He didn't dance in the Tabernacle, and there is a distinction to be made between times of national celebration and the formal worship of Jehovah.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Doctrine or emotionalism.
- Thread starter agedman
- Start date
Of course I can, because I did. Don't just pontificate and tell me I can't do something. Tell me why you won't allow it.
Prove it. Give me a quote from the early church fathers.
Prove it.
Instruments are in the NT in many passages.
1. Trumpet or trump (same Greek word), 11 times--Matt. 24:311, 1 Co. 14:8, 1 Cor. 15:52, 1 Thess. 4:16, Heb. 12:19, Rev. 1:10, 4:1, 8:2 & 6, 8:13, 9:14.
--Funny (peculiar), God is going to call us to Heaven (eternal worship in the New Jerusalem) with trumpets, but you want to forbid them in church.
2. Harp (Gr. kithara, the ancestor of the guitar)--1 Cor. 14:7, Rev. 5:8, 14:2, 15:2 (all positive references).
3. You conveniently ignored the Greek term given previously (can't find which post) given, psallo, which is defined in my favorite lexicon, Fribergs' Anlex: "strictly strike the strings of an instrument; hence sing to the accompaniment of a harp; in the NT sing praises." It occurs 4 times, all positively: Rom. 15:9, 1 Cor. 14:15, Eph. 5:19, James 5:13.
4. We have a "pipe" (flute) in 1 Cor. 14:7.
In other words, musical instruments occur in 20 different passages, and every single reference is positive. Yet you want musical instruments to be a negative thing. That.'s not following the Bible.
Are you actually saying on the Baptist Board that the dead, formalistic "Eastern church" (not really a Biblcial "church" but a man-made denomination) is the example for Baptist churches?
Yes, you simply stated it and never proved it Scripturally. I'm a Baptist, and my favorite Baptist distinctive is, "The Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice. So prove this statement from the Bible, if you please.
The general term for the OT was "Law," but when they were specific, the people of Israel separated the OT into Torah, history, poetry and wisdom, and prophets. Your point does not stand scrutiny.
You want to forbid things the Bible does not forbid. Way back in Post #21 I said this, and you never answered it (probably because it is unanswerable):
Post 21: On the side of musical instruments in the church, we have two passages instructing us to sing psalms (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16). I find it patently ridiculous that we are instructed to sing Psalms--one of which is all about musical instruments (Ps. 150), and others which enjoin instruments (33, 43, etc., etc.) and yet not play the instruments they speak of.
Apologies to agedman for spending this time on instruments rather than strictly the OP, but I think it is relevant since you stated something about a service without instruments in Post 45 of yours.
And the regulative principle is what is behind that, whether you make the statement or Aaron does.
Last edited:
John, would you clarify whether you are saying that psallo always means to sing with musical accompaniment? If so, that would mean that everyone who is merry (James 5:13) should psallo -- sing with musical accompaniment -- pretty problematic if you don't play an instrument or don't have an instrumentalist handy.
[We use a piano in our church, so I am not trying to "un-justify" the use of instruments. I just think psallo always meaning singing with instrumental accompaniment is a root fallacy.]
No, it does not always mean "to sing with an instrument." The lexicons don't bear that out. I think it did mean that in classical Greek, but by the time of the NT it could mean to sing psalms with or without an instrument, I believe.
"II. to play a stringed instrument with the fingers, not with the plectron, Hdt., Ar., Plat.
2. later, to sing to a harp, sing, N.T."
I should have made it more clear, but my point to Aaron was that since psallo is used positively in church worship in both Eph. and Col., and has both possible meanings, you can't say that the Bible does not allow musical instruments in church.
By the way, as long as I am on instruments (and agedman doesn't ask for the thread to be closed because of it ), the word "tortured" in Heb. 11:25 is tumpanizo. Here is the definition from the Friberg Anlex:
"strictly beat a drum, drum on; hence torture with the bastinado or tympanum, a cudgel for beating the bottoms of the feet; more generally beat or torture with rods and clubs, often resulting in death (HE 11.35)."
So obviously drums should not be allowed in church, since they are "torture."
Seriously, one furlough we were in a church with lousy acoustics (low ceiling), and they had a rock band playing full blast. My wife was in tears, it was so loud and invasive. The emotion produced was disgust. The rock band was the basic one, just like I was asked to join as a bass guitarist in 1969--singer, lead guitar, rhythm guitar, drum set. That's how the Beatles and countless other groups did it.
Here's the problem with most CCM: it imitates the world, as witness this church rock band being exactly like the typical '60's rock band. How is that supposed to be right? Aren't we supposed to lead the world, instead of imitate it? And did I say that drums are torture? They can kill you!
), the word "tortured" in Heb. 11:25 is tumpanizo. Here is the definition from the Friberg Anlex:"strictly beat a drum, drum on; hence torture with the bastinado or tympanum, a cudgel for beating the bottoms of the feet; more generally beat or torture with rods and clubs, often resulting in death (HE 11.35)."
So obviously drums should not be allowed in church, since they are "torture."
Seriously, one furlough we were in a church with lousy acoustics (low ceiling), and they had a rock band playing full blast. My wife was in tears, it was so loud and invasive. The emotion produced was disgust. The rock band was the basic one, just like I was asked to join as a bass guitarist in 1969--singer, lead guitar, rhythm guitar, drum set. That's how the Beatles and countless other groups did it.
Here's the problem with most CCM: it imitates the world, as witness this church rock band being exactly like the typical '60's rock band. How is that supposed to be right? Aren't we supposed to lead the world, instead of imitate it? And did I say that drums are torture? They can kill you!
Last edited:
Last edited:
One of the disadvantages of a thread can be the circling on a more narrow focus and even upon a single aspect selected as a alking point as the posts are presented. As in this thread, the music has been the focus of what stirs emotion prior to doctrine.
However, what else might be used?
How about preaching?
Is it not true that ultimately much preaching is geared to persuasion, and as such technical use of salesmanship are more often employed?
Is it probable that there becomes the lack of doctrine or that doctrine takes less priority in the delivery?
When Paul records his technique, what did he state? “To know nothing but...”
Seems that Paul as a missionary was heavy on doctrine and the use of doctrine to persuade folks.
When he states that he persuades, upon what is the focus of the persuasion?
Is it possible that the modern church is weak from lack of doctrine because preaching uses emotional appeal and places doctrine in far less priority?
However, what else might be used?
How about preaching?
Is it not true that ultimately much preaching is geared to persuasion, and as such technical use of salesmanship are more often employed?
Is it probable that there becomes the lack of doctrine or that doctrine takes less priority in the delivery?
When Paul records his technique, what did he state? “To know nothing but...”
Seems that Paul as a missionary was heavy on doctrine and the use of doctrine to persuade folks.
When he states that he persuades, upon what is the focus of the persuasion?
Is it possible that the modern church is weak from lack of doctrine because preaching uses emotional appeal and places doctrine in far less priority?
Last edited:
The plectrum (pick) is very old, attested in Homer and Euripides, according to the Liddel-Scott classical Greek lexicon. Playing the modern guitar with a pick, you can pluck (melody, arpeggios, "finger picking") or strike (chords). I doubt that the ancient plectrum was used to play chords. When it is used in non-Western music, it is used for single notes, not for chords, as when used with the Japanese shamisen (samisen).
Back further we hear the rumor Adam’s heart strings were plucked by Eve who also picked on him for being nothing like her. Set the proscription for every married couple.
Badaboom! (drum roll)
Torturous or torturing?Badaboom! (drum roll)
Tympani (oddly enough, from the Greek word tumpanizo): not so bad.
Rock drum set on the church platform: torturous!
Of course I can, because I did. Don't just pontificate and tell me I can't do something. Tell me why you won't allow it.
Prove it. Give me a quote from the early church fathers.
LOL. Do your own homework, son.
But I thought it was understood that when I said the use of instruments isn't described or prescribed in the NT it was in the context of NT worship. (And it is understood. You just like being pedantic.) I know they're mentioned, LOL, but for reasons other than you are asserting. It's quite a reach to extend the symbolic and illustrative mention of instruments as an endorsement or sanctification of the practice in Christian worship.
The only thing you can reasonably argue is that they're not forbidden. And that's fine. As Spurgeon said, "We who do not believe these things to be expedient in worship, lest they should mar its simplicity, do not affirm them to be unlawful, and if any George Herbert or Martin Luther can worship God better by the aid of well-tuned instruments, who shall gainsay their right? We do not need them, they would hinder than help our praise but if others are otherwise minded, are they not living in gospel liberty?"
I'm done. Do what you want, except to assert the Scriptures say what they do not say, and to mistake your notions of church history as fact.
This shows that Spurgeon was not over-zealous in his views concerning music.
However, in the regular week-by-week services at the Met Tab, there was no musical accompaniment. A 'preceptor' set the key and the congregation sang a capella. That Moody and Sankey led the meeting on one occasion and brought a portable organ with them does not alter the regular practice of the tabernacle.
There is a very small number of Baptist churches in England that sing only unaccompanied metrical psalms. They do this because they see no warrant in the NT for musical instruments. One such church is Emmanuel Baptist Church, Salisbury. This may be of interest: Emmanuel Church (Salisbury) If you scroll down, there is a defence of Unaccompanied Exclusive Psalmody by the Pastor, Malcolm Watts.
N.B. I am not endorsing U.E.P., just letting you know that such a thing exists.
[the link to E.P. at Emmanuel Baptist Church doesn't seem to work. Perhaps it's been incapacitated by a Russian nerve agent. This one seems to work Emmanuel Church (Salisbury) ]
Last edited:
There you go again. You state that the early church fathers were against instruments in the service, then when I ask you for proof you say it's my own "homework." Frankly, to me that means you can be accused of being lazy.
And if I'm your son, you must be a really old man!
Yes, I know you are touting the regulative principle, one of the silliest theological constructs ever. If you honestly follow the principle that we should not do anything the NT does not describe or prescribe, you will abandon church buildings, song books, pulpits, complete Bibles (you'll have scrolls), and various and sundry other useful items. Ridiculous!
Quit quoting Spurgeon. I care not a mustard seed for quotes from Spurgeon. He has absolutely no authority in my theology.
I stick to what the Scriptures say: "Praise him with stringed instruments." I obey the Bible in this. You do not.
You've not given a single quote from church history to prove your point, so it is you with mistaken notions of church history (which I teach at the college level). I could easily give a quote to prove that the early church did use instruments: Here is an excellent and scholarly article on the subject with such quotes:and to mistake your notions of church history as fact.
https://biblicalspirituality.files....-on-instrumental-music-by-david-vanbrugge.pdf
Last edited:
Martin, thanks for the Emmanuel Church link. There are some interesting articles on about worship on their site. Even though I prefer a cappella worship over instrumental accompaniment (without thinking the latter is unscriptural or immoral), I've always seen Unaccompanied Exclusive Psalmody as an oddity -- here one is arguing against accompaniment, singing songs about praising God with accompaniment!
Thanks for this link also, John.
Happy to oblige.
Concerning your quote from that article, what instruments might be allowed in the churches of that day would be culture-specific, I believe. In other words, down through the centuries Christians have erected standards depending on how the particular activity or item was used in the heathen culture. In the days of the early church, the music standard would be one that clearly distinguished the church from the surrounding idolatrous religious culture. Instead, substitutions were made. (This is something ignored by modern evangelical churches who think that imitating the world's practices brings in the lost.)
For example, modern anti-Christmas advocates charge that celebrating Christmas in the early church would have been to celebrate the idolatrous Saturnalia celebration. I believe instead that the early churches substituted Christmas for Saturnalia to give believers a way to avoid the heathen customs. Many Japanese churches do something similar around "Bon Matsuri" ("platter festival") time in August, a Buddhist holiday.
In more modern times, reacting to the heathen practices of the day, Hudson Taylor railed against novels and R. A. Torrey and many others against plays (though our modern church uses drama in effective evangelistic outreach.
I'm going to comment on my own post here. I read somewhere on the Internet while pondering this thread (I don't recall where) a comment about Rev. 5:8 to the effect that the elders in Heaven were playing in worship with harps (the kithara, the ancestor of the guitar). Here's the verse: "And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints."
So, to take the position that we should not allow musical instruments in worship is to teach that the 24 elders in Heaven will be going against the will of God! Chew on that for awhile.
Now, this brings up an interesting theological point. To deny musical instruments in church while admitting that they were used in OT temple music is to take a dispensational position rather than a covenant theology position--though it is my understanding that churches maintaining the regulative principle are covenant in theology. Chew on that, too, for awhile.