanding. What makes something a law is the enforcement of it. The wages of sin is death. That is enforcement. Liberty is the absence of enforcement. The enforcement of the law was put onto Jesus so that we can by faith, be spared of the same. As Paul said concerning other things...."let no man judge you"

If we keep this to a discussion of a concept, that would be fine. But human nature usually takes it to a finger pointing level. Thanks to everyone for refraining from that.
 

Ernest T. Bass

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2014
1,845
616
113
out in the woods
snr5557 said:
I've only just read the more recent comments on this discussion, so if this was already asked I apologize. But what would be the reason why using instruments as part of worship bad? How is using a piano somehow wrong in the eyes of God? How are instruments evil? I just don't understand why this is.
When God comamnds "x" but instead I do "y" then that constitues sin, disobedience to God's will. Likewise when God commands His church to sing, and if they do otherwise that consitutes sin.

As I posted before, if I do not have to do what God commands when it comes to singing, then I do not have to do what God says when it comes to anything/everything else. I do not need a bible if I am going to do what I want to do instead of doing as God commanded. Worship for the NT church is not a free-for-all where man choose for himself as to how to worship God....."But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." Jn 4:23,24

The true worshipper worships according to "truth". God's word is truth, Jn 17:17 so God's word is the determining factor as to how the true worshipper worhips and God's word commands singing for HIs NT church.

Risen Angel said:
We don't need to offer animal sacrifice because the ultimate sacrifice (the perfect, unblemished lamb) was offered for all sin, for all time. This is a basic tenet of Christian philosophy. Also, let's not forget that the people of the covenant were still free to sin as they may. Just because the law was established doesn't mean it was followed. Don't blame God for the people's flaw.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)

There is a difference between Old Testament and New Testament thinking, but Christ did not come to suddenly abolish all of God's law. Sin is still sin. He came to pay the price of sin so that you could come to God. When I play the guitar in worship I am using it to harmonize with my spirit, and I sing to God with all my heart. He has no issue with my guitar; in fact, he embraces it. And yes, I can say this with all honesty.

Perhaps you could review Psalm 89. I am embarrassed by your claim that the Old Testament is "of no effect." It is ignorant. Why are you so intent on forgetting the history? Do you subscribe to the grace theory: all grace, no consequence? Is not the Holy Spirit the same spirit in OT and NT; is not God the same God in OT and NT?

Do you perceive God as some angry old man, looking down at his children, wondering - what are those crazy kids doing now? Using 'instruments' in worship!?

Did God suddenly decide that flowers were no longer beautiful when Christ came? Perhaps he thought they were all the more beautiful, after having witnessing them in the flesh. Why would a father strip away something that brings love into the heart of his children? Don't let Satan blind you into his way of thinking. Examine the truth, not just some academic reasoning.

You can read the manual of how to drive a car, how to build an engine, memorize all the diagrams and blueprints - yet still have no experience in operating a vehicle.
You do not offer animal sacrifices as David did, or play insturments as David did, or do the purifiations, pilgrimages and all David did under th OT law for that law was taken out of the way by Christ and made of no effect, non-active. Again, Christ took ALL of it out of the way He did not leave in just the musical instruments. Both laws could not coexist for they are different with the OT based upon the blood of bulls and goats and the NT based upon the blood of Christ. So this is a reason Christ took away the first so that he may establish the second, Heb 10:9 See also Col 2:14 where Christ "took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" The verb 'took' is perfect tense denoting a permanent taking of the OT out of the way.

I will not repeat it here, but I have already pointed out the errors in trying to leave the NT law and return to the law of Moses seeking justification under that law. Psalms 66:13-15 is just as binding as any other Psalms, no cherry picking out of Psalms what you like and dismissing what you do not like. See Gal 5:3 and James 2:10.
There is nothing in Psa 89 that remotely suggests NT Christians are to keep the law of Moses. That idea violates what Paul said in Rom 7:1-5 about the Christian, who is married to Christ, trying to keep both Christ's NT law and Moses OT law, he is commiting spiritual adultery by trying to keep to laws a s a woman keeping two husbands is commiting adultery.



Furthermore the type and style of worship under the OT law and NT is different. The Hebrew writer describes OT worship: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." Worship under the law of Moses was fleshly, carnal from circumcisions, animal sacrifices, purifications etc. Yet worship under the NT is spiritual, Jn 4:23,23 Using physical, mechanical instruments would be dragging that carnal OT style of worship into NT worship that is spiritual. God is not interested in hearing noise coming from carnal instruments but is filled with joy over hearing singing coming from the spirit, the very soul of His children.


Lastly, Deut 5 shows that the OT law of Moses was only given to the Jews to keep, no one else. There is not a single verse you can show me that says the OT law was given to Gentiles or Christians to keep...it's not there. And no one can put an OT law upon me that was NEVER given to me to keep in the first place.

williemac said:
Exactly. Rom.14:14 "...nothing is unclean of itself. But to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean". Though this passage is about food, it is probably true here as well. The entire chapter is about each person's own convictions concerning various things. But if instruments are evil now, then why were they not in the days of Ps.150?

The only thing we should be concerned about is the "appropriate" use of things. Evil proceeds from within,out of the heart, and does not originate from inanimate objects, tools, or instruments.

Applause!!!!
It is gross misinterprtation to think Rom 14:14 means the Christian is free to do as he pleases. Christians are under the law of Christ as Paul said he was, 1 Cor 9:21. So Christians are bound to that NT law when it commands singing. I have already noted that the bible says true worshippers worship according to truth which is God's word. So God's word determines how worship is to be done and that is not a freedom man has a choice in. In the context of Rom 14 Paul is dealing with issues of opinion or expedieancy not matters of law of Christ. And singing is not a matter of opinion but a matter of law, a command of Christ. Man has no freedom to change what Christ's NT law says about singing no more than he has the freedom in changing the elements (fruit of the vine and unleaven bread) Christ used in instituting the Lord's Supper.
 

williemac

New Member
Apr 29, 2012
1,094
65
0
Canada
Ernest T. Bass said:
When God comamnds "x" but instead I do "y" then that constitues sin, disobedience to God's will. Likewise when God commands His church to sing, and if they do otherwise that consitutes sin.

As I posted before, if I do not have to do what God commands when it comes to singing, then I do not have to do what God says when it comes to anything/everything else. I do not need a bible if I am going to do what I want to do instead of doing as God commanded. Worship for the NT church is not a free-for-all where man choose for himself as to how to worship God....."But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." Jn 4:23,24

The true worshipper worships according to "truth". God's word is truth, Jn 17:17 so God's word is the determining factor as to how the true worshipper worhips and God's word commands singing for HIs NT church.
I meant to come back and edit my statement about the inuendo I mentioned about punishment. Of course, I am not trying to invalidate NT commands, but rather am speaking of how we understand them in context.

However, I see you are simply ignoring my presentation and repeating yourself. Your observation of worship being a free for all, is merely an opinion. Do you suppose that 'worshipping in spirit and in truth' is subject to a private interpretation...yours in particular?

I have included Ps.150, in what you call "God's word". You exclude it on the basis of the "absence" of a NT. command, though you prefer not to acknowledge this fact. You claim that "singing to the Lord" is a command, and furthermore, that it carries with it a restriction to not include the use of instruments.

There is no precident for this kind of bible interpretation. Assumption does not prove anything. Show us some proof of a restriction, and maybe I will consider it. Instruments at one time were not only valid, but preferred in worship and praise to God. If this has changed, then show us why. All other changes have been explained and expounded upon. Why not this one? Maybe its because there is no change. The assumption that worshipping in spirit and in truth cannot include the use of an instrument is just that...an assumption.

As well, who says that passage is referring to singing? Singing is praise. Worship can include singing, but in its definition includes much more in devotion to God. In fact, worship can be happening with no singing whatsoever. If you want to use passages in your argument that are about worship, (ie. John 4:23,24) then you are misusing the word by insinuating that it is exclusevly about singing. Jesus may not have been talking about singing at all in that passage. If you are using it as a proof text, then it's up to you to prove that He was. You cannot.

Case in point. Whenever we see someone in scripture falling on their knees to worship, are you actually going to suggest that they were breaking into song?
 

Ernest T. Bass

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2014
1,845
616
113
out in the woods
FHII said:
Not everything in the OT was law. The book of Psalms had elements of the Law, but it was not the Law. So, animal sacrifice was in the Law, but musical instruments was not. My goodness! That should be so simple it shouldn't need explaining!

Now, to say, "Well, we are just told to sing, not play musical instruments!" is also rediculous. Did the NT say not to? So to say grace is given through faith and to incorrectly quote Gal 5:1 as saying the OT was a yoke does warrent some concern. You are placing limitations and burdens on praising God that neither Jesus nor Moses did.

And its also untrue. Jesus used music and dancing in the parable of the prodigal son, no? That was fortelling something to come, not OT. Furthermore, Eph 5:19 says [to speak] to yourselves in psalms and hymns.

God still has harps in heaven playing (see Rev 5:18, 14:2 and 15:2), so I don't think he's against it.

All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient and not all things edify. Can you really tell me that musical instruments aren't expedient and can't edify God? And yet, you want to make it unlawful in Church.
Actually all the OT can be referred to as "law" including Psalms.

Jn 10:34 "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

In the context, Jesus was proving His Deity to the Jews here when He quotes Psalms 82:6. Note how Jesus calls Psalms "law".



In Rom 3:10-18 Paul quotes some verses from Psalms and in v19 he refers to those verses as "law"...."Now we know that what things soever the law saith"

As far as the prodigal son and the playing of music, it is ASSUMED that this parable allows for or commands playing music in NT worship. It no more allows or commands music in NT church worship than it allows or commands putting on rings, robes, dancing or killing the fatted calf as acts of worship within the NT church.


There is no evidence in Revelation that those are literal, physical harps. FIrst, heaven is a spiritual place not a place for physical objects. Furthermore those contexts about harps are very highly figurative.

ASV renders Rev 14:2 "And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and the voice which I heard was as the voice of harpers harping with their harps"

It says "as" the voice of harpers, a simile, the harps are no more literal than the water or thunder. (THe AMP CEB CJB CEV Darby DRA ERV ESV ESVUK EXB GW GNT HCSB LEB NOG NASB along with many other versions translate Rev 14:2 in a similar way as the ASV)

In Rev 5:8 the harps are no more literal than the bowl full of prayers. And In the context of Rev 14:1,2 the harps are no more literal than a literal 144,000 only being saved.

Even if there were literal harps playing in heaven that in no way proves or demands that harps are to be played here on earth within the NT church worship. Matt 22:30 there will be no marriage in heaven. Does that demand that there be no marriage within the church here on earth? No.

The "nowhere does the NT say not to use instruments" is a badly flawed, illogical arguemnt that I have commented on already. Here is someone else's commentary on using this bad logic:

The Argument From Silence is Invalid

Some, in trying to get around the plain New Testament teaching on the type of music to be used in the church, have endeavored to argue from silence. According to this method, because the New Testament does not say, "Thou shalt not use the instrument," and since there is no express condemnation of the practice, it must be acceptable to God. This is a false conclusion derived from the erroneous premise that the silence of the word of God is as much a guide for men as its positive commands. In other words, some wrongly believe that a thing is all right for worship unless explicitly forbidden. But it can easily be demonstrated that this type of reasoning will not work.

When God commands men to do anything specifically, everything else in the related category is excluded. For example: a) Bread and fruit of the vine are the elements God has ordained for the Lord's Supper, according to Matt 26:26-39. The specific divine requirement for these elements excludes everything else. No one would be foolish enough to insist upon adding meat and potatoes to the Lord's table because the New Testament doesn't expressly prohibit their use for this purpose. When God commanded the children of Israel to use a lamb for the Passover feast (Exodus 12:3), every other kind of animal was automatically excluded. God did not have to expressly mention all the animals that were not to be used; the kind specified excluded all others.

There are two kinds of commands in the Bible: specific and generic. For instance, Make thee an ark of gopher wood (Gen 6:14) is a specific command. God specified the wood, and that settled the question of the kind of wood. God did not say, "Thou shalt use no other kind of wood;" but the fact that God limited the wood to gopher wood forbade use of any other kind. Now if God had said, "Make thee an ark of wood," the use of any kind of wood would have met this generic command.

If the New Testament had simply said, "Make music," the commandment could have been complied with by making either vocal or instrumental music, or both. God, however, did not say that. He said sing, and that restricts the music to vocal music. The specification and limitation is as clear here as it was in the command to build an ark out of gopher wood. http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/church/musical-instruments-in-the-church.php



When Paul says "All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient and not all things edify" Paul is speaking about opinion or expediency not matter of law. He said he was under law himself, 1 Cor 9:21 Again, Jn 4:23,24 truth, God's word determines how worship is to be done, it is not left to the freedo of man. CHrist's NT law commands.

williemac said:
I never siad they were in use in 'the church'. What I meant was that they were in use by God's people in praise and worship. Many of these same people were converted Jews, who were participants in the former meetings where instruments were used.

As I also shared, you and others are viewing these things from a legal perspective, in your observation that there is an absence of a "command" to use instruments. The other side of that coin is the absence of a "command" to NOT use them.

Since either side can make its case on that basis of the "absence of a command" , this defaults to the things that Paul mentioned in Rom.14. , where there are allowances within our liberty to go with personal conviction.

Don't forget, the church is "people". As Rom.14:5, says..."...let each one be fully convinced in his own mind"

You want to praise Him acapella? By all means. But why this desire to invent commands that do not exist?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just an observation. Nothing personal:
This subject is revealing a phenominon that the legal mindset gets wrapped up in. And that is, to take what is simply a guideline or instruction, and turn it into a "command". That word has inuendo written all over it, that suggests punishment for violation of it. And that is what law puts into the heart. Fear of punishment. The heart is meant to be motivated by love and assurance, not fear of rejection, punishment, or loss. Many Christians are still under law in their understanding. What makes something a law is the enforcement of it. The wages of sin is death. That is enforcement. Liberty is the absence of enforcement. The enforcement of the law was put onto Jesus so that we can by faith, be spared of the same. As Paul said concerning other things...."let no man judge you"

If we keep this to a discussion of a concept, that would be fine. But human nature usually takes it to a finger pointing level. Thanks to everyone for refraining from that.
So you cannot show where musical instruments were ever used within the NT church in the first century. Very telling.

Again you post "The other side of that coin is the absence of a "command" to NOT use them." This is a illogical, weak, erroneous argument. It appears to be the only straw you have to hang onto, and you can never prove your argument using it.

Again, an example of that flawed logic: Since God did not specifically name and fobid oak wood in building the ark, does that mean Noah could have built that ark out of oak and still obeyed what God commanded him?


Your argument therefore is dead.
-------------------------------------------------------

The word legalistic or legalism is to be found nowhere in the bible. Many people unfortunately confuse legalism with doing God's righteousness. Noah doing as God said in building the ark is callied righteousness not legalism Heb 11:7
Not doing as God said is called doing unrighteousness. So when the bible commands singing to the NT church and I sing then that is doing God's righteousness. If I do otherwise in disbeying that command it is sin, doing unrighteousness.

williemac said:
I meant to come back and edit my statement about the inuendo I mentioned about punishment. Of course, I am not trying to invalidate NT commands, but rather am speaking of how we understand them in context.

However, I see you are simply ignoring my presentation and repeating yourself. Your observation of worship being a free for all, is merely an opinion. Do you suppose that 'worshipping in spirit and in truth' is subject to a private interpretation...yours in particular?

I have included Ps.150, in what you call "God's word". You exclude it on the basis of the "absence" of a NT. command, though you prefer not to acknowledge this fact. You claim that "singing to the Lord" is a command, and furthermore, that it carries with it a restriction to not include the use of instruments.

There is no precident for this kind of bible interpretation. Assumption does not prove anything. Show us some proof of a restriction, and maybe I will consider it. Instruments at one time were not only valid, but preferred in worship and praise to God. If this has changed, then show us why. All other changes have been explained and expounded upon. Why not this one? Maybe its because there is no change. The assumption that worshipping in spirit and in truth cannot include the use of an instrument is just that...an assumption.

As well, who says that passage is referring to singing? Singing is praise. Worship can include singing, but in its definition includes much more in devotion to God. In fact, worship can be happening with no singing whatsoever. If you want to use passages in your argument that are about worship, (ie. John 4:23,24) then you are misusing the word by insinuating that it is exclusevly about singing. Jesus may not have been talking about singing at all in that passage. If you are using it as a proof text, then it's up to you to prove that He was. You cannot.

Case in point. Whenever we see someone in scripture falling on their knees to worship, are you actually going to suggest that they were breaking into song?
It is not my interpretation that the bible says the true worshippers worships in truth. Jn 4:23,24 It is also not my interpreatation that the bible says God's word is truth. Jn 17:17 The implication of the verses is that the true worhsipper worships according to God's word. So the bottom line issue is can you show from the truth/God;s wrod where the NT church was commanded to play instruments? No you cannot. The most you have been able to muster up so far is the illogical argument from silence.


Not only do we have to take in consideration that God's word commands the NT church to sing, we also have to take in consideration that truth/God's word says that Christ permanently took the OT out of the way, Col 2:14, Heb 10:9. So just as it is truth that God's word commands the NT church to sing, it is equally truth/God's word that says the OT law was taken out of the way being made void, of no effect and that the Christian cannot go back to that OT law else he commit spiritual adultery against Christ to Whom he is married. Rigtly dividing, rightly handling the word of God is required in this matter.

Again you cling to that flawed argument "You exclude it on the basis of the "absence" of a NT. command, though you prefer not to acknowledge this fact."

I acknowledge that nowhere in the NT does it say NOT to use instuments. I also acknowedge logic and the law of inclusion and exclusion as used in the bible. That when God INCLUDED gopher wood that EXCLUDED all other types of wood WITHOUT God having to specifically, explicitly forbid them all by name.

Do you acknowledge that nowhere in the NT does it specifically forbid using orange juice and peanuts for the Lord's Supper? Applying your "logic" to this means the Christian can use OJ and peanuts for the Lord's Supper, or in reality, it means the Christian is really FREE to use ANY element in the Lord's Supper NOT specifically forbidden.

What you are doing here is NOT intepretation, it is just using bad logic and bad logic leads to MIS-interpretations.


There are other acts of worshp other than singing such as praying or giving of one's money to the contribution. GIving is not the same as singing, but giving in no way implies that one can play instruments or "go beyond that which is written" which is singing.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Ernest T. Bass said:
Actually all the OT can be referred to as "law" including Psalms.

Jn 10:34 "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

In the context, Jesus was proving His Deity to the Jews here when He quotes Psalms 82:6. Note how Jesus calls Psalms "law".
Try applying a little common sense here. When Jesus said that it does not mean you can blindly apply the meaning of the word "law" to mean "OT" in every case. If so, when Jesus said, "The law and the prophets were until John" (Luke 16:16) he meant the law of Moses and the prophets of the OT. It would be redundant if "law" meant the OT. Furthermore, In Romans 6:14 it is clearly speaking of the law of Moses, even though it does not specify so. Even furthermore, if we aren't to even acknowledge the OT and if none of it applies to the NT Church, it's pretty curious why Jesus and the Apostles relied so heavily on it.

So like I said, use some common sense here.


Ernest T. Bass said:
As far as the prodigal son and the playing of music, it is ASSUMED that this parable allows for or commands playing music in NT worship. It no more allows or commands music in NT church worship than it allows or commands putting on rings, robes, dancing or killing the fatted calf as acts of worship within the NT church.
No...YOU are assuming it doesn't. Bottom line: Jesus used it in a parable as a method of celebration. Clearly he didn't have a problem with it. In fact, it is a NT endorsement of using music. If you are going to dismiss this as such, you will have to throw out every other parable Jesus used to teach.

Furthermore, the NT doesn't forbid rings, robes or dancing (in fact, this parable approves of dancing). Rings and robes are thought to be forbidden, but that's just a misunderstanding of verses like Jas 2:2. Killing a fatted calf.... Well, ok. I'll give you that one. Although, it isn't so much forbidden as it is unneccessary.


Ernest T. Bass said:
There is no evidence in Revelation that those are literal, physical harps. FIrst, heaven is a spiritual place not a place for physical objects. Furthermore those contexts about harps are very highly figurative.
Doesn't matter. He clearly liked them in heaven whether they are spiritual or literal. Like Mat 6 says.... Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven. If God don't mind them in heaven, he isn't going to mind them on earth.

And once again, you are wrong about the NT never saying use musical instruments. I pointed that out, but you apperently either missed it or chose not to address it. I gave one verse, but it is spoken of at least three times.
 

Secondhand Lion

New Member
Jan 30, 2012
309
22
0
People's Republic of Maryland
Wow, I had no idea people had some of these ideas. Wow....no seriously....WOW! I have taken the time to read through most of these posts, mainly because when something comes along that I have never heard before, I want to try to take the time to understand the particular viewpoint I have never considered....hey...maybe it has some validity.

Here I go again...please pardon my excessive simplicity...but when has God ever made an argument through silence? The God I worship is pretty clear and concise when He doesn't want me to do something...ya know the whole lying\stealing\dishonoring my parents thing etc. Com'mon...no instruments? Really? How does He feel about it? He doesn't say....period. God wants you to know not to do something....He ain't shy.

Ps...Ernest...do you happen to be singing all your posts? I am having a really good time picturing it if you aren't.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The problem is Secondhand Lion is that he did say.... he said it in the OT MANY times. Some of the folks here, however, feel he changed his mind in the NT, which he never said he did. In fact, it's a falsehood that God doesn't approve of musical instruments in the NT. 1. Jesus mentions them in a good light in one of his parables, 2. God still has them going in Heaven and 3. at least 3 times in the NT we are told to sing psalms (which by definition includes them).
 

Risen Angel

New Member
Jul 23, 2012
55
10
0
If my employer ask me to show up at 8 AM (singing) and I am still there at 3 PM (singing & playing guitar), I don't see how I have violated his request. There is no logical crisis on the horizon. I have fulfilled the requirement and simply brought more to the table than he asked for. But this line of reasoning is irrelevant when discussing my choice to play guitar while worshiping God. Let's go to the scripture for understanding.

And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: (Revelation 14:2)

An interesting lead up to perhaps one of my favorite verses in the text, but I'll get to that in moment. The final segment of this verse is fairly clear - people singing with their instruments. Maybe consider the versions of the text you are referencing, because the NIV took the trinity right out of the word; how much more have these other translations strayed. Why do you want to add words that aren't there? To support your argument?

And they sung as it were a new song before the throne... (Revelation 14:3)

And this song is being sung by the guitarists; how are we to learn the song without the harpers harping with their harps?

This is not the only reference in the NT about musical instruments. Earlier in the same text an amazing event is transpiring, perhaps overlooked by your eagerness to find only the single perception of truth you seek.

And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; (Revelation 5:8-9)

This is fairly significant, and our Lord is present - in fact, he is the reason why they bow. The elders have an instrument in their hand... every one of them. And what do they do while in the presence of Jesus? They sing a new song. A song that makes a statement that reaches across all time and all people. It is what we have all been waiting for. A pinnacle moment if there ever was one.

Even if you don't like my first scripture reference, how can you argue with this one? If God is standing there looking at his people holding harps - then they are HOLDING HARPS. I don't understand how this could be any more clear. This debate has gone on way too long. Even though I find it interesting, it is perhaps an exercise in futility to continue discussing this topic if you are unwilling to concede.

Are you going to argue that the One who opens the eyes of the blind... is blind?

God is not limited by the physical world. If he wants instruments in heaven then they are there. He spoke the world into existence - do you think whipping up a couple of harps is beyond his ability? Who are we to dictate the rules of the realm of heaven? We will be given heavenly bodies, so why not some heavenly harps to go along with it?

There has been this focus on OT versus NT in this thread. Why? It is a seamless integration to anyone who reads it. The NT is of no effect without the OT. Without the law there is no reason for Christ to come. What would grace mean to us if there was no purpose for it? What would forgiveness mean if there was not a consequence to be forgiven.

Without death, why the need for life?

Plant the seed, water it and watch it grow; and, yet, you will never understand how it does grow - it does because God wills it. Could you create the seed, the soil in which it germinates, the water which gives it life, the sun that brings it sustenance? No. So, why do you think that your reasoning is any more powerful? We are the creature, not the creator. Sometimes I like to just sit back and drink in the beauty of the flowers. I don't need to have any logic to support why I am feeling the presence of God by witnessing his creation.

No more so do I need to ask why I feel his presence while strumming the chords.
 

Ernest T. Bass

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2014
1,845
616
113
out in the woods
FHII said:
Try applying a little common sense here. When Jesus said that it does not mean you can blindly apply the meaning of the word "law" to mean "OT" in every case. If so, when Jesus said, "The law and the prophets were until John" (Luke 16:16) he meant the law of Moses and the prophets of the OT. It would be redundant if "law" meant the OT. Furthermore, In Romans 6:14 it is clearly speaking of the law of Moses, even though it does not specify so. Even furthermore, if we aren't to even acknowledge the OT and if none of it applies to the NT Church, it's pretty curious why Jesus and the Apostles relied so heavily on it.

So like I said, use some common sense here.



No...YOU are assuming it doesn't. Bottom line: Jesus used it in a parable as a method of celebration. Clearly he didn't have a problem with it. In fact, it is a NT endorsement of using music. If you are going to dismiss this as such, you will have to throw out every other parable Jesus used to teach.

Furthermore, the NT doesn't forbid rings, robes or dancing (in fact, this parable approves of dancing). Rings and robes are thought to be forbidden, but that's just a misunderstanding of verses like Jas 2:2. Killing a fatted calf.... Well, ok. I'll give you that one. Although, it isn't so much forbidden as it is unneccessary.



Doesn't matter. He clearly liked them in heaven whether they are spiritual or literal. Like Mat 6 says.... Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven. If God don't mind them in heaven, he isn't going to mind them on earth.

And once again, you are wrong about the NT never saying use musical instruments. I pointed that out, but you apperently either missed it or chose not to address it. I gave one verse, but it is spoken of at least three times.
Jn 10:34,35 "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;"

The common sense approach is that Jesus was quoting from Psalms and called it "law". All the OT can be called law. Here is what a couple of commentators had to say of this passage:

Your law ... to the word of God ... the Scripture ... These triple designations refer to the entire Old Testament. The use of "your law" in reference to a Psalm makes it certain that "the law" did not mean merely the Pentateuch, but applied to the entire Old Testament. There is no stronger testimony in the Bible to the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures than this remarkable passage.
Coffman Commentary

Verse 34. In your law. Psalms 82:6. The word law here, is used to include the Old Testament.
Albert Barnes Notes on the NT

Even though all the OT can be called law, there are places as you noted in Lk 16:16 that the OT is called the "law and the prophets". In this case Psalms is not one of the prophets so it must fall under law.

But in Jn 10:34,35 the language is too pointed and plain that Psalms - the OT is called law.



As far as the prodigal and music, you made the affirmative that it does relate to the NT church worship and therefore allows for instruments, therefore it is up to YOU to prove YOUR own affirmation. Just saying it does is not proof. It remains your assumption until you can prove otherwise.

You post "Furthermore, the NT doesn't forbid rings, robes or dancing..."

You too are caught up in the faulty logic of WIlliemac that if the NT does not specifically condemn a thing then that thing is allowed. Again, the NT does not specifically forbid the use of orange juice and peanuts for the Lord's Supper so according to your 'logic' those items would be allowed.

But more to the point of the parable and the prodigal sons' celebration. A celebration of a lost son returning home proves nothing about NT worship for the three parables of Lk 15 have NOTHING at all to do with NT worship. The purpose of the parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin and the lost son was to reveal a single point found in Lk 15:2 "And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them". The point being made to the Pharisees by these parables was Jesus was to reach out to lost sinners of society at large because of the Jews rejection of Him. Nowhere in Lk 15:1-3 does it say the purpose of the parables is about playing instruments in NT worship. That is an unbelievable stretch to add that idea to the text of Lk 15. The purpose behind the parables do not allow for putting on of robes, rings, sandal shoes or dancing or killing a fatted calf, tending sheep, looking for lost coins as acts of worship. The son is assumed by some to be a type of Christian and the father represents God. Yet worship is to be directed towards God, but in the parable the music (celebration) was not directed towards or for the father but was directed to and for the son. Christians are not to be worshipping themselves much less worship themselves with instruments.



It does matter that in the various Revelation texts that those context are very symbolic and those harps are just as symbolic as other things mentioned in those contexts. You cannot, within the same text, try and literalize harps while trying to symbolize 144,000 only being saved, that's inconsistency, Nothing in the context say anything about God clearly liking harps playing in heaven no more that God likes hearing literal thunder or running water in heaven. In Rev 14:2 he heard a "voice" and verse 3 he heard "singing" no literal harps playing in heaven here at all.

Lastly you post "And once again, you are wrong about the NT never saying use musical instruments..."

God never said to Noah to not use oak wood. So Noah could have built the ark out of oak and still done as God commanded him?

Secondhand Lion said:
Wow, I had no idea people had some of these ideas. Wow....no seriously....WOW! I have taken the time to read through most of these posts, mainly because when something comes along that I have never heard before, I want to try to take the time to understand the particular viewpoint I have never considered....hey...maybe it has some validity.

Here I go again...please pardon my excessive simplicity...but when has God ever made an argument through silence? The God I worship is pretty clear and concise when He doesn't want me to do something...ya know the whole lying\stealing\dishonoring my parents thing etc. Com'mon...no instruments? Really? How does He feel about it? He doesn't say....period. God wants you to know not to do something....He ain't shy.

Ps...Ernest...do you happen to be singing all your posts? I am having a really good time picturing it if you aren't.
Teaching takes places through making posts.

I have asked others this question with no response yet up to this post. Since God did not specifically forbid the use of oak wood (i.e.,God was silent about the use of oak wood) could Noah have built the ark out of oak and still have done as commanded by God?


God's silence on the use of musical instruments in NT church worship speaks volumes that He does not want them. Just as God's silence on using all types of wood other than gopher wood spoke volumes to Noah that God did not want other types of wood to be used to build the ark. God commanding gopher wood meant He wanted nothing but gopher wood to be used in building the ark just as God commanding singing means He wants nothing but singing taking place in NT church worship.

FHII said:
The problem is Secondhand Lion is that he did say.... he said it in the OT MANY times. Some of the folks here, however, feel he changed his mind in the NT, which he never said he did. In fact, it's a falsehood that God doesn't approve of musical instruments in the NT. 1. Jesus mentions them in a good light in one of his parables, 2. God still has them going in Heaven and 3. at least 3 times in the NT we are told to sing psalms (which by definition includes them).
--Singing psalms, psalms simply means a pious song, it may or may not be one of the Psalms in the bible.

--There are no literal harps in heaven no more than there will be literally just 144,000 in heaven.

--The parable of the prodigal son, the lost coin, the lost sheep was to teach/reveal a particular point to those Pharisees to whom Jesus was speaking in Lk 15:2 and had nothing at all to do with NT church worship. Going beyond that particular point by adding NT worship to Lk 15:1-3 is adding to the context/parables

Risen Angel said:
If my employer ask me to show up at 8 AM (singing) and I am still there at 3 PM (singing & playing guitar), I don't see how I have violated his request. There is no logical crisis on the horizon. I have fulfilled the requirement and simply brought more to the table than he asked for. But this line of reasoning is irrelevant when discussing my choice to play guitar while worshiping God. Let's go to the scripture for understanding.

And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: (Revelation 14:2)

An interesting lead up to perhaps one of my favorite verses in the text, but I'll get to that in moment. The final segment of this verse is fairly clear - people singing with their instruments. Maybe consider the versions of the text you are referencing, because the NIV took the trinity right out of the word; how much more have these other translations strayed. Why do you want to add words that aren't there? To support your argument?

And they sung as it were a new song before the throne... (Revelation 14:3)

And this song is being sung by the guitarists; how are we to learn the song without the harpers harping with their harps?

This is not the only reference in the NT about musical instruments. Earlier in the same text an amazing event is transpiring, perhaps overlooked by your eagerness to find only the single perception of truth you seek.

And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; (Revelation 5:8-9)

This is fairly significant, and our Lord is present - in fact, he is the reason why they bow. The elders have an instrument in their hand... every one of them. And what do they do while in the presence of Jesus? They sing a new song. A song that makes a statement that reaches across all time and all people. It is what we have all been waiting for. A pinnacle moment if there ever was one.

Even if you don't like my first scripture reference, how can you argue with this one? If God is standing there looking at his people holding harps - then they are HOLDING HARPS. I don't understand how this could be any more clear. This debate has gone on way too long. Even though I find it interesting, it is perhaps an exercise in futility to continue discussing this topic if you are unwilling to concede.

Are you going to argue that the One who opens the eyes of the blind... is blind?

God is not limited by the physical world. If he wants instruments in heaven then they are there. He spoke the world into existence - do you think whipping up a couple of harps is beyond his ability? Who are we to dictate the rules of the realm of heaven? We will be given heavenly bodies, so why not some heavenly harps to go along with it?

There has been this focus on OT versus NT in this thread. Why? It is a seamless integration to anyone who reads it. The NT is of no effect without the OT. Without the law there is no reason for Christ to come. What would grace mean to us if there was no purpose for it? What would forgiveness mean if there was not a consequence to be forgiven.

Without death, why the need for life?

Plant the seed, water it and watch it grow; and, yet, you will never understand how it does grow - it does because God wills it. Could you create the seed, the soil in which it germinates, the water which gives it life, the sun that brings it sustenance? No. So, why do you think that your reasoning is any more powerful? We are the creature, not the creator. Sometimes I like to just sit back and drink in the beauty of the flowers. I don't need to have any logic to support why I am feeling the presence of God by witnessing his creation.

No more so do I need to ask why I feel his presence while strumming the chords.
You are trying to change the illustration I used. What you do while at work is not the issue, the issue is at what time are you to be at work.

So if your employer tells you to be at work by 8:00am that eliminates you being at work at 3:00pm even though the employer did not explcilty forbid being at work at 3:00pm (silent about 3:00pm). The "logic" of some here is that since the employer never did explicitly tell you NOT to be at work at 3:00pm that allows you to show up at 3:00pm.


As far was what you changed my illustration to, if your employer explicitly tells you to show up at 8:00am and your job to do is assemble cars yet you sit and play a guitar and sing, then you are not doing what the employer said to do and will most likely lose your job by doing it. Likewise God explicitly said sing therefore playing is not doing as God said just as playing a guitar and singing is not assembling cars


I have dealt already with the symbolic harps of Revelation 5 and 14. You can look back at my last few posts about that issue.


Briefly, the harps in Rev 5 are as symbolic as the bowl full of prayers as the harps in Rev 14 are as symbolic of 144,000 being in heaven.

Rev 14:2 ASV "And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and the voice which I heard was as the voice of harpers harping with their harps."

Notice the figure of speech used, a simile, as seen by the word "as" There was not literal water, thunder or harps but a voice that sounded "AS" many waters, thunder and harps.

In Matt 22:30, there is no marriage in heaven. Does that demand/command/forbid no marriage in the church? No. So even if there were literal harps playing literal music in heaven that does not demand/command/allow for them to be used in the church. Heaven and church are two different palces and just becasue something is allowed/fobidden in heaven does not necessarily means it isallowed/fobidden in the church.


Heaven is spoken of in the bible as a spiritual realm not a physical one. So if you make it to heaven you will not take any of your physical possessions with you nor will you take you physical body with you for Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of a change that must you must go through - from corruptible to incorruptible, from mortal to immortality.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I'd like to say it saddens me that you don't apply logic to this situation, Ernest. I'd like to say that, but I really don't care. Your loss that you can't use music to praise the Lord, not mine. Your reasoning is illogical and does not prove your point. Yet it is no concern to me. And once again, I see that you fail to address the point and fact that God did indeed approve and tell us to sing psalms with includes musical instruments.

Your illogic is rediculous and I can only conclude your heart is hardened to your beliefs to the point that you are not open to obedience of the scripture. God's will, I suppose.
 

Ernest T. Bass

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2014
1,845
616
113
out in the woods
FHII said:
I'd like to say it saddens me that you don't apply logic to this situation, Ernest. I'd like to say that, but I really don't care. Your loss that you can't use music to praise the Lord, not mine. Your reasoning is illogical and does not prove your point. Yet it is no concern to me. And once again, I see that you fail to address the point and fact that God did indeed approve and tell us to sing psalms with includes musical instruments.

Your illogic is rediculous and I can only conclude your heart is hardened to your beliefs to the point that you are not open to obedience of the scripture. God's will, I suppose.
Huh???????

I have not applied logic to the situation????????

It is not me that is arguing from the ILLOGICAL bases that if the bible does not explicitly forbid a thing then that thing is allowed.

it is everyone's loss who does not obey God 's command to sing.


Psalms does not include instrumental music. If you refer to the Greek word psallo means to pluck or twang, then that old argument has never held water either:


The History of Psallo
Words have histories, and linguistic history often reveals that terms are altered in their meanings as they pass through the centuries. So it was with psallo.
The history of the Greek language extends back about fifteen centuries before Christ. The era called the “classical” period was from around 900 B.C. (the time of Homer) to the conquests of Alexander the Great (c. 330 B.C.). During this time psallo carried the basic sense of “to touch sharply, to move by touching, to pull, twitch” (Liddell, p. 1841).

Aeschylus (525-456 B.C.), the Greek playwright, used the word of “plucking hair” (Persae, p. 1062). Euripides (480-460 B.C.?), another Greek writer, spoke of “twanging” the bowstring (Bacchae, p. 784). Psallo was used of “twitching” the carpenter’s line so as to leave a mark (Anthologia Palatine, 6.103). Finally, in Plutarch the verb also could convey the sense of “plucking” the strings of an instrument (Pericles 1.6).

Surely it is obvious that in these various passages the object of what is “touched” was supplied by the context.

Scholars are aware, however, that languages change with time. In 1952, F.F. Bruce wrote: “Words are not static things. They change their meaning with the passage of time” (Vine, 1997, p. vi). This concept must be understood if one is to arrive at the meaning of psallo as used in the New Testament.

The Septuagint (LXX) is a Greek translation of the Old Testament that dates from the 3rd century B.C. In this production, psallo is used to represent three different Hebrew words. The term may be used to denote simply the playing of an instrument (1 Sam. 16:16). It may bear the sense of singing, accompanied by an instrument (as certain contexts reveal – cf. Psa. 27:6; 98:5 – Eng. versions). Or, the word may refer to vocal music alone (cf. Psa. 135:3; 138:1; 146:2).

After a detailed consideration of the use of psallo in the Greek OT, Ferguson affirms that “what is clear is that an instrument did not inhere in the word psallo in the Septuagint” (p. 7 – emp. orig.). He contends, in fact, that the “preponderance of occurrences” of psallo in the LXX refer simply to “vocal music.”
In a study of the transitional uses of psallo across the years, one thing becomes apparent. The task of the conscientious Bible student must be to determine how the verb is used in the New Testament. This is the only relevant issue.

Incidentally, if one is going to quote the classical usage of psallo, or that conveyed in the LXX (as defenders of instrumental music commonly do), then he could well argue for the playing of instruments as a pure act of worship – with no singing at all – because that sense is clearly employed at times in those bodies of literature.




Language Authorities

J. H. Thayer (1828-1901) was Professor of New Testament Criticism and Interpretation at the Divinity School of Harvard University. He also served on the revision committee that produced the American Standard Version of the New Testament.

In 1885 A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament was published, which reflected Thayer’s translation, revision, and enlargement of an earlier work involving the labors of C.G. Wilke and C.L.W. Grimm. In its day, Thayer’s work was the finest lexicon available, and still is of considerable value.

In discussing psallo, after commenting upon the word’s use in classical Greek, and in the Septuagint, he notes that “in the N.T. [psallo signifies] to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song” (p. 675).

The first edition of W.E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words was issued in 1940 in four volumes. In 1952 a one-volume edition was published. F.F. Bruce, Head of the Department of Biblical History and Literature at the University of Sheffield, wrote the Foreword for that production. Therein, Prof. Bruce praised Vine’s work. He stated that the “Greek scholarship was wide, accurate and up-to-date.” He noted that the author had a “thorough mastery of the classical idiom,” a “close acquaintance with the Hellenistic vernacular,” and an awareness of the influence of the Septuagint upon the New Testament.

In his popular work, Vine, in commenting upon psallo (under “Melody”), notes the classical sense, the Septuagint usage, and then says: “in the N.T., to sing a hymn, sing praise” (1997, p. 730).

In another book, Vine explained the matter more fully.


“The word psallo originally meant to play a stringed instrument with the fingers, or to sing with the accompaniment of a harp. Later, however, and in the New Testament, it came to signify simply to praise without the accompaniment of an instrument” (1951, p. 191 – emp. added).



In 1964. the prestigious Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (edited by Kittel, Friedrich, and Bromiley) issued from the press. The article which dealt with psallo was written by Gerhard Delling. Relative to Ephesians 5:19, Delling contended that the literal use of psallo, as “found in the LXX, is now employed figuratively” (Kittel, et al., p. 499).
In an abridgement of this work, published in 1985, Bromiley expressed it this way: “psallontes does not now denote literally playing on a stringed instrument” (p. 1226).
In the revised edition of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, David Howard of Bethel Theological Seminary, commented upon psallo.


“Psallo originally meant to play a stringed instrument; in the LXX it generally translates zimmer and ngn. In the New Testament it refers to singing God’s praises (not necessarily accompanied by strings)” (p. 314).

In the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Balz and Schneider write: “In the NT psallo always refers to a song of praise to God” (p. 495).
In his popular work, Word Meanings in the New Testament, Ralph Earle comments on psallo in Ephesians 5:19.


“‘Making melody’ is one word in Greek, psallontes. The verb psallo meant first to strike the strings of a harp or lyre. Then it meant to ‘strike up a tune.’ Finally it was used in the sense ‘to sing’” (p. 333).


It is important to remember that these men were affiliated with denominational groups that employ instrumental music in their worship. They have no motive for misrepresenting the facts of this issue. Their testimony, therefore, is compelling indeed.


Sources/Footnotes
  • Bales, James D. 1987. Instrumental Music and New Testament Worship. Resource Publications: Searcy, AR.
  • Balz, Horst & Schneider, Gerhard. 1993. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 3. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI.
  • Baur, W., Gingrich, F. W., Danker, F. 1979. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. University of Chicago: Chicago, IL.
  • Bromiley, G.W., Ed. 1985. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament — Abridged. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI.
  • The Catholic Encyclopedia. 1913. The Encyclopedia Press: New York, NY.
  • Earle, Ralph. 2000. Word Meanings in the New Testament. Hendrickson: Peabody, MA.
  • Ferguson, Everett. 1972. A Cappella Music. Biblical Research Press: Abilene, TX.
  • Girardeau, John J. 1888. Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church. Whittet and Shepperson: Richmond, VA.
  • Howard, David. 1986. “Melody,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia – Revised. Vol. 3. G. W. Bromiley, Ed. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI.
  • Kittel, Gerhard, et al., Eds. 1964. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. VIII. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI.
  • Liddell, Henry and Scott, Robert. 1869. A Greek-English Lexicon. Clarendon: Oxford, England.
  • McClintock, John & Strong, James Baker: 1969 Reprint. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. Vol. VI. Grand Rapids, MI.
  • McCord, Hugo. n.d. Fifty Years of Lectures. Vol. 2. Church of Christ: Atwood, TN.
  • Payne, O. E. 1920. Instrumental Music Is Scriptural. Standard: Cincinnati, OH.
  • Pfeiffer, C. F., Vos, Howard and Rea, John. 1998. Wycliffe Bible Dictionary. Hendrickson: Peabody, MA.
  • Smith, William and Cheetham, Samuel. 1880. A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities. Vol. II. John Murray: London, England.
  • Thayer, J. H. 1958. Greek-English Lexicon. T. and T. Clark: Edinburgh, Scotland.
  • Vine, W. E. 1951. First Corinthians. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI..
  • Vine, W. E. 1997 ed. Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Nelson: Nashville, TN.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/829-psallo-and-the-instrumental-music-controversy Wayne Jackson

To summarize the above, psallo in classical Greek carried the meaning of to pluck or twang but by NT times the word came to carry the idea of acapella singing as the Greek language authorities above noted.

Other problems you have:

--Those that use instruments go to great lengths to try and prove psallo in NT times means to pluck and that proves use of instruments, yet in practice these people play instruments as organs, pianos, brass and woodwinds, drums, etc that are not plucked. They do not even follow the definition they give to psallo hurting their own credibility in the argument.

--in classical Greek, the object to be plucked was associated with psallo. The item associated with psallo in Eph 5:19 is the human heart, not a mechanical instrument. Making melody in the heart is a figurative reference to singing.

--in Eph 5:18 Paul gives the command to be filled with the spirit. There are 5 PLURAL participles given in the context that must be done to obey that imperative: speaking, singing, making, giving and submitting verses 19-21. These PLURAL participles become imperatives themselves since doing them are necessary to obey the command to be filled with the spirit. These PLURAL participles indicate that each and every individual of the congregation must do these things to be filled with the spirit. So if psallo means to play an instrument then EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL MUST play an instrument to be filled with the spirit. One person cannot play for other people and be filled with the spirit for those other people.


[This last point also goes back to my thread that salvation is not possible without works. One cannot be filled with the spirit without doing those 5 participles.]
 

Secondhand Lion

New Member
Jan 30, 2012
309
22
0
People's Republic of Maryland
Ernest,

Even if following commands saved us or kept us saved...as you know I do not believe this per our previous conversations...but in this case I will humor you. Let us assume that you are right on all your other doctrines...there is an enormous difference between being told directly to use gopher wood and not doing it than to not be told specifically and doing it, God gave commandments. Can't you see that? Matthew 21:28-32

Can you give me an example from scripture about God holding someone, anyone accountable for a standard that He had not expressly communicated to them how he felt about it? I will even let you use the old testament and not call it contradictory. Please...any example.

FHII,

I agree with you. I do not ignore my schoolmaster in the OT. I understand we can take example. The apostles sure did.
 

Ernest T. Bass

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2014
1,845
616
113
out in the woods
Secondhand Lion said:
Ernest,

Even if following commands saved us or kept us saved...as you know I do not believe this per our previous conversations...but in this case I will humor you. Let us assume that you are right on all your other doctrines...there is an enormous difference between being told directly to use gopher wood and not doing it than to not be told specifically and doing it, God gave commandments. Can't you see that? Matthew 21:28-32

Can you give me an example from scripture about God holding someone, anyone accountable for a standard that He had not expressly communicated to them how he felt about it? I will even let you use the old testament and not call it contradictory. Please...any example.

FHII,

I agree with you. I do not ignore my schoolmaster in the OT. I understand we can take example. The apostles sure did.
There is not one whit of difference between the command to use gopher wood and the command to sing.

The command to use gopher wood excluded all other types of wood without those all those woods being explicitly forbidden. Likewise, the command to sing excludes playing instruments without instruments being explicitly forbidden. The argument from silence is seriously flawed and erroneous. If I were on the pro-instrument side of the argument and the best "argument" we could offer is this flawed, eroneous argument, it would cause me to lose sleep, it would bother my conscience greatly that I am basing my belief on illogical error.


You ask "Can you give me an example from scripture about God holding someone, anyone accountable for a standard that He had not expressly communicated to them how he felt about it? I will even let you use the old testament and not call it contradictory. Please...any example."

First, your question implies that Noah could have built the ark out of any wood he choose, any wood other than gopher wood and that would have beenobeying God and God would have accepted it.

Secondly, below are some examples you asked for. Tha parts in blue come from https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/128-silence-of-the-scriptures-permissive-or-prohibitive-the by Wayne Jackson,

[Please pay special notice to the section on "Will-Worship" which zeros in on the very thing you are trying to find a way to get around.]



The “Strange Fire” Incident
Nadab and Abihu were sons of Aaron, the first Hebrew high priest. When they employed “strange fire” (i.e., fire not taken from the altar of sacrifice; cf. Leviticus 16:12) they were destroyed by God. What was their crime? The inspired text states that they offered “that which [God] had not commanded them” (Leviticus 10:1), or, to express it in another way: “[T]hey offered unauthorized fire before the Lord” (NIV; emphasis added).



The Ark of the Covenant
...... the Levites were to bear that ark by poles, which were passed through rings on the side of the golden box (Exodus 25:12-14). David, however, had borne the ark on a “new cart” (2 Samuel 6:3). Was such a sin, inasmuch as the law was silent respecting the matter of carts? Israel’s great king clarified this matter when he later confessed: “[W]e sought [God] not according to the ordinance” (1 Chronicles 15:13), or, “in the prescribed way” (NIV).

Nowhere did God command them to NOT use carts, but it was sin for using a cart anyway.

Prohibition of Idolatry
One is not at liberty to go beyond what has been prescribed in a religious practice, any more than a pharmacist is allowed to add more to one’s medication than what the physician prescribed!
The first commandment of the Decalogue stated:

Of course the nation of Israel egregiously violated that prohibition across the centuries.
I am Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me (Exodus 20:2-3).

There is an interesting commentary on this matter in the book of Jeremiah. God’s prophet was instructed to stand in the gate of the temple compound and urge the nation, “Amend your ways” (Jeremiah 7:3). What was their transgression? Among other things:

A comparison of this passage with the original law forbidding idolatry plainly shows that a practice which the Lord has not commanded is equivalent to an explicit prohibition. The Bible is its own best commentary!

[T]hey have built the high places [centers of idol worship] of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded not, neither came it into my mind" (Jeremiah 7:31; emphasis added).

Going Beyond
In his first letter to the Christians at Corinth, Paul addresses the problem of attaching oneself to a church leader and forming a sect around that individual. The apostle condemns the practice by the use of some rhetorical questions: “Is Christ divided?,” etc. (1 Corinthians 1:12-13). Later, he apparently alludes to the issue again when he says:

The reference to “myself” and “Apollos” is “a veiled allusion to those who were actually responsible for the church factions, tactfully withholding their names” (Vine 1951, 61). When one goes “beyond the things that are written,” he has entered the realm of silence. And the inspired apostle says that one must learn not to do that.

Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written (1 Corinthians 4:6, ASV).

Going beyond that which is written is wrong even though the wrong may not be explicitly stated.

Will-Worship

In Paul’s letter to the saints at Colossae, he condemned the practice of “will-worship,” a disposition which is “after the precepts and doctrines of men” (Colossians 2:22-23). Vine defines will-worship as “voluntarily adopted worship, whether unbidden or forbidden” (1962, 236).

We have no difficulty in understanding what it means to do that which is “forbidden.” But what does it mean to do that which is “unbidden”—if it is not doing that about which the Bible is silent?

Noted lexicographer J. H. Thayer described will-worship as “worship which one devises and prescribes for himself” (1958, 168). Everett Harrison commented that “will-worship” is that which “is not prescribed by God but only by (the will of) man” (1971, 72).


Here is the issue: if one may, with divine approval, operate in the realm of silence, why can’t he “devise and prescribe for himself” whatever pleases him? And yet, it is this very thing being censured.

Note how Vine defines will worship "voluntarily adopted worship, whether unbidden or forbidden”

More information on will worship: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1544-pauls-condemnation-of-will-worship

Again, will worship is doing things God has NOT specifically forbidden but according to your argument those things would be acceptable with God but Paul condemns them as sinful will worship. Musical instruments for NT worship has been "devised and prescribed" by man's will.



The Silence of Moses
In the opening chapter of Hebrews, the inspired author argued for the superiority of Jesus Christ over the angels. One of his points was this: one may not place angels in the same class as God’s Son. Why not? Because the Father never “at any time” said to an angelic being: “You are my Son” (1:5). The principle is this: when God is silent about a matter, humanity has no right to be presumptive, and thus to speak (or to act) without his bidding.



One of the most powerful arguments setting forth the silence principle is found in Hebrews chapters seven and eight. In 8:4 it is affirmed that Jesus Christ, if on earth, could not function as a priest. And why was that the case? Because, as indicated in 7:14, Jesus was from the tribe of Judah—not Levi.

Here is the crux of the matter. Concerning priests from the tribe of Judah, “Moses spake nothing”; or, to say the same thing in another way, he was silent about it!




Silence amounts to no authority, and is thus prohibitive. One scholar expresses it in this fashion:
Or note the comment of the renowned scholar John Owen, in his monumental seven-volume set of commentaries on the book of
Hebrews:
It was from the tribe of Judah that our great High Priest descended. The Mosaic legislation never authorized anyone from that tribe to be a priest (McDonald 1971, 102).



Could a matter be clearer?
And this silence of Moses in this matter the apostle takes to be a sufficient argument to prove that the legal priesthood did not belong, nor could be transferred, unto the tribe of Judah(1980, 442).
Some have attempted to nullify the inspired silence argument of Hebrews 7:14 by contending that the Old Testament was not silent about the tribal association of priests. Non-Levites were explicitly forbidden from doing Levitical functions (Numbers 1:51).
That is correct. But that was not the manner in which the writer of Hebrews argued the case. He contended that a non-Levite was prohibited due to the silence of the Mosaic code. A comparison of 7:14, therefore, with the text from Numbers, clearly demonstrates that operating without authority is the equivalent of a specific prohibition! The argument from Hebrews 7:14 has never been answered by those who disdain the “silence-is-prohibitive” concept.








-------------------------------------------


Gal 3:24 "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

If one is still under that OT law/schoolmaster then he has not been brought to Christ and therefore has not been jusfified by a gospel faith.
 

williemac

New Member
Apr 29, 2012
1,094
65
0
Canada
Rather than reply to all of the above, I will address this thought.
The Silence of Moses
In the opening chapter of Hebrews, the inspired author argued for the superiority of Jesus Christ over the angels. One of his points was this: one may not place angels in the same class as God’s Son. Why not? Because the Father never “at any time” said to an angelic being: “You are my Son” (1:5). The principle is this: when God is silent about a matter, humanity has no right to be presumptive, and thus to speak (or to act) without his bidding.

Ironically, your whole basis of "singing only" is silence. You are just using the other side of the coin. We are saying...God never said to not use instruments" You are saying "God never said to use them" Both sides are using the same basis for thier argument;...silence. Your criticism of our logic is ironic, You are using the same logic, but you fail to see it.

From our observation of scripture, (ie.Ps.150) we can clearly see that Instruments were used in praise to God at one time. That is indisputable. This was therefore acceptable to God. That is indisputable.

So then, if He now has decided that instruments are unacceptable, and now wants us to sing only, without the use of instruments, He would have said "sing only..without the use of instruments" . And furthermore, don't you think He would have explained why He no longer feels that the use of instruments is good? Why did He change His mind about them?

It is one thing to use the argument that God didn't tell us to use instruments. But that is actually false information. He did in fact tell His people to use them. Therefore, why would we assume that He has changed His mind? There is no new book of Psalms written in the new testament. For all you know, God merely sees no need to repeat Himself.

The reality is that you have turned a relationship dynamic into a law. Got news for you . We are not under law. We are in relationship with our Creator (John17:3). If the Holy Spirit is grieved at my use of the piano in praise, then being that He is within me, I can say with confidence that He would have gotten through to me by now. He has in the past successfully let me know whenever I have grieved Him. It's called a relationship.
 

Arnie Manitoba

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2011
2,650
137
63
72
Manitoba Canada
This is a 7 year old thread

You have to be careful because this forum changed software a couple of times and old content got all screwed up.

If you quoted someone you did not agree with , the software makes it look like it was your post.

It's completely bastardized so keep that in mind when you read it.

Aint technology great !!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Secondhand Lion

New Member
Jan 30, 2012
309
22
0
People's Republic of Maryland
Ernest,

You seem to get very upset. It may be me reading into it and not actually present at all, but that is the tone I read into it. Thank you for the examples you used. I will look into them and come to a reasonable conclusion. As I stated earlier, I have never heard this before so I will study into it. I will admit, you have a serious uphill battle to try to convince me that instruments are not allowed, but I will look into your claim.

It seems ludicrous to say that God wants us to sing with no instrumental accompaniment. What do you suppose the writing of music is for? To carry the tune...your vocal chords become an instrument...vibration....tune....seems kinda crazy don't it?

I will look as honestly as I know how...just does not make any sense.

By the way, I would never stand in the way of you or your church practicing this...if you feel this strongly, by all means, carryout what the Lord has burdened you with, I would never try to stop it in any way. Worship how you will! :)

SL