Instrumental Music In Worship???

2 Chronicles 5:13 It came even to pass, as the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking the Lord; and when they lifted up their voice with the trumpets and cymbals and instruments of musick, and praised the Lord, saying, For He is good, for His mercy endureth forever: that then the house was filled with a cloud, even the house of the Lord.I am not a Jew but my bible has the Old Testament in it. Therefore I am reading it and trying to understand it. I am only in 2 Chronicles. There is a lot of wisdom and knowledge to be had from it. To say we don't need the Old Testament is like saying you don't need your left arm. I guess you don't but it sure can be helpful.

 

THERE ARE ONLY TEN LAWS WE MUST OBSERVE THEY ARE THE TEN COMMANDMENTSI Have told you a many times ordances, statues,rites and rituals are not laws why dont you study the difference instead of repeating the same old argument time and time again? You seem to be the only one who cant seem to get this.

 

Do we not serve an immutable God? Well, I do anyway. Were musical instruments OK to God in Old Testament days, but after Jesus came the instruments became sinful? That would mean that God changed, and God NEVER changes.

 

(God's Word Is TRUTH!!!;20757)
so that means that instrumental music in not a law as well.
That was my whole position from day one there is NO laws for or against instrumental music its a non -issue

 

Christ took the OT out of the way making it inactive, ineffective, Col 2:14 The verb "took" in Col 2:14 is perfect tense denoting Christ took away all the OT once and for all time, permanently.

Heb 10:9 " He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second" The OT and NT cannot coexist for the two laws are completely different, one based upon the blood of bulls and goats that cannot completely remit sins and the other based on the blood of Christ that does completely remit sins. Also Christ was to be a Priest, yet He could not be a Priest under the OT law for He was not from the tribe of Levi but Juda, Heb 7:14 so there had to be a change in laws, Heb 7:12.


Other verse that explain why the OT was taken out of the way and replaced by the NT:

Heb 7:11
Heb 10:1,2
Gal 2:21
Gal 3:13


So justification for instrumental music must come from Christ's NT.

Christ came and "fulfilled" the OT law with fulfilling meaning to finish, bring to an end, to cease.


Further reading:

What about Matthew 5:17-20?

One of the problems the Lord would encounter was a reaction from the Pharisees, who would charge that this Jesus of Nazareth was a revolutionary who had designs on “destroying” the Mosaic economy that had held sway over the Hebrew nation for fifteen centuries. It was imperative that this distortion be addressed and corrected. Hence, the Lord announced:


Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17-20).


The term “destroy” is a word that can connote the idea of some violence. It derives from the compound Greek term kataluo (17 times in the New Testament), literally to “loose down.” Christ employed the word prophetically concerning the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans in A.D. 70 (Matthew 24:2; Luke 21:6; cf. also Matthew 26:61; 27:40, etc.). It also is applied to the commencing corruption of the human body at the point of death (2 Corinthians 5:1).

In the context cited above, therefore, the Lord was contending that he did not come to violently “tear down” the law, as though he were its enemy. Never! Rather, he came to “fulfill” it. These terms stand in perfect contrasting balance.

The Savior fulfilled the messianic prophecies (more than 300) of the law that heralded his coming (Luke 24:44). He fulfilled the demand of the law for perfect obedience—by his sinless life (Galatians 3:10; John 8:29, 46; 1 Peter 2:22). He fulfilled the purpose of the law, being the very object of its glorious, preparatory design (Galatians 3:24-25).

The Mosaic regime was never intended to be a permanent institution. The notion that the Torah would continue in effect until the Second Coming of Christ—as some have alleged—is utterly without biblical support. The beneficial effects of the law, as designed by the Creator, will abide through the age; but not the law itself.

But one might wonder: “Does not the passage affirm that the law would continue ‘until heaven and earth pass away’?” It absolutely does not. The text simply announces that the law would remain intact until such a time as it is fulfilled.

This fulfillment is the very thing Jesus declared he came to accomplish! If he did not fulfill the law, then the Savior did not do what he came to do, hence, failed in his mission. If he did do what he came to do, the law was fulfilled, hence, does not remain an obligatory system today.

Compare Luke’s parallel: “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the law to fall” (Luke 16:17). When the Son of God “fulfilled” the law, it had not failed, fallen, or been destroyed; it had been completed. Thus it no longer was a law to which the Jews, or anyone else, were obligated to obey as a legal system. To fail to recognize this truth is to overlook one of the most fundamental propositions of biblical literature.

But what should be said about the connection of verses 19 and 20, to verses 27 and 18? Does this suggest that the commandments of the law would be binding upon those in the kingdom of Christ? This was the position argued by the young gentleman cited earlier. It absolutely does not. Such an interpretation would stand in radical contradiction to scores of passages in the New Testament letters. J.W. McGarvey explained the connection nicely:


The man who would break what he considered the small commandments of God, under one dispensation, would be proportionately disobedient under a better dispensation; for habits of disobedience once formed are not easily laid aside. For this reason obedience or disobedience while under the law was an index to what a man would be under Christ. The text shows that the relative greatness of persons in the kingdom of heaven is measured by their conscientiousness in reference to the least commandments. To the great commandments, as men classify them, even very small Christians may be obedient; but it requires the most tender conscience to be always scrupulous about the least commandments (53).


The text most definitely is not teaching that the Torah will be a binding law throughout the Christian administration. In fact, in his “marriage” metaphor, designed to emphasize the changing of laws, Paul wrote:

For the woman who has a husband, is bound by law to the husband while he is living; but if the husband dies, she is discharged from the law of the husband. So if then, while the husband lives, if she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if the husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress, though she is joined to another man. Wherefore, my brothers, you also are made dead to the law [Torah] through the body of Christ; that you should be joined to another, even to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto God (Romans 7:2-4).

If Christians are equally obligated to the Torah and the law of Christ, they are in a state of spiritual adultery! This is a most unenviable consequence of the doctrine under review.
In an excellent discussion of this untenable theory, so common with various theologians, the scholarly R.C. Foster wrote: “The view that He [Christ] merely deepened and emphasized the law in the Sermon on the Mount will not bear investigation” (469). I would encourage those who have access to Foster’s tremendous work, Studies in the Life of Christ, to carefully study the material on the “Sermon on the Mount” (462-487).

In concluding this section of our article, we are compelled to make this observation. Jesus emphatically affirmed that neither a “jot” nor a “tittle” (terms used to represent the minutest portions of the documents) would “pass away from the law” until “all things be accomplished” (v. 18b). If Christ did not fulfill the law, and it will remain until “heaven and earth pass away,” then all of the Torah—every jot and tittle—remains! Or, to say it in another way—all the commands, from the greatest to the least, still are in force.

Garbled Language

It will not do to filter “the law,” so to speak, separating the “ceremonial” from the “moral,” rejecting the former while claiming to retain the latter—as attempted by the Seventh-day Adventists (though they cling to the Sabbath and the abstention from pork idea, both of which were in the “ceremonial” category). This is a false distinction.

Nor will it work to claim that by practicing the teaching of Jesus we are “keeping the Torah.” For example when the Christian honors Christ as his “Passover” (1 Corinthians 5:7), or when one submits to the covenant of “circumcision” (in baptism – Colossians 2:11-12), he is not obeying the commandments of the Torah. The Old and New are two different systems. The “types” of the Old Testament foreshadowed the “anti-types” of the New, but one cannot claim he is “keeping the law of Moses” when he yields to New Testament ordinances. This is an irresponsible confusion of the two covenants, and a garbled use of language.

Neither is it valid to contend that while the law’s “curse” expired, the law itself remains. Paul stated that “as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse” (Galatians 3:10). The law and the curse were joined. A law, with no penalty, is no law at all! The fact is, the entire law, together with its demands and curse, passed away. Only fifteen verses later the apostle declared that: “we are no longer under a tutor [the law]” (24-25). How can that point possibly be ignored? The former covenant was replaced with a “better covenant” (cf. Hebrews 8:6ff)—unless, of course, one wishes to rip the entire book of Hebrews from the Bible.

Does this mean that the Old Testament is of no value today? Of course not; far from it! The legacy of that body of literature is vast, wonderful, and abiding (cf. Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:6, 11). There is a divine link between the Old and the New Testaments. But does that mean that the Christian is under the former regime in this age, with its body of law to which he is obligated? It does not. Should one be teaching that Christians ought to be observing the commandments of the Torah today—from the greatest to the least? To so argue is to leave a distinctly erroneous impression.

Though we do not have the inclination at this time to review the full range of arguments being advanced in support of the notion that the law of Moses was not abrogated by the death of Christ, we do wish to address one further aspect of it.
Nailed to the Cross

In his letter to the Colossian saints, Paul reminded these Christians that prior to their conversion to the Lord, they were “dead through [their] trespasses.” But they were made “alive” together with Christ, who forgave all their sins. The apostle then contends that Christ “blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:13-14).

This would involve “the legal bond of ordinances to which the Jew had agreed and to which even the Gentile’s conscience had in some degree given assent (Romans 2:14, 15)” (Ashby, 1533; see also: Abbott, 255; Eadie, 163-164; Vincent, 908, and many additional scholars).

It has become fashionable in some quarters, however, to allege that this text has no reference to the abolition of the law of Moses. Rather, it is supposed to refer to the “note” of sin-debt that stood against the Christian prior to his conversion. In response to this theory we offer the following considerations.

The Context

The immediate context argues otherwise. In the sentence that follows, Paul draws his conclusion: “Let no man, therefore, judge [condemn] you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a Sabbath day: which are a shadow of the things to come, but the body is Christ’s” (v. 16).

Especially note the “therefore,” which connects certain elements of the law (the parts standing for the whole) with that “nailed to the cross.” This is too obvious to miss. Thayer identified the “handwriting” as a metaphorical reference to “the Mosaic law” (668). See also Vaughan (11.201) and Lenski (114). Peake states: “It is generally agreed that the reference here is to the Law [of Moses] (cf. Ephesians 2:15)” (4.527).

The Grammar

Observe the double use of “was” (past tense verb) in verse 14, indicating that the system is operative no longer. A.T. Robertson commented that the verbal “has taken” is a perfect tense form which, “emphasizes the permanence of the removal of the bond” (which he identifies as “the Mosaic law”), “that has been paid and cancelled and cannot be presented again” (4.494).

The Parallelism

This text unquestionably is parallel in a number of aspects to Paul’s instruction to the Ephesians in chapter two of that letter (these two books have a number of striking parallels).

For he [Christ] is our peace, who made both [Jew and Gentile] one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby (Ephesians 2:14-16).

Noted Bible scholar, David J. Williams, says that Paul’s reference to “the Jewish law in Ephesians 2:15” is “decisive for the interpretation of Colossians 2:14” (189). Both refer to the same situation.

R.C. Fosters states:

A great need of the Christian world today is the clear recognition that we are not under the law, but the gospel; that the law was nailed to the cross and passed out of force when the new will was probated at Pentecost (469).

He also pointed out that neither Catholicism nor Protestantism has entertained a clear perception regarding this matter.
To dismiss the theme of the “law of Moses” from Colossians 2:14, because of a predisposition one entertains with reference to the perpetuity of the Torah, is both irresponsible and reprehensible.

Conclusion

There should be tremendous concern among the Lord’s people when a teaching this fundamental has become so terribly misconstrued, and is fed “intravenously” to sincere young men who are anxious to proclaim the gospel of Christ.

*Note: The professor under review has been dismissed from the university with which he was associated at the time this article was published. He now is associated with another university.



Sources/Footnotes

• Abbott, T. K. (1897), The Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark).
• Ashby, Ernest G. (1979), “The Letter to the Colossians,” The New Layman’s Bible Commentary, G.C.D. Howly, F.F. Bruce, H.L. Ellison, Eds. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).
• Eadie, John (1957), The Epistle of Paul to the Colossians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).
• Foster, R.C. (1971), Studies in the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker).
• Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (Minneapolis: Augsburg).
• McGarvey, J.W. (1875, reprint), Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Des Moines, IA: Eugene Smith).
• Peake, A.S. (1956), “The Epistle to the Colossians,” The Expositor’s Greek Testament, W. Robertson Nicoll, Ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
• Robertson, A.T. (1931), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman).
• Thayer, J.H. (1958), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark).
• Vaughan, Curtis (1978), “Colossians,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank Gaebelein, Ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).
• Vincent, M.R. (1972 Ed.), Word Studies in the New Testament (Wilmington, DE: Associated Publishers & Authors).
• Williams, David J. (1999), Paul’s Metaphors (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
• https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1355-is-the-law-of-moses-torah-still-binding
• Is the Law of Moses (Torah) Still Binding? by Wayne Jackson

David cannot be used to justify instrumental music for a number of reasons:

1) If David is the example NT Christians are to follow in worshipping God, then will you be offering animal sacrifices/burnt offerings as David, Psa 66:13-15? If David is the example you are holding up to which Christians are to follow, will Christians then be involved in polygamy as David? (Some Mormon groups would like that).

2) Does Christ, who is the head of the church Eph 1:22; 5:23 Col 1:18, dictate to His disciples how they are to worship or does David dictate how the NT church is to worship? Christ obviously determines how the church is to worship - not David, and Christ has commanded his church to sing. So the verse from Psalms you quoted is no more applicable to the NT church worship than OT verses that deal with circumcision, animal sacrifices, purifications, tithing etc, etc.

3) Deuteronomy chapter 5 shows that the OT law was only given to the Jews to keep...and Psalms is part of the OT law. And no part of the OT law was ever given to Gentiles or Christians to keep. Paul referred to the OT law as a "yoke of bondage" Gal 5:1 and no one has the authority to bind this yoke of bondage upon anyone today.

4) In the Galatian epistle, Paul condemned the Galatians for leaving the NT gospel (gospel "truth" Gal 3:1; Gal 5:7) and to going back to keep the OT law thinking they could be justified by keeping that OT law. So for a Christian to go back to the OT law and think that he can be justified by that OT law ( justified using IM) then he is removed from and has perverted the gospel, Gal 1:6,7; he has quit obeying the truth, Gal 3:1, 5:5, he tries to make Christ's death in vain, Gal 2:21; he has fallen from grace, Gal 5:4.

5) one other point Paul made to the Galatians who left the NT to return to the OT law was "..that he is a debtor to do the whole law", Gal 5:3..."...Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them" Gal 3:10. James said "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.", James 2:10. Therefore anyone that goes back to the OT law to find justification for IM have an obligation to keep and contend for ALL of that OT law.....no cherry-picking.

6) Christ took the OT out of the way, all of it from Genesis to Malachai, making it inactive, of no effect...."Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;" Col 2:14. "He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second." Heb 10:9. "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law" Heb 7:12. So going back to the OT to justify using IM is trying to undo what Christ did on His cross in His taking that OT out of the way making it inactive, of no effect.

7) 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", Heb 9:10. OT worship was carnal in nature and to use the OT to bring IM into NT worship is to bring that OT carnality into NT worship that is to be in "spirit" and truth.

8) Rom 7:1-6 Paul talks about a woman who has a husband and yet if she marry another man, then she has two husbands and is committing adultery. Paul compares this to a Christian who is married to Christ. So if a Christian goes back to keep the OT then he is committing a type of spiritual adultery against Christ.

Yet if the woman's first husband be dead then she is free to marry another. Likewise "my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of the Christ, for your becoming another's,.." Since the Christian has been made dead to that OT by the body of Christ, he is free to be married to Christ. Therefore trying to keep both the OT and NT is spiritual adultery. Paul was seemingly always refuting Judiazing teachers who were trying to bind the OT upon Christians.

 

I am joining this conversation later than I would have liked. Without reading through every post, I am getting the idea that this ventures into the typical old covenant vs. new discussion. Aside from all that, I have to say, if there was any creedence at all to the idea that God doesn't want instruments to be used in musical worship, then there would be much more of a world wide discussion going on. The reason I say that is because regardless of any personal experiences to the contrary, the body of Christ is in an ongoing personal relationship with God through the Holy Spirit. If He has anything He wants the chruch to hear, do we not think He can get through to us?

I have been a Spirit filled Christian for 30 some odd years, have had at least 20 years experience in worship leading, I own and play a professional keyboard, and have never had any inner flags raised concerning the general use of instruments. They go hand in hand with music. They are used to keep the tempo, establish and keep the key, and enhance the quality of the song being sung.

Having said that, I do know a thing or two about the innapropriate use of instruments, having formerly been involved in the use of drugs to enhance music, from my secular days. Most people who have the Holy Spirit and are sensitive to these things can discern when something is "off" during a worship service. I have had such spiritual "checks" from time to time. But we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater....do we? One does not have to depend wholely upon intellectual knowledge concerning worship. Jesus assured us..."My sheep know My voice". Instruments were always used in worship. They are not a product or invention of the enemy. But as many things are, they can be used by the enemy. Or by us! Let's have a little common sense here!

 

Man does not have the authority to determine how God is to be worshipped....

Jn 4:23,24 "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."


True worshippers worship in spirit and in truth. What is truth? "thy word is truth" Jn 17:17

So the true worshipper worships as God's word prescribes not according to his own ideas/feelings/opinions.

God's word has commanded the true worshipper to sing. Man has no authority to add to, take from or go beyond, above that which is written, 1 Cor 4:6.

If one does not have to go by God's word when it comes to singing/worship, then there would be no need for one to go by God's word when it comes to anything/everything else...God's word becomes useless.

Not abiding by the authority of God's word is how man has created so many religious organizations that contradict each other on many various matters yet incredibly somehow they are suppose to be possessing God's truth, truth does not contradict itself as these many organizations do.

 

True worship includes much more than mere singing, my friend. That is only a small part of what God considers to be worship. However, Maybe you should go and ask Him why He considered David to be a man after His own heart.

In the meantime, what do you think about PRAISE?

Psalm 150
1Praise ye the Lord. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.
2Praise him for his mighty acts: praise him according to his excellent greatness.
3Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp.
4Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.
5Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals.
6Let every thing that hath breath praise the Lord. Praise ye the Lord.

You are simply responding to what is traditionally called worship. But the music portion of what is going on in so called "worship" services is more accurately called praise. So then just because we use a word inappropriately, do we annul, ignore, or invalidate what the psalmist was inspired to write?

 

The NT simply commands singing, nothing more.

You can refer to my previous post about what David wrote in Psalms has no bearing on NT worship and about Christ taking all the OT out of the way making inactive and of no effect today.

Do you offer animal sacrifices and burnt offerings as David, Psa 66:13-15

 

Three pages of nonsensical debate.

And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him. (1 Samuel 16:23)

Perhaps you should try the same.

 

Please read my post #67 in how Christ took the OT out of the way making it inactive and of no effect and the associated biblical errors that come about in trying to use David to justify the practice of instrumental music.

If David is the example you hold up to me to follow, then:

---do you offer animal sacrifices and burnt offerings in the temple as David, Psa 66:13-15 ?

---can Christians be involved in polygamy as David?

It's a valid topic for as I posted before, not following and respecting God's word as the sole authority on how man is to worship is the reason behind the corruption of man having creating so many religious organizations that contradict each other on many various matters yet incredibly somehow they are suppose to be possessing God's truth. God's word is truth and truth does not contradict itself as all the various religious groups do, so that is sufficient proof for me that all these groups are not following God's truth.

 

Hi,

I am in agreement with you and you posted scripture to prove instrumental music is not authorized in the NT Church.

God has specified vocal music. God has done that through command, God has done that through all the different examples that you have posted.... And there's not a single passage that we can go to and say, this is why we use mechanical instruments in new covenant worship. God has specified the type of music that we give Him, and that is to sing.

That is to give Him vocal praise. Like the game Simon Says. If Simon said I want you to sing and you started clapping your hands or playing a piano, you would be eliminated from the game Simon Says because Simon did not tell you to do that? Simon told you to do what? Simon told you to sing. How come we can understand Simon, but all of a sudden we can't understand God?

When God has told us to sing and we understand we would be eliminated from Simon Says, but we think God is going to accept that when God has told us what kind of music He wants. When God specifies the type of music He wants, it eliminates everything else, and God has specified vocal music in the New Testament when it comes to new covenant worship. And that's exactly what we must give God.

 

Do you not attempt to be justified by works? How consistant are you in all this? The fact is, God accepted the praises of His people the way they were given. Why would He change the way we are to give thanks to Him? Those things are not part of the rules that govern a covenant. They are part of our loving and thankful response to God. He is the same God.
But I know what is really underneath your agenda in this thread and all others. You are invaildating the protestant church. Let's face it. You are doing what all cults do (though your religion is not actually considered a cult). What they do is consider themselves part of an exclusivie group and therefore deny the validity of any group outside of their organization.

If my observation is accurate, you have been indoctrinated but have not been enlightened. When Jesus declared "I will build My church", He was thnking and speaking of something outside of and beyond any one organization. The spiritual church is not confined within the walls of a human organization. His church is neither a building or an organization. The people are His building. I know my Lord, and He knows me, and accepts my praise and worship. It's just too bad if you don't like that. Are you happy for me, or angry....or jealous?

So let me ask you. Show me where the new covenant bans or forbids the use of instruments. If it is that important to God, do you not think that it would have been mentioned?

Simon says? Really? You use a human game to make your point? You compare our relationship to God with the rules of a man made game? You are making a huge assumption. Nowhere in the new testament can we find any references that bans or forbids the use of instruments to accompany singing. In fact, nowhere does is even say "only" sing.

Someday when and if one's eyes are opened to the differences between grace and legalism, freedom and bondage, he will see what's behind this ridiculous stretch of the imagination.

I can't even begin to count the times I have been overtaken and filled with the presence of God during the music portion of a service. His response is my validation. He inhabits the praises of His people. Your silly rules of thumb are of no consequence to me or to the millions who are participating in this kind of praise and worship and enjoying the anointing of the Holy Spirit in the process.

 

The original poster covered the scriptures, no need to repeat them. . In 1 Thessalonians 5:21 the Bible says that we are to “test all things; hold fast that which is good.” When we go to the Bible, we cannot just assume that God is going to like what we give Him. You just presume that, well, God's going to like it, I'm going to do it anyway. There's a lot of verses like 1 Thessalonians 5:21 that are found in the scriptures.

In Romans 12:2 the Bible says, beginning actually in verse 1 to get the context, the Bible says, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy,” reasonable or “acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.” Now look at verse 2.... “Do not be conformed to this world.” We're not to change to fit this world, but instead it says, “be transformed by the renewing of your mind that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” Romans 12:2 says we've got to prove the will of God, we've got to prove the things that we are doing.

In Ephesians 5:10 the Bible is talking about in verse 1 of Ephesians 5 how we are to be imitators of God and we are to follow Him. When you keep reading you will obviously come down to Ephesians 5:10. And the Bible says, “finding out what is acceptable to the Lord.” We've got to find out, and the only way we do that is by going to the New Testament, for that is the law that we are under today. . That is where we go to find out whether or not what we are doing is right or wrong.

The NT does not mention instrumental music so why do people want to add to the it? If God said to bring a piano, harp, organ, etc. then we would be authorized to do so. Do you need a piano or an organ to be moved during worship? That is an aide or assisting your worshiping, it is not what makes us "feel good", it is what God commands which pleases Him and which we should obey. You cannot obey part of the gospel.....

 

Not me, but God justifies those that have obedient works as James said Abraham was "justified by works".


As far as singing, God has instructed His NT church to sing and that has not changed, nor ever will change, since God gave his word concerning it some 2000+ years ago.. It is man that has tried to change what God has instructed on singing.

There is no Protestant chrurch, or for that matter, a Cahtolic church found anywhere in the bible. Both are man-made organizations. All you will find in the bible is where Christ established one church, "one body", Eph 4:4,5.

An odd but serious and simple question: how many is one? Do you know that there are adults with PhDs from theological schools who have no idea how many one is? Some of them think one is equal to thousands. But with religious groups coming and going all the time, one to them is equal to some uncertain, ever changing number.


Eph 4:4,5 there is one body and one faith.

Jesus prayed to God "thy word is truth" and since truth does not condtraidt itelsef as al these groups do, it is not possible they can all possess the truth.

Yet if you claim there is more than one body and many condtradicting fatihs,then how will you go about rectifying all those contradictions? You cannot just ignore those contradictions or think they don't matter. Many of the ocntradictions are mutually exclusive not allowing for two different things at the same time.

If CHristainity were truly made up of varying groups with contradicting beliefs I would not waste my time with it. Is it truth or lies that is wrappted in contradictions? Lies are wrappted in conradictions so lies must be involved in all the varying beliefs among religious organizations. And since Satan is tha father of lies, Satan absolutely LOVES the contradictions that exist between all the various religious groups for he knows God's word can never be found in all the contradictions. There is no truth or credibility to contradictions so if someone came to me that thinks all these contradicting groups are "Christians" and are following the bible and tells me I am lost or biblically wrong, my simple response is "who are you to tell me I am lost or wrong when you people cannot even agree among yourselves as to what is right! That's hypocrisy!!!"

If you think all these various groups are "Christians" and are following the truth of God's word, then you are implying that God's word is a book full of contradictions that was written by a confused author. Yet the bible does not contradict itself and God is not confused, so the contradictions are a corruption of man. So you have the choice to either: (1) accept the contradictions and reject the bible or (2) accept the bible and reject the contradictions. It is impossible to chose both the contradictions and the bible therefore I have chosen the latter.


So you have an impossible task cut out for yourself in reconciling all those contradictions.


As far as your question: "So let me ask you. Show me where the new covenant bans or forbids the use of instruments. If it is that important to God, do you not think that it would have been mentioned?"


The bible, like everything else, works on the logical principle of incluson and exclusion. So when God included singing then that automatically excluded everything else without God having to specifically exclude everything else by name. Just as when God included gopher wood, then that automatically excluded all types of other wood without God having specifically exclude them all by name. Could Noah have used oak wood since nowhere did God specifically ban/fobid using oak wood and yet still do as God said? No.

When you order off a menu, do you go through the entire menu specifically banning/forbidding everything you do not want until you have banned everything but the one item you do want? Or do you tell the waitresss the one item you do want (inclusion) with that excluding all other items on the menu without you having to specifically tell the waitress you do not want them?

A grocery store may have 10,000 items on it's shelves. Does your grocey list include just 10 items you do want knowing that excludes all other items not on the list? Or does you grocery list include the 10 items you do want and it also specifically lists a ban of 9,990 items you do not want?

The law of inclusion and exlusions means you do not have to specifically forbid the 9,990 items you do not want. By just including on your list what you do want, then that automatically excludes the other 9,990 items with you having to specifically fobid them by name on your list.


Likewise God uses that exact same logic. If God had to list everything by name he wants and does not want, then the bible would be too many volumes long to even read, it could fill a library if God had to do such.

 

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?

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!

 

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.

 

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.