Does the New Testament teach us that we can use instrumental music in worship

Take your pick. The Early Fathers almost with one accord protested the use of instruments in Christian worship.

 

23 pages on an issue so cut and dry that it should have never made it past the first page???

It has been a very funny thread. One of the funniest in a long time.

 

The words of the Pitch Piper as he looks at the rest of the band and thinks, "I don't care what they do with you guys, they're not getting rid of me... Besides, you guys keep drowning me out anyway. Who needs ya!" :laugh: :wavey: :thumbsup:

 

The Jews had banned instruments in mourning for the Temple.
We are not mourning for the Temple, for greater than the Temple have we. And this does not fix instruments to the Law, and funny how you appeal to the Jews' practice when convenient. They are under the Law (with their own traditions added), not us.

 

Hi, Pastor Larry. Long time, no see. I haven't spent much time posting lately, but still come by to read fairly regularly.

Two things -- (1) Considering the amount of opposition to instrumental music in church throughout history, it's not as cut & dry as it seems to most folks in the 21st century. (2) Rather than funny, I found most of what I waded through disgusting. Most of the Baptists, IMO, did not make much, if any, scriptural argumentation/appeal as you did (and always do), but used mostly what I would call "piling on". If that changed in the last several pages that I didn't bother to read, I apologize to those who attempted to make scriptural arguments. A majority of Baptists ridiculing the CoC position and "high-fiving" one another does not a scriptural argument make.

 

Dustin,

You know there's not a verse in the NT. Therefore it's not that big a deal. If you don't want to use instruments because of your personal convictions, then so be it, pitch pipe and all.

 

Hello rlv, good to see you around the board. :wavey:

Just a quick question. Would it not have been better to provide your own Scriptural argument instead of sharing how "disgusted" you were at others who didn't?

 

Thanks. I still haunt in the shadows; just don't post much. I have two projects going right now that are occupying a lot of my time.

I see how that could seem inconsistent. But to clarify -- no one was obligated to make a scriptural argument against GWIT's position or to even post on this thread. That would not and does not "disgust" me. What troubled me was what I perceived as those who thought they were overcoming GWIT's argument without giving any scriptural reasons (and then "high-fiving" each other for doing so).

But, if you would like to know my position: I have no particular quarrel with what folks personally like, or how they personally and privately praise the Lord. BUT when we come together as a church we should stick with something that will not violate the conscience of all brothers and sisters present. While a cappella singing may not be the majority's favorite, I have never found any who felt they were violating scriptural command, precept or example when singing a cappella. A minority of brothers and sisters are offended by instrumental music, feeling they would violate the Scriptures and their consciences to do so in public worship. I base this on the "meat offered to idols" principle of I Cor. 8-10. If we have liberty to use instruments, should we press for this right to the point of becoming a stumblingblock?

 

So if a couple members of your church become offended by instruments are you going to change?

 

And as you have been asked numerous times before, provide one scripture that forbids it. Just one

 

Most of the people here making this argument are Church of Christ, and though they may be somewhat civil, being that they do not consider themselves in fellowship with us (over this and other doctrines, including church name and organization), and then they have some beliefs that at best compromise the Gospel (baptismal regeneration and again, bridist exclusivism, i.e. you must be baptized ino the Church of Christ to be saved), I would not think this counts as "together as a church" or even "brothers and sisters"; no offense to the CoC'ers. Others such as Aaron are not offended by instruments, but probably use them himself, but are only using this "historic ban" to rule out David's lively worship and dancing, which contradicts the "too much rhythm is offensive to God" position. Then you have Primitive Baptists, but they ironically, are not the ones waging this issue here, right now

 

Yes, that is what I mean. In fact, it wouldn't have to be a couple. If even one sincerely feels he or she sinning in such a way, why would we "wound their conscience" (I Cor. 8:12). Now I can see if a person or church believed they must use instruments to be scriptural, they could not act in this way I prescribe. But what of those of us who believe it a thing indifferent and something we are at liberty to do or not do?

Eric, as far as "coming together as a church", I do not have reference to the Church of Christ folks, but as I describe above. But since you mention the Primitive Baptists, I do want to mention that I have fellowship with them as brothers and sisters in Christ (though because of circumstances, we can only have limited "church fellowship").

 

Interesting. How far do we take that in regards to ministry?

 

I'm going to assume, perhaps incorrectly, perhaps not, that I'm one of those who have disgusted rlv with my arguments.

I don't know what else could have been done here. The 1st response ot the OP pretty much demolished the Scriptural arguments presented in the OP, but those arguments were rejected. GWIT rips the OT from the Bible and adds commands to the NT that aren't there. When Scriptural arguments are rejected, what other options are available that weren't used?

If you have some different/better ideas about debating this topic, I would love to know what they are.

 

Brother, that's a pretty broad question, so I'm not sure I can answer it properly. Offhand, I can't think of why we couldn't apply to any situation that is dealing with matters of liberty. IOW, though there is nothing wrong with it, you don't have to eat meat offered to idols. So why not give it up if it is the cause of a problem? OTOH, if it is a matter of right or wrong rather than liberty, the principle does not apply. Notice in chapter 9 of Corinthians Paul shows that he applied the principle to his right as an apostle to be supported by the Corinthians.

Note a couple of more things. One, I am writing what I believe is correct according to the I Cor. 8 principle. I am not saying that its application is easy, even within our personal lives, much less in church context. We American Christians, and Baptists in particular, have a long history of "standing up for our rights", and have a strong sense of outrage when we think they're being infringed upon. In the historical context in which this thinking was built -- standing up for freedom of religious worship -- we were correct. Perhaps in the minutiae to which we've applied that in later years we've gotten off track. So we have Baptists in churches "standing up for what is right" to the point of splitting churches over which color of carpet and pew pads we're gonna have! Two, we need much more teaching about and discussion of the proper application of this I Cor 8 principle in our churches. In my experience I have not noticed that it has enough impact in Baptist life.

 

So one person feels offended and that overrules the rest of the congregation?

 

No, not exactly. I'm not sure exactly how you're using the word offended. But Paul's teaching was about something a person actually thought was a sin (though it was not; I Cor. 8:7). Folks can be "offended" by things they don't like, but not think it is a sin. Second, no they don't overrule the congregation. It would actually have to be something the congregation (as a congregation) voluntarily choses to do. When you asked, "are you going to change" I was speaking for myself as to what I believe. But in such a case as this, the congregation as a body would have to desire to change. What Paul did was voluntarily; he was not overruled by the person who thought eating meat offered to idols was a sin. He chose to not eat if it was a stumblingblock.

 

ok I understand it better now. Thanks.

 

rlvaughn said:

What troubled me was what I perceived as those who thought they were overcoming GWIT's argument without giving any scriptural reasons (and then "high-fiving" each other for doing so).

GWIT made a supposedly scriptural argument. There's no need to provide another scriptural argument in response if showing its lack of merit suffices.