Churches of Christ...Continued

[God's Word is TRUTH]

Well we see that we can't earn our salvation, but we also see that we have to obey God, so we are simply obeying God's commandments to recieve salvation. and Col.2:12 tells us that we are buried with him in Baptism, and that we are risen with him through faith.

you can compare it to a last will and testament

say i have 1 million dollars, i can do what ever i please with that money as long as i am alive. But when I die no one can recieve my money unless they obey what my will says.

while jesus was alive he could give salvation to whoever he though fit. But once He died we have to obey his will in order to recieve salvation.

In Christian Love,

Dustin

 

[Eric B]

Eric,

bmerr here. That's what I've been trying to get at. How many instruments can we add before we are no longer teaching and admonishing one another, because we can no longer hear each other?

If you couldn't hear one another, then fine, there are too many instruments, or they are overamplified. But since the average church that uses a piano does not have this happen, that is non-sequitur for this argument. (Larger churches with pipe organs could take note of this, though)

We need to understand that when we sing in worship, we are making an offering to God. Heb 13:15 reads, "By him [Christ] therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name."

God has specified here what He desires for us to offer to Him. No mechanical musical instrument can be the "fruit of our lips". Not even a harmonica.

No, but singing is what God has commanded us to offer him. Do we dare add to the sacrifice He has commanded?

Since it is not an actual literal physical sacrifice, your analogy doesn't fit.

It may be that I was told wrong. You seem to have the advantage with regard to linguistics, or at least you're faking it well :tongue3: .

I understood "a" to change the meaning of a word to negative only when it is part of the word, like "atheism". The phrase, "a capella" has it separate. Does it not matter if it's separate or part of the word?

In Christ,

bmerr

I just looked it up in Wiktionary and wikipedia, and actually, you were right.
It is often spelled "acapella", so that must be why I thought it was like "atheism". It means "Like in the chapel choir". I never knew "a" could mean "like in". "the term is due to restrictions on the use of instruments in medieval churches". Still, that does not prove it Biblical, it is a retrospective look at the practices of a Church that had already added centuries of human tradition and interpetation (should we copy their doctrine on the Eucharist or Mary as well?)

 

[God's Word is TRUTH]

isn't it interesting that even though most christians in the new testament were jewish, and the only compiled scripture they had was the old testament scripture(because the bible hadn't been compiled) and the old testament teaches that instrumental music in worship is okay. But yet there is no record of any christians using instrumental music until around the 6th century and it wasn't widely accepted until the 18th century. i wonder why they would do that, I'm guessing it is because God didn't command us to use instrumental music in worship to Him.

In Christian Love,

Dustin

 

[bmerr]

If you couldn't hear one another, then fine, there are too many instruments, or they are overamplified. But since the average church that uses a piano does not have this happen, that is non-sequitur for this argument. (Larger churches with pipe organs could take note of this, though)

Eric,

bmerr here. The point is, we are not to add to the word of God (Rev 22:18). God has given unto us all things pertaining to life and godliness (2 Pet 1:3), and it doesn't include using the instrument in worship.

Since it is not an actual literal physical sacrifice, your analogy doesn't fit.

Under the NT, there are no literal, physical sacrifices. Yet, there are sacrifices in the NT.

Heb 13:15-16 - By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

1 Pet 2:5 - Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, and holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Rom 12:1 - I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.

Phil 2:17 - yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all.

Phil 4:18 - But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God.

None of these were literal, physical sacrifices, yet the standard for sacrifice to God still applies. We cannot please Him if we offer what He has not commanded.

I just looked it up in Wiktionary and wikipedia, and actually, you were right.
It is often spelled "acapella", so that must be why I thought it was like "atheism". It means "Like in the chapel choir". I never knew "a" could mean "like in". "the term is due to restrictions on the use of instruments in medieval churches".

Very gracious of you to say so. No harm done. As I said, I'm no linguist by any stretch, so what evidence I may present is from what faithful brethren have taught me, or what I found in Strong's or something. We're all learning. :thumbs:

Still, that does not prove it Biblical, it is a retrospective look at the practices of a Church that had already added centuries of human tradition and interpetation (should we copy their doctrine on the Eucharist or Mary as well?)

No, that by itself does not prove it's scriptural, but it does indicate that at that point, the instrument was still not being used, and, by this time, official Roman persecution had long since ceased with emperor Constantine, who came to power around 323 AD.

Many false doctrines had crept into the church by the time the instrument was introduced around the beginning of the 5th century. Up to this point, the truth was still being practiced concerning singing in worship.

One of the distinguishing marks of Christianity is that those who practice it are to be a "peculiar people" (1 Pet 2:9). In the first century, muscial instruments were used by the Jews, and by the pagans that surrounded the Christians. One of many things that set Christians apart from the religions around them was the fact that they did not use musical instruments in worship.

Alas, the downfall of God's people has always been the desire to be "like all the nations" around them (1 Sam 8:5).

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Eric B]

Eric,

bmerr here. The point is, we are not to add to the word of God (Rev 22:18). God has given unto us all things pertaining to life and godliness (2 Pet 1:3), and it doesn't include using the instrument in worship.

If that were the case, then all of your allowances for "expediency" are no good either. Even if buildings and hymn books "help carry out the command", still, "the Bible gives us all things pertaining to life", and if it doesn't specify those things, then you can carry out the commands without them. It's the same principle, and it's so sad how people have snatched up verses like this for every pet peeve they can conjure up and impose on others and start a new division over.

Under the NT, there are no literal, physical sacrifices. Yet, there are sacrifices in the NT.

Heb 13:15-16 - By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips etc.
None of these were literal, physical sacrifices, yet the standard for sacrifice to God still applies. We cannot please Him if we offer what He has not commanded.

No, because you draw from the idea of physical sacrifices, where once again, adding one thing diminishes another. But playing instrument while singing is no more contradictory than breathing while singing, or singingfrom a book, or inside a designated "church" building. That may sould crazy, but all of your logic suggests that you "cannot do anything else AT ALL while singing without 'adding to' the command", so breathing or reading would be included if you were consistent (I know the mention of "breathing" is extreme)

No, that by itself does not prove it's scriptural, but it does indicate that at that point, the instrument was still not being used, and, by this time, official Roman persecution had long since ceased with emperor Constantine, who came to power around 323 AD.

Many false doctrines had crept into the church by the time the instrument was introduced around the beginning of the 5th century. Up to this point, the truth was still being practiced concerning singing in worship.

I belive that reference to "the choir" regarding the Church of the Middle ages. You seem to be implying that "this was before the corruptioon of instruments was added", but I believe it is from a time long after the 6th century when they began banning instruments based on what they thought the apostolic practice was; and this was just another part of the corruption of manmade doctrine.

One of the distinguishing marks of Christianity is that those who practice it are to be a "peculiar people" (1 Pet 2:9). In the first century, muscial instruments were used by the Jews, and by the pagans that surrounded the Christians. One of many things that set Christians apart from the religions around them was the fact that they did not use musical instruments in worship.

Alas, the downfall of God's people has always been the desire to be "like all the nations" around them (1 Sam 8:5).

In Christ,

bmerr

Here also, people use this to justify any "ban" they want to impose. Why not give up the buildings and other traapings of modern society, then (as others have pointed out). Why not be Amish? They certainly are "different".
No, we do not just do something, anything "just to be different". Our difference is in our personal behavior and focus, not in instruments.
And contrary to what you said, the synagogues had banned instruments in mourning for the Temple (to be restored whenever it is rebuilt). I was going to address this in response to something GWIT said. That right there is another reason instruments may not have been used, as the church came out of the synagogues. But that was not God's ban, but rather man's, and we are not in a perpetual state of mourning; especially if you believe this is the Kingdom.

 

[DHK]

Alas, the downfall of God's people has always been the desire to be "like all the nations" around them (1 Sam 8:5).

In Christ,

bmerr

The desire to be like other nations is called "worldliness" or to be like the world." The Bible has much to say about that.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

It is a straightforward command. Be not conformed to this world. Eric and I disagree somewhat on the subject of music as to what genre of musci glorifies the Lord, and what does not. The medium (music) must fit the message. In a discussion with my son, he said that he could put such old hymns as Amazing Grace and even "The Old Rugged Cross" to rock music. My contention was that it wouldn't glorify God, even with a Godly message. The medium must fit the message. But then I challenged him: Find rock music that would fit the words to: "There is a Fountain Filled with Blood." Admittedly he could not. However, with proper instrumentation (perferably a simple piano) it is a very powerful hymn with a very powerful message.

When Handel's Messiah (All Scripture) was played and sung before the Queen of England (with a full orchestra) the Queen stood at the Hallelujah Chorus, so in awe was she with that message--both with the instruments and the message. It is tradition ever since that people stand when the Hallelujah Chorus is both played and sung. The history behind that magnificent piece of music is some of the most interesting history you will find. The medium must fit the message.

What medium does the world use? Do Christians try and copy the world's way of entertainment. Is the music of the world simply entertainment? Of course it is? Is the music of the church simply entertainment? In many cases it is? In Bill Gaither's Gospel Hour they clap for the entertainer's abliity to sing, not that God is glorified. That is when it becomes wrong.
But when Godly hymns are put to music and sung for the glory of God, and not for the glory of self; when God is central and glorified, then that is what is acceptable and good in his sight.
You won't find the world singing "There is a Fountain Filled With Blood," even if it is with instrumentation, will you?
DHK

 

[Eric B]

To me, the CoC argument is just the next level of the IFB hymns-only argument, and both using the same line of logic and proof-texts. "The world" is used as a theological football for the more strict side to throw at the contemporary church, and everyone thinks their particular style is "God's", but have not proven it. It is only by linking the other side with "the world" and saying "look, we're different" that they think they've proven something. But it is all "one-upmanship", and thus those pointing the fingers end up being just as worldly as anyone else regardless of how plain their music is.

 

[DHK]

Eric,
During the Gulf War the General drew a line in the sand.
You have to admit that somewhere in the entire realm of music you need to draw a line--even you. Marilyn Manson, the high priest in the church of Satan--will he be the role model for your genre of music to be played in your church? Where are you going to draw the line? Will it glorify God? If not him then who?
Some say that Marsha Steven's "hymns" are beautiful. Perhaps they are. Are you going to advocate that music composed by a homosexual and when sold promotes the cause of homosexuality in your church? Where are you going to draw the line?
Where do you draw the line Eric? I happen to draw the line a bit more conservatively than you do, and for that you take issue.
DHK

 

[Bro Tony]

isn't it interesting that even though most christians in the new testament were jewish, and the only compiled scripture they had was the old testament scripture(because the bible hadn't been compiled) and the old testament teaches that instrumental music in worship is okay. But yet there is no record of any christians using instrumental music until around the 6th century and it wasn't widely accepted until the 18th century. i wonder why they would do that, I'm guessing it is because God didn't command us to use instrumental music in worship to Him.

In Christian Love,

Dustin

Dustin,

Two words in your above post clearly show the lack of biblical instruction in the use of instruments in NT worship. The Scripture does not teach it so you have to say "I'm guessing"----That is the basis ultimately of the CofC stance on this issue it is all guess work and no biblical basis.

Bro Tony

 

[Eric B]

Eric,
During the Gulf War the General drew a line in the sand.
You have to admit that somewhere in the entire realm of music you need to draw a line--even you. Marilyn Manson, the high priest in the church of Satan--will he be the role model for your genre of music to be played in your church? Where are you going to draw the line? Will it glorify God? If not him then who?
Some say that Marsha Steven's "hymns" are beautiful. Perhaps they are. Are you going to advocate that music composed by a homosexual and when sold promotes the cause of homosexuality in your church? Where are you going to draw the line?
Where do you draw the line Eric? I happen to draw the line a bit more conservatively than you do, and for that you take issue.
DHK

Not simply because you draw a line more conservatively than me, but because this issue obviously is not clear when you admit we must draw our own lines. But when it comes to "rock", you are a bit too absolute when the issue still is not as cut and dry as many make it. What kind of rock could the hymn in your example not be played to? Metal? I could go with that, but I don't know what you meant, and when people say "rock" they usually mean any style with a backbeat, and a certain amount of syncopation. To declare that unfit by itself is based on a [culturally driven] association, and not an auditory or spiritual incompatibility of the music.
And a homosexual does not have to do with style, so that was irrelevant. That too is an association, (if you know the person was homosexual).

 

[bmerr]

If that were the case, then all of your allowances for "expediency" are no good either. Even if buildings and hymn books "help carry out the command", still, "the Bible gives us all things pertaining to life", and if it doesn't specify those things, then you can carry out the commands without them.

Eric,

bmerr here. In Mark 16:15, Jesus commaded His apostles, and (indirectly) us to "Go". So how shall we go? Jesus did not specify how we should go. It is left up to us to decide the best way for us to go, as long as what we're doing is "going".

In Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16, we are commanded to sing. We are not told how to sing (bass, baritone, tenor, alto, soprano). That is left up to us. What you're advocating is something additional. Admittedly, the command to sing can still be carried out, but something is added to it to make it sound better.

It's like the example of adding peanut butter and jelly to the unleavened bread of the Lord's Supper. It wouldn't diminish the bread, or the fruit of the vine, but it would make it taste better.

Again, I must ask, "Who are we trying to please?"

I belive that reference to "the choir" regarding the Church of the Middle ages. You seem to be implying that "this was before the corruptioon of instruments was added", but I believe it is from a time long after the 6th century when they began banning instruments based on what they thought the apostolic practice was; and this was just another part of the corruption of manmade doctrine.

Actually, choirs are not authorized either. With a choir, one part of the congregation sings, while the rest listen. It becomes a performance.

I'd say the refusal to use the instrument was based on the knowledge of apostolic practice. Let me quote from "The Eternal Kingdom" by F.W. Mattox page 153-154.

"Throughout the early literature of the Apostolic fathers and Apologists there are abundant references to singing in the church, but no indications of the use of instrumental music. The Jews used instrumental music, and the Greeks in their idol worship sang to the accompaniment of instruments. It is thus obvious that the early Christians were familiar with its use."..."Among later writers...Only Basil mentions instrumental music and he condemns it as ministering to the depraved nature of man. It must be generally admitted that the early church used no instrumental music."

You know, I just realized that no one has bothered to ask why you want the instrument so much. How selfish of me. Seriously, is there a reason that you cannot or will not be content with worship apart from the instrument?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Darron Steele]

Darron,

bmerr here. At the bottom of each of your posts you have several verses of Scripture displayed. One of them is 1 Cor 4:6b, which is translated, "Do not go beyond what is written", and "Follow only what is written in the Scriptures".

Yet, you still insist on the use of the instrument in worship, though the NT speaks nothing of a mechanical instrument in worship.

Why the apparent contradiction?

In Christ,

bmerr

WHAT? Where do I insist on using mechanical instruments? Are you putting words in my mouth and then trying to discredit me by pretending that they are mine?

I actually prefer a capella. I follow the passage I listed by not binding either way.

 

[DHK]

You know, I just realized that no one has bothered to ask why you want the instrument so much. How selfish of me. Seriously, is there a reason that you cannot or will not be content with worship apart from the instrument?
In Christ,
bmerr

Solomon had choirs. There were instruments used all throughout the Old Testament.
There are choirs in Heaven. There are instruments in heaven that will be throughout all eternity.
However, it is the New Testament that is silent on instruments. It cannot be definitely proved one way or another that the New Testament Church used instruments. Perhaps there is a bit more evidence that they didn't, but that really doesn't matter.
For the thousands of years from Genesis 4 and the sons of Lamech, throughout all eternity there will be music and instruments of music. You are trying to say no to this age of grace for some reason.
For those of us who are dispensationalists, it is like saying that music occured in every dispensation, but the dispensation of grace. That is absurd, for that is when our hearts should be singing and playing about the grace of God the most!

Psalms 137:2-4 We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.
3 For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion.
4 How shall we sing the LORD'S song in a strange land?

There was a time when Israel could neither sing nor play, though the Jews were famed for both.
DHK

 

[Eric B]

Eric,

bmerr here. In Mark 16:15, Jesus commaded His apostles, and (indirectly) us to "Go". So how shall we go? Jesus did not specify how we should go. It is left up to us to decide the best way for us to go, as long as what we're doing is "going".

In Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16, we are commanded to sing. We are not told how to sing (bass, baritone, tenor, alto, soprano). That is left up to us. What you're advocating is something additional. Admittedly, the command to sing can still be carried out, but something is added to it to make it sound better.

But if it doesn't take away from it (and can even enhance it, by keeping up tempo and tone, and thus avoiding chaos), then it is no different than choosing bass, tenor, etc.

It's like the example of adding peanut butter and jelly to the unleavened bread of the Lord's Supper. It wouldn't diminish the bread, or the fruit of the vine, but it would make it taste better.

But this is a specific, where only the bread and wine represent Christ, so why would anyone add to it? You have not shown singing to be the case, where instruments would be like adding peanut butter. Once again, you're comparing physical substances to acts.

Actually, choirs are not authorized either. With a choir, one part of the congregation sings, while the rest listen. It becomes a performance.

So then the "a-capella" argument does not prove that this us truly a "church standard".

I'd say the refusal to use the instrument was based on the knowledge of apostolic practice. Let me quote from "The Eternal Kingdom" by F.W. Mattox page 153-154.

"Throughout the early literature of the Apostolic fathers and Apologists there are abundant references to singing in the church, but no indications of the use of instrumental music. The Jews used instrumental music, and the Greeks in their idol worship sang to the accompaniment of instruments. It is thus obvious that the early Christians were familiar with its use."..."Among later writers...Only Basil mentions instrumental music and he condemns it as ministering to the depraved nature of man. It must be generally admitted that the early church used no instrumental music."

No, later leaders simply read their platonistic mindeset back into the silence of the NT (as well as assuming its allowance in the OT was "of the flesh", which there is absolutely no proof. Again, you all have to show that it was a shadow of Christ like sacrifices).

Again, I must ask, "Who are we trying to please?"

You know, I just realized that no one has bothered to ask why you want the instrument so much. How selfish of me. Seriously, is there a reason that you cannot or will not be content with worship apart from the instrument?

In Christ,

bmerr

I don't "want" the instrument. I actually could take it or leave it. It's that this is yet another ridiculous argument (like with "style", and then, KJV, counseling methods, and all the other stuff) where someone tries to prove themselves a better more obedient Christian. And since I don't believe instruments are necessarily wrong, I have to be able to refute the charges made against them.

 

[bmerr]

WHAT? Where do I insist on using mechanical instruments? Are you putting words in my mouth and then trying to discredit me by pretending that they are mine?

I actually prefer a capella. I follow the passage I listed by not binding either way.

Darron,

bmerr here. Bad choice of words. My mistake. What I was getting at was the verses displayed as your signature seem to indicate you would be opposed to the instrument as being beyond what is written, yet you defend its use by those who prefer it. It just seems a bit inconsistent.


Didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Darron Steele]

Referring to Eric B's previous post:

Bmerr: You seem to assume that those of us who do not bind where Scripture does not bind in musical instruments do so because we want musical instruments. As Eric B and I have pointed out, we can take or leave instruments -- in fact, I would just prefer not to have them.

Here is the reason why I oppose the unauthorized binding against musical instruments. Scripture says to teach the truth at Ephesians 4:15 and to use Scripture to correct error in the second part of 2 Timothy 3:16 -- further, rejoicing with the truth is commended at 1 Corinthians 12:31-13:6. I am following these directives and approved virtues of Scripture.

You seem to assume that we oppose this unauthorized binding out of preference for instruments. Are you motivated by preference in your teaching like you seem to assume that we are?

 

[bmerr]

Solomon had choirs. There were instruments used all throughout the Old Testament.

DHK,

bmerr here. That instruments were used by the Jews under the OT is undeniable. I can't say for sure that they were ever commanded by God, though. In fact, Amos seems to rebuke David for his use of instruments in 6:5. Amos is pronouncing "Woe to them that are at ease in Zion...", and mentions a few groups in verses 1, 3-6. In 6:5, we read,

"That chant to the sound of the viol, and invent to themselves instruments of musick, like David;"

I'm not holding this up as "proof positive that God doesn't like the instrument" or anything, I just thought this was an odd thing for the prophet to say. Any thoughts?

It cannot be definitely proved one way or another that the New Testament Church used instruments. Perhaps there is a bit more evidence that they didn't, but that really doesn't matter.

Now think about where that mindset could lead to. If NT and other historical evidence "doesn't matter", then there's really no basis at all on which to build faith. How do we know that the Bible is the word of God, aside from the evidence that proves it to be so? How do we know that Jesus is the Son of God, aside from the evidence that showed Him to be the Son of God?

Just saying the evidence doesn't matter is a poor way to go about following Christ. It might be more accurate to say that you are set on using the instrument, you've stiffened your neck on the issue, and nothing is going to change your mind about it. This is another dangerous mindset, for it will cause one to refuse reproof. Prov 10:17 says, "He is in the way of life that keepeth instruction: but he that refuseth reproof erreth."

Part of "keeping instruction" is making sure they don't change. Since the NT instructs us to "sing", then that is what we ought to do. The argument against the instrument is based on what is written. The argument for the instrument is based on what is not written ("The Bible doesn't explicitly forbid it.")

For the thousands of years from Genesis 4 and the sons of Lamech, throughout all eternity there will be music and instruments of music. You are trying to say no to this age of grace for some reason.

It's interesting that you brought up Gen 4 and the sons of Lamech. Gen 4 gives us the lineage of Cain, who slew his brother, and Gen 5 gives us the godly lineage of Seth, who was more like the brother he may not have ever known, Abel, who is also found in Heb 11.

I find it of peculiar interest to note that it was Jubal, in the line of Cain that is remembered in the Scriptures as being "...the father of all such as handle the harp and organ" (Gen 4:21). In fact, the noted achievements of Cain's line all seem to be geared to improving man's earthly estate. In contrast, Seth's heritage produced such as Enoch, who walked with God in such a way that he did not see death, for God took him (Gen 5:24).

As for what I am saying, I'm saying we should just do what God said.

For those of us who are dispensationalists, it is like saying that music occured in every dispensation, but the dispensation of grace. That is absurd, for that is when our hearts should be singing and playing about the grace of God the most!

There has been grace in every dispensation, both in the sense of God's unmerited favor to man, and in the sense of the grace of God teaching man how he should live (Titus 2:11-12).

And we should be singing, making melody (psallo - plucking) in our hearts to the Lord, just as the Scriptures tell us to.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[DHK]

It's interesting that you brought up Gen 4 and the sons of Lamech. Gen 4 gives us the lineage of Cain, who slew his brother, and Gen 5 gives us the godly lineage of Seth, who was more like the brother he may not have ever known, Abel, who is also found in Heb 11.

I find it of peculiar interest to note that it was Jubal, in the line of Cain that is remembered in the Scriptures as being "...the father of all such as handle the harp and organ" (Gen 4:21). In fact, the noted achievements of Cain's line all seem to be geared to improving man's earthly estate. In contrast, Seth's heritage produced such as Enoch, who walked with God in such a way that he did not see death, for God took him (Gen 5:24).

In Christ,

bmerr

Your argument is non sequitor. Your rebuttal is like a red herring.
It is totally non-sensical. You have failed to take the passage in its context.

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.

First remember that the sins of the Father are not passed on to the children.
David's children turned out to be wicked: Tamar was raped by her brother. One brother murdered another brother. Absalom, his son, caused an insurrection. David's own family did not follow God.
Eli's son's were very wicked.
Samuel's sons were also wicked.
The sins of the father are not passed on to the children. It works both ways: whether the father was evil or good.

Who were the three sons of Lamech:
1. Jabal--the father of all who have cattle. The first farmer, and known as the father of all farmers.
2. Jubal--the father of all who handle the harp and organ, in other words the father of music.
3. Tubal-cain--the faither of those who work with brass and iron, in other words the father of those who now a days are called "smiths."

If musicians are wrong, according to your logic, then condemn all the farmers and smiths as well! Good logic Bmerr!
DHK

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

If it come to music, I am first bachian, a mozartian, a mendelsonian and so on - a classics-christian; and secondly a puritanian freek as far as lyrics is concerned - Horatius Bonar, for instance - even an armenian as to Wesley's beautiful words. Strange how his poetry differs with his theology! But I would still favour Calvin's idea of no music in the Church. When it comes to music, said someone, the sense least required is sight; when it come to worship, the sense most required, is that of hearing - but the hearing of the Word - not the music.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

armenian - I'll never get it right first time : ArmInian!