Musical Instruments in Christ's church

[Darron Steele]

... the church I attend to, the congregation has no problem at all keeping together and starting together.

Right; you have a song leader.

When I was in a militantly vocal-only group within the Churches of Christ, every so often "song leader training" was offered.

I do not see specially-trained song leaders in my New Testament. I do see musical instruments being used during song. One of the places I saw it was in a passage you just denied the usefulness of.

 

[DHK]

The Psalmist was a man under the Mosaic Law and his worship was a work of the law. His worship consisted of musical instruments - therefore musical instruments in worship is of the law.

As has been mentioned to you many times already, David did not write under the law. He wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit entirely apart from the Law. Were the Psalms abolished at the cross; nailed to the tree; done away by the blood of Christ, never to applicable for us any more? Of course not! The Psalms are prayers and songs of David and other psalmists. They come from the hearts of those who wrote them, inspired of God, for our benefit. They are classified, not as books of the Law, but as "Poetical Books." Your assertion is just plain wrong.

Revelation 5:8-9 [ESV]
"And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
And they sang a new song, saying,
Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,"

Concerning Revelation....
The fact is that the book of Revelation uses extensive figurative language.

So did Jesus:
I am the door.
I am the Good Shepherd.
I am the light of the world.
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
The Lord said to Abraham that he would make his seed: as the sand of the sea.
"I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness."
He that does not eat my flesh and does not drink my blood cannot be my disciple.

I quoted from all of the gospels, the book of Isaiah, and the book of Genesis. Are you willing to rip those books out of your Bible also? Or at least entertain the possibility of admitting that you cannot use any of those books for interpretation for they all contain figures of speech. That really ties your hands doesn't it. Every book of the Bible contains figures of speech. You cannot get around it.

Revelation is also a book of apocalyptic literature. Several books of Jewish apocalyptic literature are available for everyone, such as in the Old Testament, the books of Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Joel contain apocalyptic literature.

Revelation isn't a Jewish apocalyptic book. Put it to rest.

Apocalyptic literature uses signs and symbols to veil its message to outside readers. This type of literature was written when the Jewish nation was amidst one of its most tumultuous times—when the Israelites were under attack, or ruled over, by another powerful nation.

This argument does not apply. Revelation was written at the same time as the Gospel of John and as all three epistles of John. Are you willing to throw them out as well? The Gospel of John is full of signs and symbols. Yet, it is the most widely used book to present the gospel--the new birth.

Ray Summers explained as follows: “The personal safety of both writer and reader was endangered if the persecutors understood the true meaning of the book. For this reason the message of the apocalypse [Revelation and other books] was written so as to conceal and to reveal—to conceal the message from the outsider but to reveal its message to the initiated” (1951, p. 5)

And who is Ray Summers, and why should I listen to him?
The Book of Revelation is part of our canon of Scripture. If you cannot understand what is being written in that book, then you are the one that has the problem, right?

With this principle understood, we can realize that the "harps" found in Revelation 5:8 is symbolic. More evidence that Revelation is a book of figurative language can be understood in chapter one.

No, you are wrong. There is no principle to say that everything in Revelation is symbolic. Is John himself also symbolic. Is God symbolic? How ridiculous do you want to take this logic of yours? You can make the Bible mean anything you want with your method of hermeneutic. It makes no sense. But as I say: If you don't understand the Book of Revelation, then that is your problem, right?

In chapter one (verses 12-17) we read about “One like the Son of Man” who walks among seven golden lampstands and who has a “sharp two-edged sword” coming out of His mouth—a strange picture indeed. But when we continue to read, we find that this man is Jesus, and the seven lampstands are the “seven churches” of Asia (1:20). But what does the sword represent? In apocalyptic literature, a sword coming out of someone’s mouth meant that they were coming to judge a group of people. In Ephesians 6:17, Paul explained that the sword of the Spirit is the Word of God. Hebrews 4:12 explains that “the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword.” And John 12:48 informs us that the words of Jesus will judge all people at the last days. The sword coming out of Jesus’ mouth in Revelation 1 is God’s Word, which Jesus was using to judge the churches. Putting the entire picture together, we see Jesus walking among the churches of Asia, cutting out the cancers of sin with the Word of God.
As apocalyptic literature shoes - symbols such as horns often represent kings, numbers represent strength, weakness, perfection, or imperfection, and beasts represent evil nations or powers, ect, ect!

And if you can't understand it then it is your problem, right?

We cannot look to Revelation as a literal guide; it is a book full of symbols and signs that represent something other than the current day definition.

The Gospel of John is full of symbols and signs that represent something other than current day definitions. Therefore, according to you we can't use it. That is your logic.
What logic does it make when Jesus says:
I am the door.

It doesn't. It is symbolic.
But the harps in Revelation five are not symbolic.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The Psalmist was a man under the Mosaic Law and his worship was a work of the law. His worship consisted of musical instruments - therefore musical instruments in worship is of the law.

This is reading into scritpure your own view scripture at no time supports this suggestion. David also slept under the law so therefore we must not sleep? Or David had children under the law so we must not have those either? God set aside the Sabbath to worship him so since thats under the law we shouldn't worship him? The reasoning for this line of thought is absurd.

 

[Darron Steele]

If musical instruments has absolutely NO affect, whatsoever, in any form, at ALL, totally 0% of an affect on any of the acts of worship...then please...explain to me why churches have them? Cause they just want to blow money on very expensive (though you probably proceed to describe to me how inexpensive they are) inanimate objects that are totally pointless in the entire worship service?

Well, I can tell you this much: when an organ or piano or guitar or whatever is playing, I can sing.

You wrote "Musical instruments invade the acts of worship (singing)" and I have shown that this is nonsense.

Your feeling that "Musical instruments invade the acts of worship (singing)" is due to your group's dislike of musical instruments. To most of us, we never really give much thought to instruments playing as we sing.

I can sing with instruments or without instruments. Many people sing along with instruments every day. Your feeling that "Musical instruments invade the acts of worship (singing)" is a non-biblical opinion.

As for your accusations against those who disagree with you on musical instruments, I will briefly address one of them: church congregations have musical instruments for different reasons. I am not going to get into them. Your accusatory remarks were most likely motivated by spite against those who disagree with your group on this, as opposed to anything you think due to evidence.

Scripture does not support your desire to see no one use musical instruments. Therefore, it looks like you are beginning to indulge in flippant accusations against those who have `dared' to disagree with your group on musical instruments.

 

[defenderofthefaith]

No matter how many times you say this, it is still not true.

The Law was in the five books of Moses. Only in your group will anyone accept that the Psalms were part of the Law.

Further, Psalm 150 urges use of musical instruments to "everything that hath breath." That would include Gentiles, who were not under the Judaic Law. Worship with musical instruments is not a precept of the Law.

It is not true that David was under the Mosaic law? Really? What law was he under then?? No law at all??
So the law only applied to those people found in the first 5 books of the Bible, and any book outside has absolutely nothing to do with the law and the people found in those books were not under the law?

As I predicted, you would say that this portion of Scripture does not apply.

Hmm...I said that? Really...? I don't seem remember saying "revelation does not apply" or saying anything even close to that. If you would, show me where I said that - so I can correct that statement (that I don't remember saying).
:thumbs:

I think I will stick with accepting that Scripture does apply.

The Greek word translated "elders" is that which is used to describe congregation leaders. I will accept that church "elders" holding "harps" during "song" is not evil.

What, did I say it was evil too!?
Darron, please - stop implying that I am saying all these things that I have not.
You have clearly not understood what I have shown to you through evidence of what the book of Revelation is.

Right; you have a song leader.

When I was in a militantly vocal-only group within the Churches of Christ, every so often "song leader training" was offered.

I do not see specially-trained song leaders in my New Testament. I do see musical instruments being used during song. One of the places I saw it was in a passage you just denied the usefulness of.

Firstly, I have never heard of "song leader training" and secondly - any male member of the church may lead the songs at any time he desires, no training required.

 

[DHK]

It is not true that David was under the Mosaic law? Really? What law was he under then?? No law at all??
So the law only applied to those people found in the first 5 books of the Bible, and any book outside has absolutely nothing to do with the law and the people found in those books were not under the law?

You go from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Can you direct me to the OT law where it states: "Thou shalt not write psalms."
David wrote psalms under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, even as he wrote a psalm of repentance (psalm 51), a prayer of repentance and sorrow for his sin of adultery and murder. What has that got to do with the Law? Nothing!

What do the Proverbs,written by Solomon have to do with Law?
Nothing. But Solomon wrote those by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as well. The law had nothing to do with it.

 

[Don]

It is not true that David was under the Mosaic law? Really? What law was he under then?? No law at all??
So the law only applied to those people found in the first 5 books of the Bible, and any book outside has absolutely nothing to do with the law and the people found in those books were not under the law?

Dude, you really, really need to go back and read Hebrews 11; David may have been under the law, but he wasn't saved by it. He was saved by his faith. (check out verse 32)

I'm having a hard time understanding why you have such a focus on this; I mean, the only reason this would be a matter of topical discussion is because, for some reason, you might think that musical instruments in a worship service keeps people from being saved.

And while I would agree with you in regards to those mega-churches who focus on 25-piece orchestras, rock bands, and interpretive dance, I simply cannot find any scriptural reason to agree with you as a general principle.

Where does scripture tell us that instruments teach? Paul called them "lifeless instruments" in 1 Corinthians 14:7.

Okay, I'm done with this guy. He has no problem mis-using scripture, and that in itself makes him a type of anti-Christ.

The very same verse indicates that the "lifeless instruments" must give a distinctive sound.

This guy is intellectually dishonest, shaping scripture to fit his particular theological view.

 

[TCGreek]

Romans 15:4
"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope."

The Old Testament was written for our learning, but not for us to use as a guideline.

Defender,

Behind "learning" is the Greek word for "instruction," the same word in 2 Tim 3:16.

Paul says that we're to receive "instruction" from the OT. I'm with Paul.

Acts 17:3
"The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent"
Those time were of ingorance and from that we are able to learn (Romans 15:4) from their faults and actions.

I'm sorry, but Paul doesn't link Acts 17:30 to Rom 15:4. You did.

By the way, Do you know what ignorance Paul is speaking of?

Galatians 3:1-5
"O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith"

You said it yourself, he was defending the gospel against those who were trying to tell the Galatians they must also keep the law and the works of it.
Musical instruments in worship is found only under the law therefore it is a work of the law!

So are we justified by keeping the laws of the NT?

Galatians 4:15-16
"We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners;
yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified."

Galatians 5:1-6
"For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.
You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love."

Paul is saying that if you want to keept part of the law (in this case circumcision) then "he is obligated to keep the whole law".
So if you want to keep the part of the law concerning the use of musical instruments; then you are obligated to keep the whole law (i.e. burning incense; going to Jerusalem; animal sacrifices)

Please complete what Paul is saying: If a person wants to be justified by keeping the law, then they must keep the whole law.

That sounds different that what you're saying.

No one is calling for justification by the observance of the OT.

 

[defenderofthefaith]

As has been mentioned to you many times already, David did not write under the law.

Was he not living under the law and in his life he wrote the Psalms?
He wrote living under the law.

He wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit entirely apart from the Law. Were the Psalms abolished at the cross; nailed to the tree; done away by the blood of Christ, never to applicable for us any more? Of course not! The Psalms are prayers and songs of David and other psalmists. They come from the hearts of those who wrote them, inspired of God, for our benefit. They are classified, not as books of the Law, but as "Poetical Books." Your assertion is just plain wrong.

But the very man who wrote them was under the law and his writings were a work under that law.

I quoted from all of the gospels, the book of Isaiah, and the book of Genesis. Are you willing to rip those books out of your Bible also?

Your implying that since I said that Revelation was a book of figurative language that I'm "willing to rip" it out of my Bible.
Totally going beyond what I said, putting words and meanings into what I said but that I totally didn't imply and your taking an extremist view of what I said about Revelation.
Either you didn't read all of what I said and you just want to come to your own conclusions about what I said/meant.
Or your not thinking clearly.

Or at least entertain the possibility of admitting that you cannot use any of those books for interpretation for they all contain figures of speech. That really ties your hands doesn't it. Every book of the Bible contains figures of speech. You cannot get around it.

Am I trying to "get around it"? I'm pointing out what the book of Revelation is and there is no changing it.
They "contain figures of speech" but the book of Revelation is almost entirely figurative language written when the Christians were under pursecution.

Revelation isn't a Jewish apocalyptic book. Put it to rest.

The Jewish apocalytic books were an example...you have no point here saying that is isn't one of them. It was an example of what apocalyptic literature is like.

This argument does not apply. Revelation was written at the same time as the Gospel of John and as all three epistles of John. Are you willing to throw them out as well? The Gospel of John is full of signs and symbols. Yet, it is the most widely used book to present the gospel--the new birth.

Wait...when did I say that I was "willing to throw out" the book of Revelation? Again, going beyond what I said and meant.

And who is Ray Summers, and why should I listen to him?
The Book of Revelation is part of our canon of Scripture. If you cannot understand what is being written in that book, then you are the one that has the problem, right?

Dr. Ray Summers, recognized Greek scholar, professor of New Testament and Greek classes at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, professor of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Baylor University, where he was Chairman of the Religion Department. He is the author of Essentials of New Testament Greek and also author of Worthy is the Lamb which interprets Revelation in alliance with the historical circumstances Christians encountered in the late first century (this book is of which I quoted from).
It's great how he was a professor of Baptist Seminarys!

No, you are wrong. There is no principle to say that everything in Revelation is symbolic. Is John himself also symbolic. Is God symbolic? How ridiculous do you want to take this logic of yours? You can make the Bible mean anything you want with your method of hermeneutic. It makes no sense. But as I say: If you don't understand the Book of Revelation, then that is your problem, right?

And if you can't understand it then it is your problem, right?

So you get to pick and choose what you think is symbolic and what isn't? The principle must apply to the entire book because the entire book is apocolyptic literature (unlike other books of the bible that has parts containing figurative langauage).

The Gospel of John is full of symbols and signs that represent something other than current day definitions. Therefore, according to you we can't use it. That is your logic.

Wait - did I say "we can't use it"?
REALLY? Where??
Because I DIDN'T.
I said that using a single verse in Revelation (a book full of signs and symbols) cannot be taken as a literal straightforward guide.

 

[Revmitchell]

The error in this statement is that the shoes we wear has NOTHING to do with worship - but the use of musical instruments does have to do with worship.

Your error is in thinking that worship is limited to a timed event in a church building. Worship is a lifestyle. Not an event.

 

[DHK]

g
Wait - did I say "we can't use it"?
REALLY? Where??
Because I DIDN'T.
I said that using a single verse in Revelation (a book full of signs and symbols) cannot be taken as a literal straightforward guide.

Good, now that you have changed your mind and have admitted that we can use it. I will quote these verses once again:

Revelation 5:8-9 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. And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

--Once and for all showing that the song of the redeemed in heaven will be accompanied by instruments--the harp, in particular.
Words have meanings. You cannot just say this is symbolic therefore we can't use it. That is just foolishness. If you don't want to believe the Bible, then that is your choice.

 

[Darron Steele]

...
Hmm...I said that? Really...? I don't seem remember saying "revelation does not apply" or saying anything even close to that. If you would, show me where I said that - so I can correct that statement (that I don't remember saying).

Sure: I showed that Revelation 5 shows that musical instruments in worship is not wrong. Here is what you wrote in reply:

Revelation 5:8-9 [ESV]
"And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
And they sang a new song, saying,
Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,"

Concerning Revelation....
The fact is that the book of Revelation uses extensive figurative language. Revelation is also a book of apocalyptic literature. Several books of Jewish apocalyptic literature are available for everyone, such as in the Old Testament, the books of Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Joel contain apocalyptic literature.
Apocalyptic literature uses signs and symbols to veil its message to outside readers. This type of literature was written when the Jewish nation was amidst one of its most tumultuous times—when the Israelites were under attack, or ruled over, by another powerful nation.
Ray Summers explained as follows: “The personal safety of both writer and reader was endangered if the persecutors understood the true meaning of the book. For this reason the message of the apocalypse [Revelation and other books] was written so as to conceal and to reveal—to conceal the message from the outsider but to reveal its message to the initiated” (1951, p. 5)

With this principle understood, we can realize that the "harps" found in Revelation 5:8 is symbolic.
...
We cannot look to Revelation as a literal guide; it is a book full of symbols and signs that represent something other than the current day definition.

Yeah; you basically said that we cannot really believe Revelation 5.

About Revelation 5, I wrote

I think I will stick with accepting that Scripture does apply.

The Greek word translated "elders" is that which is used to describe congregation leaders. I will accept that church "elders" holding "harps" during "song" is not evil.

What, did I say it was evil too!?
Darron, please - stop implying that I am saying all these things that I have not....

You are the one who is adamant that musical instruments in worship should not happen.

This implies that it is a sin. Sin is evil.

If you are indicating that musical instruments in worship is wrong, you are alleging that it is a sin, and therefore it must be evil.

It is really unfortunate that you are choosing to now deny that you have asserted what you have been asserting -- and to add to that, falsely accuse me of misrepresenting you. The poster who accused you of being dishonest may have been spot on.

 

[rbell]

I said that using a single verse in Revelation (a book full of signs and symbols) cannot be taken as a literal straightforward guide.

Wow. You sure do manage to disqualify a bunch of Scripture, just to hold to a "biblical" position.

First Psalms, now Revelation.

What's next?

 

[Don]

Darren, DHK, help me understand. If I say that I can't use a certain form of worship, because it was written by a man who was still under the law, and therefore what he wrote was under the law....

Does that mean I don't have abide by the ten commandments? Because they were written as the law, by a man under the law.

I'm just not understanding.

 

[Darron Steele]

Darren, DHK, help me understand. If I say that I can't use a certain form of worship, because it was written by a man who was still under the law, and therefore what he wrote was under the law....

Does that mean I don't have abide by the ten commandments? Because they were written as the law, by a man under the law.

I'm just not understanding.

I have read Church of Christ literature that says the Ten Commandments are not applicable today.

Yes I am serious.

No that is not all Churches of Christ.

You cannot understand because have not `drank the funny Kool Aid,' you do not have a blinding loyalty to that portion of the Churches of Christ, your brain works and you are letting it do its job.

 

[Don]

I have read Church of Christ literature that says the Ten Commandments are not applicable today.

Yes I am serious.

No that is not all Churches of Christ.

You cannot understand because have not `drank the funny Kool Aid,' you do not have a blinding loyalty to that portion of the Churches of Christ, your brain works and you are letting it do its job.

How is that possible? I read in Romans 13 where Paul is quoting the ten commandments; so how can they not be relevant for today?

 

[Tom Butler]

How is that possible? I read in Romans 13 where Paul is quoting the ten commandments; so how can they not be relevant for today?

Without citing chapter and verse, all of the Commandments are reaffirmed in the New Testament, save one. That's the one regarding Sabbath day observance. Paul specifically exempted it in Colossians 2:16.

"Let no man judge you, therefore, judge you in meat and drink, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body of Christ."

Paul is saying here, I believe, that all sabbath observances, including the weekly Sabbath as well as other ceremonial observances, were abolished.

Romans 13, on the other hand, shows that the other commandments were not.

My point: If Psalm 150 (which mentions many instruments in worship) is negated, one would think there would be a specific NT scripture about it, not silence.

 

[Spinach]

Rev 5:8 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.
Rev 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Uh oh, we've got harps and singing worshipping the Lamb!


Rev 15:2 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, [and] over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.

Sounds God honoring to me.


This has to be one of the silliest arguments I have ever seen on the BB.

I'm only this far, but Amy, Bravo!!!

Off to catch up...

 

[Spinach]

Yes, I too was wondering what happened to the OT -- praise Him with harp, the cymbals, etc. --- even the loud sounding cymbals.

So I guess it was OK for God's people to use musical instruments (even commanded to do so) in the OT, but it forbidden to do so now since it is not mentioned in the NT??? Yeah, that seems like something to build upon.

If you all don't want to have instruments fine, sing without them for all I care. But I have no idea why whenever a CoC'er gets on the board, they have to come beat a dead horse. Makes no sense to me.

Another bravo!

Still reading...

 

[Spinach]

The use of musical instruments to accompany congregational singing does not need to be defended. From what I see in Scripture, congregations can use musical instruments, and congregations can choose not to use musical instruments. There is no authority to outright ban a practice which God invites and which God has shown approval of in both the Old and New Testaments.

We will never convince them to abandon one of their group's `founding precepts.' However, in the end, they are stepping outside the authority of Scripture in adding a ban against something God time and again shows approval of.

Bravo!

Still reading...