Are All Works Sin?

[mman]

mmann:

"When we MUST worship in truth and God's word is truth, then we must worship according to the pattern that is given in scriptures. We must have an approved example, direct command, or necessary inference for all that we do."

GE:

The crux is: WHAT is this?
Is it the Law; is it the Scriptures? (the same thing!) Is it Gospel 'morals'? (the same thing!) Is it any concept? any feeling? any strong conviction, culture, inbred ability. Is it a philosophy, a wisdom, a principle?
All in vain and vanity!
It is not 'WHAT'; is is WHO -- it is Christ. It is Christ incarnated, suffering, dying, and raised from the dead. It is the Son, the Person of the Godhead crucified and risen, alive and LIFE; God and Lord, Saviour and Head of "the Body that is of Christ's Own", the Church, Author and Finisher of the Faith. It is the Christian God. He is everything, and is the only in all of this said: ... worship in Truth and God's Word Who is Truth, the Pattern (that is given in scriptures). The Approved Example, the Direct Command -- the 'necessary inference for all that we do'.

It's not the law, that was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross, that was contrary to us, that was our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ and since we have Christ, we no longer need that schoolmaster.

It is the new covenant, the new law, if you will. I'm not exactly sure what you were trying to convey. Maybe something was lost in the translation?

God said worship MUST be in TRUTH, so yes, the "what" does matter. Jesus said, why do you call me Lord and do not the things that I say. The "what" does matter.

Jesus said, "in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." - Matt 15:9

The "who" is not the problem, it is the "what"! They got the "who" right, but they got the "what" wrong.

The "what" is very important to Jesus. How can we know what He wants? He tells us! It's that simple.

The converse to Matt 15:9 is also true. In truth they do worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of God. Would anyone argue against this statement?

God MUST be worshipped in TRUTH!

What does "MUST" mean? Is that optional? Can you worship Him in truth in some way that He has not revealed? IMPOSSIBLE!

 

[Eric B]

Your inconsistencies are glaring. "Unleavened bread rules out yeast rolls. But singing does not rule out instruments"?

The apostles and early church sang and did not use instruments of music.

God's approved music = singing
God's approved bread on the Lord's supper = unleavened

Adding yeast rolls to the unleavened bread is no different than adding mechanical instruments to singing.

Your sense of comparison is glaring.

Look at it. "leavened" (yeast) vs UNleavened.
Singing... is instruments "UNsinging"?
No. So it is two totally different things.

If you add to either of these, IT IS WRONG.

So you're this guy from the Two Stupid Dogs cartoon, now? http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/5159/cute.wav

It matters not what you like or prefer, you are changing a command, by adding to it.

God MUST be worshipped in TRUTH. Learn what that means! It certainly does not mean what ever I want to do or according to the commandments of men.

Who said I liked instruments? That again is a straw man formulaic answer to try to cast everyone else as doing what they "want"; but that is not always why there are instruments in Church. For me, I could care less. I have a CD player at home to listen to instrumental music. But I'm not going to be subjected to some made up rule by people who seem to have nothing better to do that raise such a ridiculous issue just to further try to prove they are the only true Christians.

Instrumental music in worship was not added by man for many centruies after the original instruction was given.

It wasn't forbidden either, until gnostic somberness set in, and then Church fathers tried to read it back to the NT, to justify their manmade rules.

Look to the NT to see the PATTERN. Follow their approved examples. Follow the direct commands.

If God MUST be worshipped in TRUTH, and God's word is truth, then I MUST have an approved example, direct command or some type of necessary inference for everything I do, if I want to worship in TRUTH.

Until YOU decide a particular thing added is safe as an "expedient". Again; Using a book to sing out of would be more potentially contradictory to the "singing" command than instruments (because one could be repeating what they read without really expressing it in their hearts.

Yes we can acknowledge God in all that we do, but not all we do is worship.

Show me according to the scripture how one can worship God alone on a Tuesday morning while playing a guitar. Just give me an indication of how that could be true worship which is acceptable to God.

Of course faith does not cease when I am not worshipping, just everything I do is not worship. I don't know how to worship God in the shower because He hasn't told me how. I can pray to Him, be thankful, think about Him, but I cannot worship Him, per se.

The Bible tells us to worship; now why don't you use your "expedients" concept to worship on Tuesday or in the Shower? Those are only a time and a place to carry out the command, and it has to be carried out some place and some time, for it to have occurred in this universe.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

It's not the law, that was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross, that was contrary to us, that was our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ and since we have Christ, we no longer need that schoolmaster.

It is the new covenant, the new law, if you will. I'm not exactly sure what you were trying to convey. Maybe something was lost in the translation?

God said worship MUST be in TRUTH, so yes, the "what" does matter. Jesus said, why do you call me Lord and do not the things that I say. The "what" does matter.

Jesus said, "in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." - Matt 15:9

The "who" is not the problem, it is the "what"! They got the "who" right, but they got the "what" wrong.

The "what" is very important to Jesus. How can we know what He wants? He tells us! It's that simple.

The converse to Matt 15:9 is also true. In truth they do worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of God. Would anyone argue against this statement?

God MUST be worshipped in TRUTH!

What does "MUST" mean? Is that optional? Can you worship Him in truth in some way that He has not revealed? IMPOSSIBLE!

GE:

I do not disagree with you, and yet, I do. It's not the law, that was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross, that was contrary to us, that was our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ and since we have Christ, we no longer need that schoolmaster. Absolutely! You see any tables of stone crucified on the tree? Not I! I see Christ there crucified and killed, killing the killer the law of sin! It took the Law of Life to avail. Christ is the victorious Law; He was the crucified Law That/Who rose again, intact, and glorified; the Law Exalted to the right hand of God in heavenly Majesty. He the King, the Law; the Law, the King!

HE, is the New Covenant, the New Law, the Eternal and Everlasting Word of God. It -He- is exactly what I'm trying to convey.

God says worship must be in TRUTH, i.e., in Christ. So yes, the "what" does matter, because the 'what' is the 'Who', even Christ. Jesus said, why do you call me Lord and do not the things that I say! Apt remark! He is the Law of God. Again, so the "what" does matter.

Jesus said, "in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." - Matt 15:9 We should preach Christ the Commandment of God!

The "Who", is the problem, for He, is the "what" - the Substance, of God's Law! One got both the "who" and the "what" wrong if one would split them up as if they were two. In Christ the Law and the Person of Jesus are one.

The "what" is very important to Jesus. How can we know what He wants? He tells us! It's that simple.
Amen!

The converse to Matt 15:9 is also true. In truth they do worship Me, teaching as the only Doctrine the Word-Commandment of God, Jesus Christ. Would anyone argue against this statement?

God MUST be worshipped in TRUTH! God MUST be worshipped in Jesus Christ!

What does "MUST" mean? Is that optional? Can you worship God in truth in some 'way' that He has not revealed Himself through? IMPOSSIBLE! "I AM, the Way."

 

[mman]

Your sense of comparison is glaring.

Look at it. "leavened" (yeast) vs UNleavened.
Singing... is instruments "UNsinging"?
No. So it is two totally different things.

So you're this guy from the Two Stupid Dogs cartoon, now? http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/5159/cute.wav
Who said I liked instruments? That again is a straw man formulaic answer to try to cast everyone else as doing what they "want"; but that is not always why there are instruments in Church. For me, I could care less. I have a CD player at home to listen to instrumental music. But I'm not going to be subjected to some made up rule by people who seem to have nothing better to do that raise such a ridiculous issue just to further try to prove they are the only true Christians.
It wasn't forbidden either, until gnostic somberness set in, and then Church fathers tried to read it back to the NT, to justify their manmade rules.
Until YOU decide a particular thing added is safe as an "expedient". Again; Using a book to sing out of would be more potentially contradictory to the "singing" command than instruments (because one could be repeating what they read without really expressing it in their hearts.
The Bible tells us to worship; now why don't you use your "expedients" concept to worship on Tuesday or in the Shower? Those are only a time and a place to carry out the command, and it has to be carried out some place and some time, for it to have occurred in this universe.

If this wern't so serious it would be laughable.

I didn't say use yeast rolls instead of unleavened bread I said use it with unleavened bread. There is no verse saying not to. You still have the unleavened bread, you just add something to it. JUST LIKE YOU DO THE SINGING!

You don't have a clue as to the difference in carrying out a command and adding to a command do you? Maybe you do, but to justify your actions you don't want to admit it.

Command is to sing. Finished product is singing. Type of authorized music is singing. If I use a song book to carry out that command, what type of music do I end up with? Singing. Did I carry out the command to sing? Yes. Is there another type of music added? No. I could add another type of music to it because my eardrums like it better, but it would be unauthorized.

Unleavened bread. That is what is authorized. I could add another type of bread to it, without changing the unleavened bread, because my tastebuds like it better, but that too would be unauthorized.

General = Music
Specific Authorized music = singing
Excludes unauthorized music such as mechanical instruments

General = bread
Specific Authorized bread = unleavened
Excludes unauthorized bread such as yeast rolls

General = wood
Specific Authorized wood for the ark = gopher
Excludes unauthorized wood such as oak, cherry, or hickory

When God said use gopher wood, that excluded all other types of wood. Now Noah could use saws, hammers, chisels, or what ever else he had at his disposal to build the ark with gopher wood. These are expedients. When he got finished, he only had gopher wood, the only authorized type of wood.

When God said to sing, that excluded all other types of music. We can use song books, song leaders, individual sheets of paper, the psalms in the bible or what ever we have at our disposal to carry out that command. These are expedients. When we are finished, we only have singing, the only authorized type of music.

To add another type of music would be no different than Noah using some hickory or adding yeast rolls to the Lord's supper.

The fact is that the early church had access to mechanical instruments of music and did not use them in their worship, even though they came from a Jewish environment that did use them.

Do you want to worship like the early church or not? If not, then add what ever you want. If that is your game plan, to stand before God and say I know what you said but I liked another way better and I didn't think you would mind, then good luck. I hope it works out for you. Nadab and Abihu stand as strong reminders that God will not accept "unauthorized" offerings that he "commanded them not".

When they "offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them", fire came out and consumed them and they died before the Lord.

If they were able to give us advise today, do you think they would say, "go ahead and add mechanical instruments which God did not command, we don't think God will care" or do you think they would say, "you better carefully follow God's instructions and do not add anything to them"?

 

[Eric B]

If this wern't so serious it would be laughable.

I didn't say use yeast rolls instead of unleavened bread I said use it with unleavened bread. There is no verse saying not to. You still have the unleavened bread, you just add something to it. JUST LIKE YOU DO THE SINGING!

Still same thing. You no longer have just UNleavened bread, but also leaven present. The WHOLE POINT was to get rid of leaven. Again, if you can show that singing is "UNinstruments", then adding instruments would contradict the purpose. But you cannot show that anywhere in the text. Youy just make it up, as yet another issue where groups break off that "they might be made manifest".

You don't have a clue as to the difference in carrying out a command and adding to a command do you? Maybe you do, but to justify your actions you don't want to admit it.

What actions? I told you I don't play instruments, and I don't need to have them in church.
But I do see the difference between carrying out a command, and making uop commands where there are none, just to justify one's own self-exaltation.

Command is to sing. Finished product is singing. Type of authorized music is singing. If I use a song book to carry out that command, what type of music do I end up with? Singing.

AND "printed words" and also possibly "sheet music".

Did I carry out the command to sing? Yes. Is there another type of music added?

YES! To use YOUR line of reasoning, those are "other forms of music besuides singing", and it can be argued (again, in your line of reasoning) that the words should be coming from you, not from the book.

No. I could add another type of music to it because my eardrums like it better, but it would be unauthorized.

Unleavened bread. That is what is authorized. I could add another type of bread to it, without changing the unleavened bread, because my tastebuds like it better, but that too would be unauthorized.

General = Music
Specific Authorized music = singing
Excludes unauthorized music such as mechanical instruments

General = bread
Specific Authorized bread = unleavened
Excludes unauthorized bread such as yeast rolls

General = wood
Specific Authorized wood for the ark = gopher
Excludes unauthorized wood such as oak, cherry, or hickory

When God said use gopher wood, that excluded all other types of wood. Now Noah could use saws, hammers, chisels, or what ever else he had at his disposal to build the ark with gopher wood. These are expedients. When he got finished, he only had gopher wood, the only authorized type of wood.

When God said to sing, that excluded all other types of music. We can use song books, song leaders, individual sheets of paper, the psalms in the bible or what ever we have at our disposal to carry out that command. These are expedients. When we are finished, we only have singing, the only authorized type of music.

To add another type of music would be no different than Noah using some hickory or adding yeast rolls to the Lord's supper.

The fact is that the early church had access to mechanical instruments of music and did not use them in their worship, even though they came from a Jewish environment that did use them.

Do you want to worship like the early church or not? If not, then add what ever you want. If that is your game plan, to stand before God and say I know what you said but I liked another way better and I didn't think you would mind, then good luck. I hope it works out for you. Nadab and Abihu stand as strong reminders that God will not accept "unauthorized" offerings that he "commanded them not".

When they "offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them", fire came out and consumed them and they died before the Lord.

If they were able to give us advise today, do you think they would say, "go ahead and add mechanical instruments which God did not command, we don't think God will care" or do you think they would say, "you better carefully follow God's instructions and do not add anything to them"?

Right there, to show how you are just making things up out of nowhere, you ADD your own words to the scripture in those comparisons. The Bible does mention specific kinds of wood, bread, and even fire ("sweet incense". I see you didn't mention that part of that one!), but it does NOT say "MUSIC" in your "GENERAL" category! You have "gopher Wood" , "sweet Incense", and "UNleavened bread", but you do NOT have "singing music". (i.e. "vocal" music). If it said that, you would have more of a case, because then, TYPE of music is being implied, but in the actual texts, "music" in itself is not specified (so it also cannot be regulated like that); they are only told to "sing".
Singing is a TYPE of music, but "music" in is not the subject, like "wood", "bread" and "fire" are. "Singing" itself is what is general. Now, WHAT songs you sing would be your "specific authorized singing", with worship songs authorized, and love songs to our mate excluded. What you're doing here is like saying "God tells him to cover it with pitch, so that excluded hammers and nails, because nails add to the pitch".

So you cannot even follow your own analogies straight, because you are so busy trying to create an issue where scripturally, there is none. I'm not going to stand before God and say I knew He didn't want instruments but used them because I liked them, when I saw that nowhere in His Word, but only from the likes of you (God will not judge us based on your interpretation of the Bible) and I do not use them or even choose a church based on them. But just think what it will be like for YOU to stand before God and have to answer for causing division (CLEARLY condemned all throughout the NT), and exalting your own righteousness, of supposedly being a truer Christian than others over completely bogus issues. YOU, believe it or not, are the one with the strange fire, and doing what pleases you.

 

[mman]

So you cannot even follow your own analogies straight, because you are so busy trying to create an issue where scripturally, there is none. I'm not going to stand before God and say I knew He didn't want instruments but used them because I liked them, when I saw that nowhere in His Word, but only from the likes of you (God will not judge us based on your interpretation of the Bible) and I do not use them or even choose a church based on them. But just think what it will be like for YOU to stand before God and have to answer for causing division (CLEARLY condemned all throughout the NT), and exalting your own righteousness, of supposedly being a truer Christian than others over completely bogus issues. YOU, believe it or not, are the one with the strange fire, and doing what pleases you.

So when I sing because it says to sing and I follow the example of the early church, I am "the one with strange fire, and doing what pleases you". Wow, your mental gymnastics are too great for me! I believe that is the most desperate attempt to justify one's actions without scripture that I have ever seen. Don't get me wrong, I am certain you are sincere in your beliefs.

The test to see if "singing" is strange fire, we would first need to verify it's absence from scripture, then verify my adding it to worship.

The scripture, however, is not silent on this subject. I have multiple verses that command me to sing, THEREFORE, singing is not strange fire, or something which He commanded not.

Let's look again at what is written for our learning about strange fire:

Lev 10:1 Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them.

Where are your verses that authorize mechanical instruments in worship, or is it something which God "had not commanded"?

OK, so where is the command to sing? Here's one passage, I could have used others, but since I am just asking you for only ONE , I will only provide one: Col 3:16-17 - Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

This is done during the assembly of christians, otherwise it would be impossible to teach and admonish one another. The command is to sing. Further instruction says that whatever we do should be done "in the name of Jesus". That means by His authority. If the word of Christ dwells in us, and the word commands us to sing, and we are to do everything according to His authority, how twisted is your statement that singing is strange fire, yet mechanical instruments are not.

OK, thou accuser of "strange fire", where is your verse that authorizes the use of mechanical instruments of music in New Testament worship? If you cannot find one, then we will see who the real offerer of strange fire is.

By the way, the division is caused by those who introduced mechanical instruments of music in worship. The early church didn't use them. It was introduced by man several centuries later. It caused division then and it causes it today.

Why, because I can't find a verse to authorize it. You stated that you don't need them to worship, and for me to use them, it would be sinful. So, just who is being divisive??? For me it's not a choice, for you it is. You know that scripture is clearly on my side. Yes, division is condemned. So is will worship and vain worship. So you try to force something upon me that is not authorized and would be sinful for me to use, and then accuse me of causing division and offering strange fire? Again, that logic escapes me.

Even if you think there is nothing wrong with mechanical instruments of music in worship and I think it is sinful, then it would be sinful for me to use them, regardless. Shouldn't your love for me win out over your love for a lifeless instrument?

Here's a few verses from Rom 14, "...but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother... For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died...So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding...Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God...It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble...But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin

 

[Eric B]

So when I sing because it says to sing and I follow the example of the early church, I am "the one with strange fire, and doing what pleases you". Wow, your mental gymnastics are too great for me!
The test to see if "singing" is strange fire, we would first need to verify it's absence from scripture, then verify my adding it to worship.

The scripture, however, is not silent on this subject. I have multiple verses that command me to sing, THEREFORE, singing is not strange fire, or something which He commanded not.

Let's look again at what is written for our learning about strange fire:

Lev 10:1 Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them.

Where are your verses that authorize mechanical instruments in worship, or is it something which God "had not commanded"?

OK, so where is the command to sing? Here's one passage, I could have used others, but since I am just asking you for only ONE , I will only provide one: Col 3:16-17 - Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

This is done during the assembly of christians, otherwise it would be impossible to teach and admonish one another. The command is to sing. Further instruction says that whatever we do should be done "in the name of Jesus". That means by His authority. If the word of Christ dwells in us, and the word commands us to sing, and we are to do everything according to His authority, how twisted is your statement that singing is strange fire, yet mechanical instruments are not.

OK, thou accuser of "strange fire", where is your verse that authorizes the use of mechanical instruments of music in New Testament worship? If you cannot find one, then we will see who the real offerer of strange fire is.

You completely misunderstand what I was saying. I wasn't saying that singing was strange fire. It's your doctrine, by which you come and say everyone else is wrong, yet you have no scripture forbidding what we are doing. Just like you need to do with scriptures such as Lev.10; look at the context. The previous sentence was "But just think what it will be like for YOU to stand before God and have to answer for causing division (CLEARLY condemned all throughout the NT), and exalting your own righteousness, of supposedly being a truer Christian than others over completely bogus issues." THAT was the "strange fire" I was referring to. Then, you go right against your argument that something has to be "mentioned", with that "expedient" loohole of yours. By your own reasoning, any item you add under that category would still constitute "strange fire" because it being not mentioned.

Again, in Lev. you have to look back to Exodus 30, where the right type of fire was commanded: v. "sweet incense" is what is contrasted with (v.9) "strange" fire. It is so simple. No need to speculate on some "silence" principle. He was told exactly what to bring. So again, you have "sweet Incense", "gopher Wood", and "UNleavened bread", but you do NOT have "vocal (singing ONLY) music". So you are the one adding to scripture, and it's that addition that constitutes "strange fire". (Rev.22:19, Prov.30:6, Deut 4:2)

I believe that is the most desperate attempt to justify one's actions without scripture that I have ever seen. Don't get me wrong, I am certain you are sincere in your beliefs.

Again, I don't play instruments, nor choose a church for them, so I'm not 'doing' anything that needs to be justified! Your repeating that is your desperate attempt to prove some point.

By the way, the division is caused by those who introduced mechanical instruments of music in worship. The early church didn't use them. It was introduced by man several centuries later. It caused division then and it causes it today.

When we debate the Orthodox and Catholics here, they try to use the "Early Church" to justify their doctrines. You want to use that as the standard? Those same ECF's who pontificated on the NT not using instruments also claimed that Communion was changed to flesh and blood when they prayed over it! This is then projected back to the NT as an unwritten rule, just like instruments. I had been wanting to ask, since you seem to agree with them on baptism so much, why you don't agree with them on Communion.

No; it is man in the postapostolic church that began adding unbiblical rules and projecting them back to the apostles. Your group doesn't even follow many of them. So that is no scriptural argument you are presenting, but rather a Catholic argument, and one they themselves no longer even follow.

Why, because I can't find a verse to authorize it.

Yet you can't find a verse to authorize song books either. Or a pitch pipe. You then add this new category of "expedients", but that is not in there either.

You stated that you don't need them to worship, and for me to use them, it would be sinful.

Even if you think there is nothing wrong with mechanical instruments of music in worship and I think it is sinful, then it would be sinful for me to use them, regardless. Shouldn't your love for me win out over your love for a lifeless instrument?

Then don't use them. But that has nothing to do with us.

So, just who is being divisive??? For me it's not a choice, for you it is. You know that scripture is clearly on my side.

Yet you can't produce any that say what you are saying, so must try to project it in from silence (how can the scritpure be on you side if it is silient on the issue?), and then as a last resort, appeal to the ECF's.

Yes, division is condemned. So is will worship and vain worship.

So you try to force something upon me that is not authorized and would be sinful for me to use, and then accuse me of causing division and offering strange fire? Again, that logic escapes me.

But nobody's forcing anything on you. Nobody's saying you MUST use instruments, or you are wrong for not using them. Don't forget, you are the one coming here and saying WE are wrong. It is your rule that is vain "will worship"; just some ridiculous issue made up just to claim to be better then the next guy.

Here's a few verses from Rom 14, "...but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother... For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died...So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding...Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God...It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble...But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin

Again; we are not forcing instruments on you, but you are the one trying to force your conviction (from mere silence, not any scriptural statment) on us. You're skimming through that passage, but take a closer look at it, such as verse 3-6, and 10. We are following its instruction. Why aren't you?

 

[mman]

You completely misunderstand what I was saying. I wasn't saying that singing was strange fire. It's your doctrine, by which you come and say everyone else is wrong, yet you have no scripture forbidding what we are doing. Just like you need to do with scriptures such as Lev.10; look at the context. The previous sentence was "But just think what it will be like for YOU to stand before God and have to answer for causing division (CLEARLY condemned all throughout the NT), and exalting your own righteousness, of supposedly being a truer Christian than others over completely bogus issues." THAT was the "strange fire" I was referring to. Then, you go right against your argument that something has to be "mentioned", with that "expedient" loohole of yours. By your own reasoning, any item you add under that category would still constitute "strange fire" because it being not mentioned.

Again, in Lev. you have to look back to Exodus 30, where the right type of fire was commanded: v. "sweet incense" is what is contrasted with (v.9) "strange" fire. It is so simple. No need to speculate on some "silence" principle. He was told exactly what to bring. So again, you have "sweet Incense", "gopher Wood", and "UNleavened bread", but you do NOT have "vocal (singing ONLY) music". So you are the one adding to scripture, and it's that addition that constitutes "strange fire". (Rev.22:19, Prov.30:6, Deut 4:2)
Again, I don't play instruments, nor choose a church for them, so I'm not 'doing' anything that needs to be justified! Your repeating that is your desperate attempt to prove some point.
When we debate the Orthodox and Catholics here, they try to use the "Early Church" to justify their doctrines. You want to use that as the standard? Those same ECF's who pontificated on the NT not using instruments also claimed that Communion was changed to flesh and blood when they prayed over it! This is then projected back to the NT as an unwritten rule, just like instruments. I had been wanting to ask, since you seem to agree with them on baptism so much, why you don't agree with them on Communion.

No; it is man in the postapostolic church that began adding unbiblical rules and projecting them back to the apostles. Your group doesn't even follow many of them. So that is no scriptural argument you are presenting, but rather a Catholic argument, and one they themselves no longer even follow.
Yet you can't find a verse to authorize song books either. Or a pitch pipe. You then add this new category of "expedients", but that is not in there either.
Then don't use them. But that has nothing to do with us.
Yet you can't produce any that say what you are saying, so must try to project it in from silence (how can the scritpure be on you side if it is silient on the issue?), and then as a last resort, appeal to the ECF's.
But nobody's forcing anything on you. Nobody's saying you MUST use instruments, or you are wrong for not using them. Don't forget, you are the one coming here and saying WE are wrong. It is your rule that is vain "will worship"; just some ridiculous issue made up just to claim to be better then the next guy.
Again; we are not forcing instruments on you, but you are the one trying to force your conviction (from mere silence, not any scriptural statment) on us. You're skimming through that passage, but take a closer look at it, such as verse 3-6, and 10. We are following its instruction. Why aren't you?

Again, you have no concept in carrying out a command and adding to a command.

When I use a song book, I still have only the COMMANDED type of music which is singing. When one worships with mechanical instruments of worship they end up with 2 types of music, singing and mechanical instruments, one authorized and one unauthorized. When I talk "early church", I mean the church we read about in the NT. It is known that they did not use mechanical instruments of music in worship. To claim otherwise would be without one shred of evidence.

In the account in Lev ch 10, the fire was unauthorized not the incense. Therefore, the source of the fire is what was wrong. Fire is fire, right? Do you think Nadab and Abihu would agree?

Singing is singing? Right? No, the souce is what is important. Singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord, with understanding, teaching and admonishing one another in song.

Nadab and Abihu were given instructions. They were bound by what was said, not what God did not say. God didn't say not to get the fire from other places, He told them where to get it.

How could they carry out that command? They could walk and get it, ride a camel, run, or any way they wanted it, but they could not change the command. They couldn't add to it, substitute it, or change it in any way.

You obviously don't know the meaning of the word "sing".

Here is the simple truth.
God commanded us to sing.
God told us what to sing (psalms, hymns and spiritual songs)
God told us how to sing (with grace in our hearts to the Lord)
God told us some of the benefits of singing (teaching and admonishing one another - Obviously instructions for gathered Christians)

The use of mechanical instruments of music is something that God commanded NOT! It is sometimes used in place of singing, it covers up the singing, hindering in the "teaching and admonishing" one another, therefore it is a HINDERANCE and not a help, but that is beside the point. The point is that they are an unauthorized type of music that the early church did not use and there is not scriptural basis for using them. When used, you end up with 2 types of music, one authorized (singing) and one unauthorized (instrumental).

Since we MUST worship God in truth and God's word is truth, I can sing in truth. If I use a book, I still only have the authorized type of music, singing. The command is sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. How can we do that as a group in such a way as to "teach and admonish" one another. How is that possible? We all need to be singing the same song. How is that possible? We either have to memorize it or read the words as we sing. Did God give us any instructions concerning this? No. Therefore, it is left to man's judgment on how to carry out this command. We choose books that contain the words to psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. If you can't see the difference in using a book to carry out the command to sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs and adding another type of music to the worship, then you have been blinded.

You can rationalize that all you want, but it does not change the simple truth. Even if you don't use them, but approve of them, then you are just as guilty as those who do use them (II Jn 9-11).

Yes, I feel that what I believe is important. Call me narrow minded if you wish. Jesus said the way that leads to life was narrow and not many would find it. God wants TRUE worshippers to worship in TRUTH (Jn 4:23-24). Unity is IMPOSSIBLE unless we carefully follow the instrucitons and examples given in scripture.

Lastly, when you equate my carefully following God's instructions and encouraging others to do the same with "strange fire", I hope you can see the absurdity in that logic.

 

[Amy.G]

mman:

OK, so where is the command to sing? Here's one passage, I could have used others, but since I am just asking you for only ONE , I will only provide one: Col 3:16-17 - Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

I haven't been following all of this thread, so would you please quote a scripture that condemns musical intruments?

As for the scripture that you posted above, it is an excellent choice for proving that musical instrument are perfectly acceptable to God.

And whatever you do (that includes playing musical instruments), in word or deed (playing an instrument is something you do), do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Playing an intrument is a deed. If I play it as part of my worship to the Lord and give Him thanks, He accepts it.

You legalistic, man made doctrine is ridiculous.

 

[mman]

mman:

I haven't been following all of this thread, so would you please quote a scripture that condemns musical intruments?

As for the scripture that you posted above, it is an excellent choice for proving that musical instrument are perfectly acceptable to God.

And whatever you do (that includes playing musical instruments), in word or deed (playing an instrument is something you do), do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Playing an intrument is a deed. If I play it as part of my worship to the Lord and give Him thanks, He accepts it.

You legalistic, man made doctrine is ridiculous.

Where is the verse that condemns instrumental music? It's right next to the one that told Nadab and Abihu not to use strange fire. Since there was not a prohibition on strange fire, God must have been alright with that, don't you think? What advise do you think Nadab and Abihu would give (Lev 10)? Do you think they would say, "If God doesn't prohibit it, then it's fine, He will accept it" or "you better carefully follow what He says"?

You are asking the wrong question. The correct question is "Where is the scripture to authorize mechanical instruments of music is worship".

My doctrine is not man made, it is God given. I have a command to sing. You do not have a command or example to play an instrument. Why? Because instrumental music in worship is man made. So according to your statements, when I follow God's command, I am following a "man made" doctrine and am a legalist and when I do something that is unauthorized, that is doing it in the "name of the Lord"? Do you not see the blatant hypocrisy in that?

Here is an important truth. We are not bound by what God did not say, but we are bound by what He did say. How do we know what God wants in worship? He must tell us.

Using your philosophy, killing goats (or anything else for that matter that is unauthorized) in worship is perfectly acceptable. Whatever you do (that includes killing goats) in word or in deed (killing goats is something you do) do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus. Therefore, killing goats is perfectly acceptable to God in your worship. So is bowling, pingpong, acrobatics, swimming, paintball, eating sushi, shaving your legs, gambling, or anything else you want to drag through this wide door that you think is open.

If you would learn what "in the name of the Lord Jesus" means, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If someone said, "Open the door, in the name of the Law", what would that mean? You would understand it means, by the authority of the Law, open the door. Jesus has been given all authority (Matt 28:18). To do something by the authority of Jesus is to do what is commanded or authorized in scripture.

If Jesus has All authority, that means I can not authorize whatever is ommitted.

The bible command is to sing, therefore, you can sing "in the name of Jesus". The verses above point that out clearly (Col 3:16-17). You cannot play an instrument "in the name of Jesus" any more than you can kill a goat "in the name of Jesus".

What makes you think God will accept it in worship to Him?

Follow this logic trail.

God MUST be worshipped in truth (Jn 4:23-24).
God's word is truth (Jn 17:17).
Therefore, God MUST be worshipped according to what HE says in His word.

So what is the difference in a true worshipper and false worshipper? The true worshipper worships in TRUTH and God's word is TRUTH (Jn 4:23-24, Jn 17:17). So you see, you cannot worship with mechanical instruments in TRUTH. The early church did not use them and if you would look at the history, man did not introduce them until many centruries after the church was established.

In Matt 15, it talks about vain worship. What makes it vain? The commandments of men. Is vain worship sincere? Absolutely. Why would anybody do anything they knew was in vain? The wouldn't unless they were complete idiots. I am certain that does not describe anyone on this board.

Legalistic? We all have to decide, Did God mean what He said, or was He just kidding? When He said we MUST worship in truth, does that mean we can do everything that is not expressly prohibited?

We are commanded to be of one mind and one judgment, in unity. The only way we can be united is when we recognize the authority of the scriptures, do what they say, following the approved examples given in scripture. If you think that makes me a legalist, then call me a legalist. If we were all "legalist", then we could be united in truth.

By what authority do you use mechanical instruments of music in worship? Is it from man or from God? If it were from God, then the early church would have used them. They were available and used in the Jewish system that they came out from. There are no intructions for the early church to use them and history tells us they did not use them. Do you really think that God wants them and didn't tell us? God MUST be worshipped in TRUTH.

 

[Eric B]

Again, you have no concept in carrying out a command and adding to a command.

When I use a song book, I still have only the COMMANDED type of music which is singing. When one worships with mechanical instruments of worship they end up with 2 types of music, singing and mechanical instruments, one authorized and one unauthorized.

And you also have two types of music: singing and print.

When I talk "early church", I mean the church we read about in the NT. It is known that they did not use mechanical instruments of music in worship. To claim otherwise would be without one shred of evidence.

If instruments are not even mentioned, then it is NOT "known" that they did not use them. You're the one without any shred of evidence. If anything, it shows they were not an issue like your sect makes them out to be. If they were so much an "unauthorized form of music", then the apostles would have made a point to teach that, as the church would be reading the OT, including the Psalms (which they also sung), in which instruments were included, and they would need the specific instruction that God no longer wanted that in the new covenant.
Your earliest "evidence" of "no instruments" is the ECF's, so to take that to prove they weren't used in the NT; what you're suggesting is an "oral apostolic tradition", just like the Catholics/Orthodox. But then that position admittedly rejects sola scriptura, and if you want to take that route, your whole argument against us collapses.

In the account in Lev ch 10, the fire was unauthorized not the incense. Therefore, the source of the fire is what was wrong. Fire is fire, right? Do you think Nadab and Abihu would agree?

And what was incense, but the source of the fire?

Singing is singing? Right? No, the souce is what is important. Singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord, with understanding, teaching and admonishing one another in song.

Nadab and Abihu were given instructions. They were bound by what was said, not what God did not say.

Then why are you trying to bind us by something God did not say?

God didn't say not to get the fire from other places, He told them where to get it.

And where are you getting that from? The only reference I see to the right type of fire is the sweet incence. It is mentioned again in ch.16:12.
But even if it was about a place, that would be the same principle. If one place is mentioned, then all other places are excluded. Singing and instruments are not mututally exclusive like one place or another. You can only be one place at a time. Not so with singing and instruments.

How could they carry out that command? They could walk and get it, ride a camel, run, or any way they wanted it, but they could not change the command. They couldn't add to it, substitute it, or change it in any way.

But according to your logic, if God didn't specify how to get it, they couldn't get it, because your whole definition of what is "authorized" is what is MENTIONED! Don't forget that. If they are allowed all of these "expedients" that are not MENTIONED, then being "mentioned" must not be a prerequisite for authorization; unless another MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE specification is given.

You obviously don't know the meaning of the word "sing".

Here is the simple truth.
God commanded us to sing.
God told us what to sing (psalms, hymns and spiritual songs)
God told us how to sing (with grace in our hearts to the Lord)
God told us some of the benefits of singing (teaching and admonishing one another - Obviously instructions for gathered Christians)

The use of mechanical instruments of music is something that God commanded NOT! It is sometimes used in place of singing, it covers up the singing, hindering in the "teaching and admonishing" one another, therefore it is a HINDERANCE and not a help, but that is beside the point. The point is that they are an unauthorized type of music that the early church did not use and there is not scriptural basis for using them. When used, you end up with 2 types of music, one authorized (singing) and one unauthorized (instrumental).

Since we MUST worship God in truth and God's word is truth, I can sing in truth. If I use a book, I still only have the authorized type of music, singing.

AND printed words and/or sheet music (printed notation), which you READ. That is "another type of music" that stands alone without the singing. The printed words and notation, the singing and the instruments are all supposed to match each other, and if they do, then God's command has been carried out.

The command is sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. How can we do that as a group in such a way as to "teach and admonish" one another. How is that possible? We all need to be singing the same song. How is that possible? We either have to memorize it or read the words as we sing. Did God give us any instructions concerning this? No. Therefore, it is left to man's judgment on how to carry out this command. We choose books that contain the words to psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. If you can't see the difference in using a book to carry out the command to sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs and adding another type of music to the worship, then you have been blinded.

Again, your own line of reasoning would say that God said to sing; not to READ. IF you're reading, then you have ADDED to the command to sing, just as much as if an instrument is played. So your doctine should demand that the song has to be memorized before you can sing it without adding anything to it.
And again, since these texts include the Psalms, the Psalms themselves do say to use instruments. Why then would you sing them, but then have to omit and clarify that we don't do this anymore, especially when God has never said that that aspect of the Psalms are revoked.

You can rationalize that all you want, but it does not change the simple truth.

You're the one who has rationalized, to get out of the full implications of your teaching. Be consistent with it, or abandon the divisive teaching.

Even if you don't use them, but approve of them, then you are just as guilty as those who do use them (II Jn 9-11).

"Guilty"? How can I be guilty of anything that God has not forbidden? So it's YOU who decides for all of us when "man is left to use his own judgment"?

Yes, I feel that what I believe is important.

And so do the JW's, Catholics, sabbatarians, Mormons, many atheists, other religions, etc. Does that make them true too? It just shows that you're just one more person with some claim of truth that is important to you, but not to scripture.

Call me narrow minded if you wish. Jesus said the way that leads to life was narrow and not many would find it.

And most of those groups say the same thing as well. But all are relying on their own righteousness, and are thus on the broad way to destruction. In other words, each group has its own peculiar doctrine held only by the group, which it defines as "the narrow way", but none of them are the true "narrow way" according that what is actually written in scrioture (in its proper context), so they are still on the broad way. And CoC doctrine is yet another of them.

God wants TRUE worshippers to worship in TRUTH (Jn 4:23-24). Unity is IMPOSSIBLE unless we carefully follow the instructions and examples given in scripture.

It's also impossible when every man and his brother rises up out of the ranks to try to claim to have the "narrow way"(Acts 20:30, 1 John 1:19), inventing "instructions" and "examples" that are not even there!

Lastly, when you equate my carefully following God's instructions and encouraging others to do the same with "strange fire", I hope you can see the absurdity in that logic.

But I showed that you are not carefully following God's instructions, or "encouraging" others. If you feel you cannot use instruments, then that is your conviction, so you should avoid them. But what you are doing instead is judging everyone else by it, to proclaim your belief system or group as the only true one. This is what the scripture condemns, and is what destroys unity.

 

[mman]

And you also have two types of music: singing and print.

Ok, one step at a time. First of all print is NOT music. If it were, then my bible would be "music". The newspaper is "music". The whole basis of your argument is on print being "music"?

The command is to sing. Where is the authority to add instrumental music to worship. Where is the approved example? What makes you think God wants or approves of it?

You cannot use instrumental music in faith (Faith has it's source in God's word (Rom 10:17) or in truth (Jn 17:17 - God's word is truth).

I can sing in faith (Col 3:16-17) and in truth (Eph 5:19).

I guess you arguments make sense to you, but they are without any merit whatsoever. Go back and read you arguments again. Hopefully, I am missing something because if that is your rationale for allowing instrumental music.................

We are to judge righteous judgment. God's word is rightousness (Ps 119:172). Truth is truth, no matter what you or I think. God's word is truth. We have examples to follow and commands to obey. If you don't think it is important to carefully follow God's instructions, then that is up to you.

 

[Eric B]

Ok, one step at a time. First of all print is NOT music. If it were, then my bible would be "music". The newspaper is "music". The whole basis of your argument is on print being "music"?

If what is "printed" is either musical lyrics, or notation, it is music. The Bible is print, and it is still the Word of God. You can't say "print" is not the WORD of God, because you can't hear it being spoken. The newspaper is print, but you can't say print is not the news. So as the Bible or a newspaper are words in print, as opposed to actually being spoken to you; so is a song book music in print, as opposed to music actually being sung.

The command is to sing. Where is the authority to add instrumental music to worship. Where is the approved example? What makes you think God wants or approves of it?

It is approved in the OT, including the very Psalms we are supposed to sing! Where is your authority to rescind that?

You cannot use instrumental music in faith (Faith has it's source in God's word (Rom 10:17) or in truth (Jn 17:17 - God's word is truth).

I can sing in faith (Col 3:16-17) and in truth (Eph 5:19).

By your logic, you can't READ the words or notes in print form in "faith" either, because that is not mentioned in God's Word either.

I guess you arguments make sense to you, but they are without any merit whatsoever. Go back and read you arguments again. Hopefully, I am missing something because if that is your rationale for allowing instrumental music.................

We are to judge righteous judgment. God's word is rightousness (Ps 119:172). Truth is truth, no matter what you or I think. God's word is truth. We have examples to follow and commands to obey. If you don't think it is important to carefully follow God's instructions, then that is up to you.

Again, you are not carefully follwing God's instructions, (where is the instruction that instruments are rescinded for the NT?) but rather making up your own, in addition to them.

 

[mman]

If what is "printed" is either musical lyrics, or notation, it is music. The Bible is print, and it is still the Word of God. You can't say "print" is not the WORD of God, because you can't hear it being spoken. The newspaper is print, but you can't say print is not the news. So as the Bible or a newspaper are words in print, as opposed to actually being spoken to you; so is a song book music in print, as opposed to music actually being sung.
It is approved in the OT, including the very Psalms we are supposed to sing! Where is your authority to rescind that?
By your logic, you can't READ the words or notes in print form in "faith" either, because that is not mentioned in God's Word either.
Again, you are not carefully follwing God's instructions, (where is the instruction that instruments are rescinded for the NT?) but rather making up your own, in addition to them.

No, my logic says you can read the words. That was your twisted logic that came up with that erronous conclusion. How obsurd.

If approval from the OT is all that you have, then that is easy to show where that was taken away. By the way, don't you see what you are doing? You are going to the OT, where it was authorized, to justify an action in the NT, that is unauthorized. How do you know it was authorized? Does the word OLD mean anything to you? If your OLD "will" contained instructions for money to be given to a certain person and your NEW will was silent on the matter, could that person successfully argue that is was never rescinded? The fact that you have a NEW will, rescinds the WHOLE "old" will.

Heb 9:15-17 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive

or

Gal 5:19-25 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian

or

Col 2:14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

or

Rom 7:6 - But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit. (The argument here is if we were under 2 laws at the same time, it would be like spiritual adultry).

By your logic, anything in the OLD law can be dragged into the NEW Law. I guess you see nothing wrong to include the killing of goats, the burning of incense, or any other OT practice in our worship today.

Just to show the fallacy of your logic concerning the printed words and notes being music, have you ever been listening to music on the radio and wondered, is that vocal, instrumental, or words printed on paper?

The sheets with words and notes are not the music. Do you think a picture of a horse is a "horse", even if someone refers to it as a horse? No, it is not a horse, it is paper and ink. It may represent a horse, but it is not a horse. Words and notes printed on paper may represent music, but it is NOT music, it is paper and ink.

I truly hope this line of reasoning is original with you.

How's this? The only audible melodious sound authorized by God is singing.

You can twist it, rationalize it, try to explain it away, grasp at straws, search for loop holes, or whatever you want, but the simple truth concerning audible melodious sound is as follows:

singing = authorized from God
instrumental music = unathorized by God

I know that you will never accept this simple plain truth, so continuing this with you, in my opinion, is pointless and a waste of my time. Unless you bring something credible to your agrument, (i.e., scripture, logic), I have nothing left for you.

And yes, when I follow the simple straight forward command given in scripture, I am carefully following what God said.

 

[Eric B]

No, my logic says you can read the words. That was your twisted logic that came up with that erronous conclusion. How obsurd.

You're the one who insists if it's not MENTIONED it's not "authorized". Don't now call that MY logic!

If approval from the OT is all that you have, then that is easy to show where that was taken away. By the way, don't you see what you are doing? You are going to the OT, where it was authorized, to justify an action in the NT, that is unauthorized. How do you know it was authorized? Does the word OLD mean anything to you? If your OLD "will" contained instructions for money to be given to a certain person and your NEW will was silent on the matter, could that person successfully argue that is was never rescinded? The fact that you have a NEW will, rescinds the WHOLE "old" will.

Heb 9:15-17 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive

or

Gal 5:19-25 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian

or

Col 2:14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

or

Rom 7:6 - But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit. (The argument here is if we were under 2 laws at the same time, it would be like spiritual adultry).

By your logic, anything in the OLD law can be dragged into the NEW Law. I guess you see nothing wrong to include the killing of goats, the burning of incense, or any other OT practice in our worship today.

And here is the crux of your inconsistent logic. You can't even tell the difference between CEREMONIAL SACRIFICE RITUAL and a simple means of making music. Who told you instruments in themselves were apart of "the Law"? Where does God ever associate them with incense and goats? Do you see them mentioned in the passages you just quoted? If not, you're just prooftexting, and not following the scriptures. Are instruments an "ordinance" against us? Did they in any way point forward to Christ?
The main reference in the OT is the Psalms; not Exodus or Leviticus, which is where the Law is given.
How do you gather that every single thing done in the OT was apart of the ceremonial Law? They breathed then, too, you know. If I mention something in passing in a will that is not an integral part of the will, a new will not mentioning it will not affect it. Like if the old will happened to mention the money being given in an envelope. If the new one doesn't mention an envelope; is it now "unauthorized" or "forbidden"?
The problem is, you're making up your own categorization. You talk so much about using scripture only, but in so many places, you have to add to it and go way beyond what it actually SAYS to maintain your teachings.

Just to show the fallacy of your logic concerning the printed words and notes being music, have you ever been listening to music on the radio and wondered, is that vocal, instrumental, or words printed on paper?

Well if you're hearing it, it is either vocal, instrumental or both. If you are reading the words or notes on paper, it is print. What is the problem understanding that?

The sheets with words and notes are not the music.

Do you think a picture of a horse is a "horse", even if someone refers to it as a horse? No, it is not a horse, it is paper and ink. It may represent a horse, but it is not a horse. Words and notes printed on paper may represent music, but it is NOT music, it is paper and ink.

Oh no? Just look at the bottom of the sheet: "Words and MUSIC Copyright by...". It is print music.
Music is different from a physical object like a horse.
Still, the point is, a melody in your heart is what you "sing": words or notes on a paper, you READ. If "sing" excludes every musical activity or form, it would also exclude reading the print version of music.

I truly hope this line of reasoning is original with you.

How's this? The only audible melodious sound authorized by God is singing.

You can twist it, rationalize it, try to explain it away, grasp at straws, search for loop holes, or whatever you want, but the simple truth concerning audible melodious sound is as follows:

singing = authorized from God
instrumental music = unathorized by God

So now again, you improve upon the text by changing the words to "audible melodious sound". You're the one twisting, grasping at straws, straining at gnats, and finding loopholes. You can see it right here! Just leave everybody else alone and follow your own personal convictions without putting them in God's mouth, and we won't have this dispute.

I know that you will never accept this simple plain truth, so continuing this with you, in my opinion, is pointless and a waste of my time. Unless you bring something credible to your agrument, (i.e., scripture, logic), I have nothing left for you.

The whole argument is about what the scriptures do not say, so you are the one who needs to present some scripture and logic, since you are the one coming here and teaching a ban the scriptures do not actually teach.
You say it's a waste of time, but you keep coming back, because you need to prove yourself as the only true Christian here, again, like the false leaders warned about by John and Paul.

And yes, when I follow the simple straight forward command given in scripture, I am carefully following what God said.

No, as was just shown again, you add and improve it at every turn.