Musical Instruments in Christ's church

[Darron Steele]

...



Revelation -- which you have refused to understand...

Huh? No; I just take passages that are meant to be taken at face-value at face-value. Sure, there are parts of Revelation that use non-literal representations of future events, maybe. There are passages of Revelation that are meant to be taken at face-value.

You regurgitating something from someone else does not mean that Revelation 5 is not applicable. The transporting of John to Heaven to be present at this worship service shows exactly what it demonstrates: God approves of musical instruments in worship of Him.

I do not dismiss passages of Scripture that do not jive with my presuppositions. What the written Word of God teaches, goes.

 

[DHK]

We can argue that musical instruments is banned from the scriptures.

Galatians 3:15
"Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto."

So "no man" may "addeth thereto" "if it be confirmed" - and we see that the gospel has been confirmed

Yes, the gospel has been confirmed. We cannot add to the gospel as the CofC does, when they add baptism to the gospel. That is what these Scriptures are teaching. See 1Cor.15:1-4. But playing musical instruments has nothing to do with the gospel, and playing them is not adding to it. It has nothing to do with the confirmation of the gospel. You are way off base in taking this Scripture out of its context, just as you have with the one below.

Hebrews 2:3
"How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;"

So by adding musical instruments to worship - we are adding to this confirmed word which Paul says to the Galatians that no man may add to.

By posting this you are suggesting that playing musical instruments are part of one's salvation. No one believes that so why even suggest it? Playing musical instruments has nothing to do with salvation, so why are you connecting it with verses that speak about salvation as Heb.2:3 speaks of salvation: How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation. (We will not escape if we play instruments) That is not what it is saying. Instruments and salvation have nothing in common.

Also,
Colossians 3:17
"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him."

And those of us who play musical instruments, do it in the name of the Lord, and do it to the glory of God. But that is contrary to your opinion; not contrary to the Word of God, only contrary to your opinion.

What did Paul mean when he said "in the name of the Lord Jesus"?
Luke corroborated Paul’s statement by providing the answer. Shortly after the establishment of the church (Acts 2), the Jewish authorities were upset that Peter and John were spreading the gospel so they hauled Peter and John into their assembly and demanded to know, “By what power or by what name have you done this?” (Acts 4:7). The word “power” (dunamei) bears a cvery lose correlation to and relationship with the concept of authority (as Wesley Perschbacher noted in his book The New Analytical Greek Lexicon), and this word is closely aligned with exousia—the usual word for authority (as used in Luke 4:36; Revelation 17:12-13).

By what authority do you do this?
"THIS" refers to the preaching of the gospel. There is no mention of music here. You are not rightly dividing the Word of Truth. You are butchering the Scriptures. The Pharisees were upset because the disciples were preaching the gospel, not because they were playing instruments. :BangHead:

W.E. Vine listed both terms under “power” (in his book An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words). “Authority” (exousia) refers to power, rule, authority, or jurisdiction (as Otto Betz noted in his book The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology).
This word means “the power of authority, the right to exercise power” and “the right to act” (again from W.E. Vine's book). It includes the ideas of “absolute power” and “warrant” (as Arndt and Gingrich wrote in their book A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature), as well as “the ‘claim,’ or ‘right,’ or ‘control,’ one has over anything” (as Moulton and Milligan wrote in their book Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources).
The Jewish leaders were demanding from Peter and John to know by what authority the apostles were acting. Who was giving them the right to teach what they were teaching? What authoritative source approved or sanctioned their particular actions? Peter’s answer was “by the name of Jesus Christ” (vs. 10).

Also, this is common in every day speech. If a police officer says "open the door in the name of the law" he is commanding this by the authority of the law.

The right, authority, to do what? Play instruments? Where is that in the context that you are referring to? I want to see it!!!!!!!!!!!

So clearly "whatsoever we do in word or deed" must be "in the name" or "by the authority" of Jesus Christ.
We have NO authority to use musical instruments in worship - therefore they MUST NOT be used.

It was speaking of the gospel, not music.
Here is where authority comes from

1 Corinthians 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, (including playing instruments) do all to the glory of God.

 

[DHK]

Primary meanings are listed first - because the meaning of the word psallo once did mean using instruments but like Thayer and Strong both write - in the New Testament that was no longer the case.

You believe only what you want to believe even when it is clearly wrong.
Take any word from any dictionary. The most common definitions, the primary definitions are always listed first. The least common definitions, the ones rarely used, are usually listed last. This means that the definition that you want to attach to "psallo" is not the common definition of the word. You just want to make it that way in order to fit your own presuppositions. But both Thayer and Strong are against you.

 

[Don]

Acts 13:33 references Psalm 2; so why is Psalm 2 not as applicable as any book, chapter, or verse in the New Testament?

Acts 2:27 and 13:35 reference Psalm 16:10; so why is Psalm 16 not as applicable as any book, chapter, or verse in the New Testament?

Acts 13:37 references Psalm 49:9; so why is Psalm 49 not as applicable as any book, chapter, or verse in the New Testament?

Romans 13 quotes the ten commandments; so why are Exodus and Deuteronomy not as applicable as any book, chapter, or verse in the New Testament?

-----

My point? The Old Testament cannot be discounted.

2 Chronicles 29:27 indicates that the musical instruments that preceded and played with the song of the Lord were ordained by David, not God; so no instruments were commanded by God Himself.

However, David was God's voice to the people; and thus, he passed on God's commandments to the people. So those things ordained by David, especially in the worship of God, can be inferred to be commanded by God -- just as the words of Peter, Paul, Luke, John, et al were the voice, and therefore commandments, to us through the scripture we have today.

-----

How do these two areas tie together? If we believe that the scriptures are God-breathed, that the authors were inspired to write the words of God, then we must pay attention to where the authors were inspired to quote the Old Testament, just as much as we pay attention to the rest. Any references, such as to the ten commandments, must mean that God intended for us to observe these things. With the absence ("silence") of any particular areas, such as musical instruments in worship services, we must not automatically assume that such are no longer used, or "authorized"; we must look at what scripture does indicate (such as, the Psalms were still being observed); and what we know about those things (such as, we know that the Psalms were worshipful, and they were accompanied by music).

I admit I haven't studied the historians, the "experts" on the era and practices of the time. As far as I can see, there is nothing--nothing--that contradicts this conclusion drawn from scripture itself.

 

[max3k]

Are the Pharisees making a come back? Should we be more focused on whether we sing or play instruments vs the act of worship. This is a foolish topic in my opinion.

 

[Tom Butler]

Are the Pharisees making a come back? Should we be more focused on whether we sing or play instruments vs the act of worship. This is a foolish topic in my opinion.

After nine days and 300 plus posts, it's a bit late to be making this point, don't you think? I realize, however, that this thread actually started before you joined our elite group. Welcome.

I must tell you that you won't get very far here with your point. This is a variation of the old line "Wal, if we'd spend more of time (fill in the blank--soul-winning, reading our Bible, feeding the hungry, worshipping) instead of arguing about this trivial matter (fill in the blank again), we'd be (fill in the blank--pleasing God more, win more souls, etc).

The fact is, we debate a lot trivial stuff here. It's a debate board. And the fact is, this is one of the best debates I've ever seen on the question of instruments in worship.

defenderofthefaith is wrong, but he's one of the toughest and most persistent advocates of his position I have ever seen. He has not wilted under some withering attacks on his position. He has stayed engaged. Opponents of his view (and I am one), have acquitted themselves well (and win the debate, in my view). The level of this debate has been high, and civil.

Trivial or not, you are reading one of the best examples of how debates should be done. This is truly iron sharpening iron. I look forward to seeing you engage in those topics which interest you. It's not for the faint of heart, but boy, is it fun.

 

[max3k]

On that note, I will be exiting this board. Happy New Year Everyone!

 

[Jim1999]

As long as you blokes are debating music and instruments in church, you are leaving me alone.....:saint:

Carry on, mate. Have with it.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[DHK]

After nine days and 300 plus posts, it's a bit late to be making this point, don't you think? I realize, however, that this thread actually started before you joined our elite group. Welcome.

I must tell you that you won't get very far here with your point. This is a variation of the old line "Wal, if we'd spend more of time (fill in the blank--soul-winning, reading our Bible, feeding the hungry, worshipping) instead of arguing about this trivial matter (fill in the blank again), we'd be (fill in the blank--pleasing God more, win more souls, etc).

The fact is, we debate a lot trivial stuff here. It's a debate board. And the fact is, this is one of the best debates I've ever seen on the question of instruments in worship.

defenderofthefaith is wrong, but he's one of the toughest and most persistent advocates of his position I have ever seen. He has not wilted under some withering attacks on his position. He has stayed engaged. Opponents of his view (and I am one), have acquitted themselves well (and win the debate, in my view). The level of this debate has been high, and civil.

Trivial or not, you are reading one of the best examples of how debates should be done. This is truly iron sharpening iron. I look forward to seeing you engage in those topics which interest you. It's not for the faint of heart, but boy, is it fun.

I share your sentiment Tom. You have expressed it well.
However, on this note the thread, having reached over 30 pages must be closed.
Feel free to start another if you so desire.