Why Have Denominations?

Well, your organizations sounds more like the biblical NT pattern. ("pastor" has been blown way out of proportion in most churches, and then they complain of being "burned out", etc). I still do not quite understand your references to civil law. What is this "gift", and what do the tax-exempt laws say about it?
If you have a Church building, is there a corporation, and who runs it? If it is the elders, then would they constitute a "board" even though you aren't calling them that?

Can't you see that instruments are in the same category as microphones and song books, and not milk and steak? The same argument you use against instruments can be made against microphones and song books.

Vibrating a speaker, that drowns out the actual "strings of the heart", can certainly be seen as "CHANGING the command", as can reciting from a book, instead of from in the heart/mind. The Campbellists, Primitive Baptists, and whichever others who teach this just didn't think that far when raising this issue.

David's census and adultery clearly was always wrong before God. The music was not rejected by God. There is no reason to assume then that eveything that David did should be avoided.

 

Eric:
No, playting and singing are two different things. A microphone does not CHANGE THE COMMAND TO SING!

QUOTE
Vibrating a speaker, that drowns out the actual "strings of the heart", can certainly be seen as "CHANGING the command", as can reciting from a book, instead of from in the heart/mind. The Campbellists, Primitive Baptists, and whichever others who teach this just didn't think that far when raising this issue.

Eric, Jesus sang a hymm with the others in Mat. 26:30. It was most likely a Psalm which would have been written on a tablet. They were also reciting the Psalm. In like manner, spiritual songs are written in a book. They are recited as per Col. 3:16, Eph. 5:19.

Microphones are used to reflect sound, not " drown it out." I have no idea why you would say such an inane thing.

David violated God's law as it pertains to music. The bible says in Amos 6:5,  That chant to the sound of the viol, and invent to themselves instruments of musick, like David;

QUOTE
Can't you see that instruments are in the same category as microphones and song books, and not milk and steak? The same argument you use against instruments can be made against microphones and song books.

No, instruments change the comand. Microphones and songbooks carry out the specific command to sing. Instruments make a sound that, to borrow your phrase, drowns out the plucking of the heart strings. Microphones and songbooks do not change the act of singing. I do not think you even believe your own arguement. No offense intended.

 

And neither does playing. People play and sing at the same time (well, most instruments --other than wind, anyway)

I'm not the one who believes that would change the command. It's your line of reasoning, if taken consistently that would make that wrong.

Not if done to the right balance.

The sound you are hearing is that of a vibrating speaker, not the vocal chords themselves, which are drowned out by it. (the instruments are supposed to compliment the vocals, not supplement it as amplification does. The only difference is that the speaker copies the sound of the voice (not really "reflects").
This whole issue is a silly inane argument.

Will you please READ THE CONTEXT! It is amazing how people tear out a verse from it's context like nothing, yet are so sure they are instructing everyone else on God's comands. The people there are being chastized for various sins (you'l have to read the surrounding chapters too), yet making merriment. Of course, that is offensive to God. David played music in worhip of God, they were doing it in sin, so how dare they play, "like David"! Were feast days, solemn assemblies, and offerings "violation of the Law" as well (Yes, they were superseded in the NT, but they were still apart of the Law!) If David "violated" God's laws, HE would have said so!

My comparison may not be perfect, but it is basically the same type of argument. The CofC (and these other authorities cited) has decided to raise up some issue that if consistently applied, would lead one to discard much of what is used in churches in the modern day. But you don't want to go that far, so you come up with this loophole of "expediency", where some other addition (the CofC accepts) is somehow OK or "that's different", though someone could raise a similar argument if they wanted to. Once again, playing an instrument does not change the command anymore than using a song book (which I find distracting) or microphone (which can be distracting if too loud or staticky or whatever), or doing anything else WHILE in the act of singing.
All those "authorities" are projecting their own idea based on what they think true spirituality is. Don;t forget, they were coming out of the dark ages, where much of church life was shaped by platonic philosophy anyway.

 

Bmerr,

Like I said earlier, these quotes are not meant to be authoritative, but they illustrate the fact that in former times, the instrument was not used even by the denominations represented by many of you in this discussion.

And that means????

There is no prohibition against instrumental music. The work translated "sing" originally meant to play an instrument.

You can disagree with instrumental worship - that's fine. But to make much of a deal of it is to spend lots of time on a comparatively unimportant issue. Which is why I think many COC bodies are WRONGHEADED in their approach to worship.

 

Eric:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, playing and singing are two different things. A microphone does not CHANGE THE COMMAND TO SING!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And neither does playing. People play and sing at the same time (well, most instruments --other than wind, anyway

The bible does not authorize playing and singing at the same time. It authorizes singing. Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16, I Cor. 14;15, Romans 15:9, Mat. 26;30, Acts 16 25,26, Hebrews 2:12.

Now, if you would please post the scriptures in the new testament that authorizes playing-singing.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric, Jesus sang a hymm with the others in Mat. 26:30. It was most likely a Psalm which would have been written on a tablet. They were also reciting the Psalm. In like manner, spiritual songs are written in a book. They are recited as per Col. 3:16, Eph. 5:19.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not the one who believes that would change the command. It's your line of reasoning, if taken consistently that would make that wrong.

In your previous post, you challenged the idea of songbooks and microphones being expedients. You asserted that steak and milk were unlawful. Then, you placed the instrument in the expedient or lawful arena with the songbook. Mat. 26:30 simply proves songbooks ( written word forms) are expedients.
By the way, when I preach I use a microphone. Are you saying it drowns out the production of words that emanates from my vocal cords? I guess the 60 people listening to me on Sunday did not learn one thing as they did not hear the message. Roms. 10:17. I have been self deceived. I actually thought they heard me lo these 10 years. I am being facetious. Your argument is absurd and without biblical evidence.

I have read the context of Amos 6:5 many times. Have you ever studied the meaning of the word invented? When you have, then get back with me.

Now, please post a passage that proves a mechanical instrument is an expedient. You have claimed that songbooks and instruments are in the same category. Prove it! Book, Chapter and Verse.

 

Where are the ones that authorize reading and singing? Or doing anythign else and singing?
Youre changing the rules of how to know what is allowed. ONLY with instruments is it "if it's not commanded; it's forbidden". With everything else; "if it's not commanded; it's an 'expedient' that 'carries out' the command".

No it doesn't. They memorized much of the scriptures, so one can argue that it must be "in/from the heart", so you can use your book all you want when reading to memorize, but not when actually singing. That is not "commanded", there, and thus "not authorized"

But you base your argument on "the strings of the heart" (vocal chords). When you use a microphone, people are not hearing directly your vocal chord, but rather an electronic imitation of it. If this is OK; then we could just as well play a tape of us singing every Sunday, because that is the same thing; an imitation of the voice.
Yes, the argument is absured; but you refuse to see that it is your argument taken to the next consistent level. Bt you don't want too take it that far, because then you would be as wrong as you say everyone else is, so you invent the loophole of "expedients". Anyway, you should at least see how the rest of us feel when your group comes with this silly, time-wasting, unprofitable, unfruitful argument (certainly not "expedient" to anything other than human pride--"we're better than the rest of you").

2803 chashab "a prim root. to plait or interpenetrate i.e. (lit) to weave, fabricate, plot, contrive (usually in a malicious sense)hence, think, regard, value, compute--[now the words translated from it] (make) account of, conceive, consider, count, cunning, (man, work, workman), devise, esteem. find out, forecast, hold, imagine, impute, invent, be like, mean, purpose, reckon, (-ing be made), rgard, think"

None of this changes the context. Even some of the more figurative meanings such as "contrive in a malicious sense" would refer to the sin of the people then, not David's instruments! This is similar to Bob and I's old arguments on "observe=watch with evil intent" in Gal.4!). It would be evil of them to go on and praise God with instruments thinking they will pass with Him despite all the sin they were committing the rest of the time. And that would be if that is even the intended meaning of the word there. Otherwise; it simply means "invented". If you're trying to say there were no instruments before David; still, that does not mean God rejected it as "unauthorized", and the fact that He doesn't proves that it did not have to be "commanded" to be acceptable.

Ten there's a whole argument that God simply "allowed" it, but it was never His will; piney.org goes as far as to say that the OT was basically pagan worship, but we NEVER see any of this expressed anywhere in scripture; except read into verses like Amos, which are usually torn from their contexts. (and piney is against tall singing altogether; using the same types of reasoning, and they simply have some other allegorical interpretation of Eph.5:19, meaning to "preach" and "pray". So on and on it goes. People will come up with anything to best other Christians; like there is nothing else better to do!)

No; it's up to you to prove, book, chapter and verse, that it is forbidden. You are the one coming and raising an issue where there is none among those you are approaching. We are on the defensive here, you are making a case, so you have to prove your view, and "it isn't commanded" is just not proving it.

 

Genesis 4:19-22 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.
21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.
22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

Sometime near the beginning of time, when Adam and Eve were still alive, 3 children were born to Lamech. Though Lamech himself was a wicked man, a murderer and bigamist, his children were very gifted and civilization as we know it today owes much to their contribution. For the Bible says about Jubal:

"he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ."

As Jabal became the father of those that handle cattle, and Tubal-cain the father of those that work with brass and iron, it was Jubal that became the father of music. This was in the time of Adam--still in an era long before even Abraham's time.
God evidently thought that music was important for man to have. He gave man the ability to make instruments. He gifted one individual in Adam's time as the "father of all music" to invent musical instruments, even as David later on invented musical instruments with his genius. David also worshiped God with his harp and other musical instruments which he speaks of in the Psalms. When Solomon deditcated the Temple there were many instruments that were played.
How can instruments in and of themselves be wrong when God Himself puts soch a great emphasis on them all throughout the Old Testament.

They are included in the worship of the Old Testament saints. They are included in the worship of the saints in heaven. We read about harps, and trumpets, and other instruments in the Book of Revelation. There are musical instruments in Heaven.
That much being said, did not Jesus teach us to pray:
"Thy will be done, on earh as it is in Heaven.
Worship in heaven is with instruments.
If his will in heaven is with instruments, then his will on earth (concerning worship) must be with instruments as well.
DHK

 

Wow, I agree with DHK! Clearly the End of the World is indeed nigh

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Eric:
Speaking to yourselves is a reciprocal receptive phrase. It requires people to sing words to one another. These words are to teach a spiritual truth from God. The singing of these words is to edify or teach. Eph. 5:19. Let the word of Christ dwell in you with all wisdom. Col. 3:16.
The specific will of God precludes instruments because of the follwing:

1. Instruments are not persons ( you, speaking to yourselves). They are not personal pronouns. It is the you and speaking to yoursleves who are being directed specifically as to the act in question.

2. Instruments do not use words. ( words, spiritual songs and hymns).

3. Instruments have no mind. ( singing with grace in your heart to the Lord).

4. Instruments do not possess human body parts or soul. ( fruit of the lips, a mind).

5. Instruments do not reciprocate. ( no plurality of instruments using words).

In order to allow mechanical instruments one must set aside how language works. One must change the meaning of you, speaking to yourselves, words, in you with all wisdom, singing with grace in your mind to the Lord. While you can, and some men do, change the meaning of these words in the name of dogma, they would fail an eight grade language arts class.

 

Frank,

There are 2 facets to this debate I think.

You suggest that NT worship did not use instruments. You are probably correct.

You suggest that the lexis of the Greek words used permits a meaning of "sing" - which is also correct. In classical Greek this word meant to pluck a string or to pull back a bow so there is the possibility that instrument playing is also in view.

Now the main problem with the COC stance.

Instrumental worship is not prohibited in the NT. Whether or not it was used there is no command to suggest that THE ISSUE IS ONE OF ANY IMPORT.

Moreover look at Jesus' dealings with sinners and the "Pharisees" - Jesus was an antilegalist and was against attachment of ritual significance to acts. He knew hearts. The line of reasoning that says that God will reject worship from a true heart if is accompanied by an instrument is fundamentally and OT argument.

If ritual significance is attached to acts such as singing a capella (or even to water baptism) then Christians are in an OLD TESTAMENT CHURCH. They have a bible instead of a Torah, and a church instead of a synagogue - but they are STILL UNDER THE WORKS OF THE LAW. That is fundamentally wrong.

What disturbs me about the COC is that (for some at least) alot of weight is given to such "works" - diminishing the sacrifice of Jesus. Is Jesus' resurrection so limited that it cannot save someone if he/she does not comply with all the right rituals?

 

Specifying a particular tribe as opposed to other tribes in the same group, or a particular wood as opposed to all the other types of wood naturally is exclusive. "Sing" is not exclusive of "play instruments". It is just not the same thing! "Sing" and "play instruments" are not a set of tangible THINGS; where you can only have either one OR the other; where only one can occupy the same SPACE at the same time. So an instrument does nothing to the command to sing! It in no way removes the "lips".

Witht ht exception of #2, neither do microphones or books. And while the microphone and the song book duplicates the words, still, as per the other points; it they add to the command for living beings to be communicating to other living beaings (both are inanimate objects actually doing the "communicating").

Unless you buy the above argument; no they do not. As I said above; they do not change or in any way take away from the speaking. (Unless, of course, they are played too loud).

 

Bmerr,

Would you say that one can worship acceptably without the instrument?

Of course one could. I posted several challenges to Frank regarding this issue.

How can the COC justify the importance they attach to non-instrumental music?

The Bible is silent on this one. Thus you cannot definitely rule on this one. As such it should NOT be the subject of intense debate.

In this sense the COC, in my opinion, is far too legalistic - which is not characteritic of a NT church.

 

Charles:

The words of the text of the passages define themselves by the context. The context of a word is always the most realiable way to interpret it's meaning.I have no opinion about instruments. I just want the truth of the new testament. If it is more than the new testament, it is too much. If it is less, it is not enough.

Instuments are not a part of the new testament worship. The eight scriptures that address the issue so state. I posted five points that make it clear. Which one is incorrect and why? I have asked for one verse that authorizes the use of them in the new testament and it has been silent as an oyster.


I will not speak for the church. I am speaking about the new testament. Your assertion about the church and works is a broad brush that has little substance. I have never taught that someone must do so many good works to earn heaven. This is not a biblical. Therefore, I do not teach it. However, for those who do not believe they are essential I would ask, which command can you ignore and please God?

 

Eric:
Pianos, organs do not speak with words. They are not personal pronouns. They do not teach one another. They have no mind. You do not have to buy the argument. However, I would suggest you buy a dictionary. You could use some help.

 

Aaah but Frank,
You just bought into McGarvey, didn't you?

http://www.piney.com/HsMcGarvey.html

He doesn't give much Scripture, only condemnation against those who use instruments, specifically the organ.
I would rather stand by the Bible than the founders of the Restoration Movement and consequently the denomination called the COC.

 

"Two kinds"? Where did you get this categorization from? Where in the Bible is there any such separation between "instrumental" and "vocal", with only one "authorized" for the NT? I'm sorry; but you are reading your doctrine in there so much, you are seeing things that are not there!

Because does not CONTRADICT the other in one case, where it does in another. There is nothing wrong with "doing more than the command if it doesn't contradict it. This is sort of like taking the command to tithe, and saying giving "more" ADDS to the command; and CHANGES it, and is thus forbidden. Using the Naphthalites or oak wood eliminates what God commanded. An instrument does not.

Remember, all of that is not MY reasoning! It is where YOUR reasoning would go to, if you would honestly look at it and be consistent. So yes, it is your arguments that really stretch things!
Another point I meant to add (was in a rush before), was that the purpose of instruments is to support the melody of the song. As the anti-contemporary CCM critics point out; the melody IS the "text" of the music (which is why they believe the rhythm or harmony shouldn't overshadow it, like it can in rock. But that's a whole other debate). So no, the instruments don't utter words; but the sounds DO represent the words, and it also helps the singers follow the melody/rhythm, and notes. Thus, it is just as "expedient" as a songbook or amplification.
Since you want to argue over "verbs"/"actions", and only with playing are you "doing" something else; with books, you are also READING! Once again; that is "adding to"/"changing" the command! (Can be distracting, too).

Since the importance is the words, it would hbe too loud if it drowned out the words. You cannot even show God's standard ruling out instruments, so who is being "subjective"? You just conjure it up by fiat.