Musical Instruments, or the lack thereof

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Artimaeus:
...but, that is the usual customary meaning and a possible exception doesn't negate my argument that it is a normal and acceptable activity in worship service. It would have been so normal and accepted that it shouldn't have even occured to anyone to relegate it to something less than acceptable.

Artimaeus, my argument is not that using "psalmos" to mean "a song" (no more, no less) is a possible exception, but rather that "song" is often what is commonly meant when the word "psalmos" is used in the Greek language. I am not arguing that it cannot mean what you suggest. I am saying that it is not inherent in the use of the word. Some evidences I would suggest are (1) its use in context in New Testament passages that would seem to require that "on a musical instrument" not be necessary to the meaning [and even nonsensical if forced on I Cor. 14:26 (psalmos) and James 5:13 (psallo)] ; and (2) its use to translate certain Old Testament Hebrew words that would not have "on a musical instrument" inherent in the meaning. IMO, your position is straining to place the root meaning into every use of the word. The meaning of a word is determined both by its semantic range and its use in context. When we say "good-bye" in English, we might have in mind a meaning derived from its origin - God be with you - but most likely we just mean a simple farewell and no more. The Greek language is no different in that respect.

Below are a few online resources relative to the word "psalmos." I don't think they necessarily support any particular position taken in this thread (though certain ones may tend to support one or the other). I am merely linking them for those who might wish to have some resources to research the word online. I'm sure there are many more than I have found.

www.studylight.org/dic/ebd/view.cgi?number=T3013 www.btinternet.com/~MisPar/GNotes/week082.doc
www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=04210 www.btinternet.com/~MisPar/GNotes/week119.doc
www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5568&version=kjv
www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus
www.biblestudytools.net/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi
unbound.biola.edu/results/index.cfm?lang=English
www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5568
www.studylight.org/dic/kjd/view.cgi?word=psalm&action=Lookup&search

 

[Artimaeus]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Artimaeus, my argument is not that using "psalmos" to mean "a song" (no more, no less) is a possible exception, but rather that "song" is often what is commonly meant when the word "psalmos" is used in the Greek language. I am not arguing that it cannot mean what you suggest. I am saying that it is not inherent in the use of the word. Some evidences I would suggest are (1) its use in context in New Testament passages that would seem to require that "on a musical instrument" not be necessary to the meaning [and even nonsensical if forced on I Cor. 14:26 (psalmos) and James 5:13 (psallo)] ; and (2) its use to translate certain Old Testament Hebrew words that would not have "on a musical instrument" inherent in the meaning. IMO, your position is straining to place the root meaning into every use of the word. The meaning of a word is determined both by its semantic range and its use in context. When we say "good-bye" in English, we might have in mind a meaning derived from its origin - God be with you - but most likely we just mean a simple farewell and no more. The Greek language is no different in that respect..

From Easton's Bible Dictionary: (Strong's Hebrew Dictionary agrees with the meaning)
Fifty-eight psalms bear the designation (Heb.) mitsmor (Gr. psalmos, a psalm), a lyric ode, or a song set to music; a sacred song accompanied with a musical instrument.
Easton, M. G., M. A. D. D., Easton’s Bible Dictionary, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1996.

Whether it is one psalm or all 150 it is still a song or songs that God wrote and by defaut, it is a good thing.

Higgaion. In Psa. 92:3, according to Gesenius, it signifies the murmuring tone of a harp, and so that the music should be rendered in a plaintive manner. In Psa. 9:16, combined with "Selah,’’ it may have been intended to indicate a pause in the vocal music while the instruments rendered an interlude. In Psa. 19:14, Mendelssohn translates it "meditation, thought.’’ So that the music was to be rendered in a mode to promote devout meditation.
Swanson, James, Editor, New Nave’s Topical Bible, (Oak Harbor, Washington: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1994.

Mahalath, Maschil, Leannoth. These terms are found in the titles of Psalm 53 and 88. Authorities grope in darkness as to their signification. They may indicate the instruments to be played or the melody to be sung.
Swanson, James, Editor, New Nave’s Topical Bible, (Oak Harbor, Washington: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1994.

Neginah and
Neginoth appear in the titles of Psalms 4; 54; 55; 61; 67 and Hab. 3:19. Its use seems to have been to indicate that the song should be accompanied by stringed instruments.
Swanson, James, Editor, New Nave’s Topical Bible, (Oak Harbor, Washington: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1994.

Nehiloth, in the title of Psalm 5. It seems to indicate, according to Gesenius, that when this Psalm was sung it was to be accompanied by wind instruments.
Swanson, James, Editor, New Nave’s Topical Bible, (Oak Harbor, Washington: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1994.

Selah. This term appears frequently in the Psalms. Its use is not known. Possibly it signified a pause in the vocal music while an instrumental interlude or finale was rendered.
Swanson, James, Editor, New Nave’s Topical Bible, (Oak Harbor, Washington: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1994.

Shigionoth, in the title of Hab. 3, are supposed to have been musical terms to guide in rendering the song. At the close of the chapter the author refers the ode "to the chief musician, on my stringed instruments.’’ The term may suggest the movement in interpreting the music set to it.
Swanson, James, Editor, New Nave’s Topical Bible, (Oak Harbor, Washington: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1994.

Shushan-eduth, in the titles to Psalms 45; 60; 69; 80 seem to indicate the manner in which these Psalms were to be rendered. Kimchi, Tremellius, and Eichhorn render it, "hexachorda,’’ that is, that in singing these Psalms instruments of six strings were to accompany.
Swanson, James, Editor, New Nave’s Topical Bible, (Oak Harbor, Washington: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1994.

The Hebrew title of this book (Psalms) is Tehilim (“praises” or “hymns”), for a leading feature in its contents is praise, though the word occurs in the title of only one Psalm (the hundred forty-fifth). The Greek title (in the Septuagint, a translation made two hundred years before Christ) is psalmoi, whence our word “Psalms.” This corresponds to the Hebrew word mizmoi by which sixty-five Psalms are designated in their inscriptions, and which the Syriac, a language like the Hebrew, uses for the whole book. It means, as does also the Greek name, an ode, or song, whose singing is accompanied by an instrument, particularly the harp (compare 1Ch 16:4–8; 2Ch 5:12, 13).
Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A.R.; and Brown, David, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1998.

Psalms, that is, “lyrical odes,” or songs accompanied by an instrument.
Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A.R.; and Brown, David, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1998.

I am stating that this IS its' usual meaning but, CAN be sung without an instrument just as I can sing (poorly) any song without musical instruments. All it takes is for ONE Psalm (even though there are many) to be acknowledged as legitimate worship material and the non use of musical instruments as being somehow, someway more spiritual is completely without merit.

I Cor. 14:26 (psalmos) and James 5:13 (psallo) These verses make perfect sense and are not even remotely nonsensical when using the correct definition. I can hum or whistle a tune even tought there are words for that song AND instrumental directions written right on the page. I can sing the words all by myself with no accompaniment. I can sing with a full orchestra. None of this changes the fact that the song was written to be accompanied with 1 or more instruments. Let everything that hath breath praise the LORD.

 

[Bro. James Reed]

Why don't we just examine the English word "song?" If I mentioned the word song to you, would you automatically assume that I mean with an instrument? Can a song be sung without an instrument?

We use the word song when referring to anything with words and a beat. That's pretty much what the word is summed up to mean.

BTW, I would like to know where Old Greek translators get their understanding of the original words. How do we even know that these translator are correct in their translations?

It's like with Egyptian hieroglyphic translators. No one now actually knows for certain if they are translating correctly. This is because it is a dead language. It went for many, many, many years without being spoken.

I took Greek for a semester in college. My professor would tell us on several occassions things such as, "We're not sure if this is how you pronounce this word, but we think it is pretty close." Well, how do they know they are translating correctly, if they can't even pronounce it correctly?

 

[Su Wei]

sorry to interrupt, but wasn't Lucifer created with pipes and tabrets? For what purpose?

Ezekiel 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

 

[TheOliveBranch]

Bro. Reed,

Could you please answer this question for me. I was wondering where the Bible states that it is wrong to use musical instruments in a church service. Is this a practice that is carried thru to the home? If not, why?

Forgive me if I sound like I'm questioning your beliefs, but I want to know. If the practice is wrong, I want to know why.

 

[Artimaeus]

Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:
Why don't we just examine the English word "song?" If I mentioned the word song to you, would you automatically assume that I mean with an instrument? Can a song be sung without an instrument?

We use the word song when referring to anything with words and a beat. That's pretty much what the word is summed up to mean.

BTW, I would like to know where Old Greek translators get their understanding of the original words. How do we even know that these translator are correct in their translations?

It's like with Egyptian hieroglyphic translators. No one now actually knows for certain if they are translating correctly. This is because it is a dead language. It went for many, many, many years without being spoken.

I took Greek for a semester in college. My professor would tell us on several occassions things such as, "We're not sure if this is how you pronounce this word, but we think it is pretty close." Well, how do they know they are translating correctly, if they can't even pronounce it correctly?

A small amount of skepticism is quite healthy. It keeps the translators honest and keeps us on our toes as well, but, if the amount of distrust you apply to this topic were applied to all topics then you would have no confidence in anything in the scriptures. Of course, the word "song" could be with or without instruments. That is my point, that it could be with instruments AND it could be without instruments. I can "play" a song on the poano or I could "sing" a song acappella, or I could do both at the same time (Not me personally, no one wants that). Acappella means "without instruments", "song" could be either way, but "psalm" means with instruments.

 

[stubbornkelly]

Point of musical interest - you can't play a song. You can play a piece or a tune, or even a melody, but not a song. A song is, by definition, sung. Vocal modulation or lyrics is what makes a song a song.

We don't use scheduled music in our service because the worship service uses spontaneous vocal ministry. Some people may get up and sing, but I've not known any one to whip out their violin or drag in a piano. What I mean is that I suppose that if someone had an instrument (other than the voice) on their person they could certainly use it in their vocal ministry - I just haven't seen that happen.

I don't have any Biblical basis for not using instruments. They just aren't used in our services, mostly because we just don't have scheduled music performances.

 

[Bro. James Reed]

It's not that I see any Biblical evidence against using instruments, I just don't see any for using instruments.

I think we should be careful not to add anything to the church, and, without scripture supporting instruments in the N. T. church, I can not support them.

BTW, I enjoy instruments, but not in a church worship service. I used to have a keyboard, before it was stolen , in my room. It's not that we, Primitive Baptists, are against instruments in general. We are just against their use in our worship services.

I think if we're not careful, we could start just listening to how beautiful the music sounds, instead of the message we are trying to send to God. The purpose is to praise and give glory to God, but some will turn it into a concert for human pleasure. I am not even saying that all who have instruments are not truly worshipping God, but that is how it all gets started.

If we don't accept additions into the church to begin with, then we won't be subject to unscriptural practices later.

I know we are not all going to agree on this issue, but I appreciate the manner in which this discussion is taking place. We can be serious in our studies and we can joke with one another, but we know that our purpose in this is to better praise the Lord. I thank you all for that.

God Bless. Bro. James

BTW, I just love watching the Gaithers! How bout ya'll?

 

[stubbornkelly]

I think if we're not careful, we could start just listening to how beautiful the music sounds, instead of the message we are trying to send to God.

Is it then inappropriate to simply want to give God a thing of beauty? I know that I used to go out to the woods and just sing my heart out, just letting my voice spin, making whatever music would come. Nothing structured, really, just singing in praise. What I sometimes hear in discussions about music is that a song can't give glory or praise to God unless He is mentioned in the lyrics, or the lyrics are passages from Scripture, and I can't agree with that.

The purpose is to praise and give glory to God, but some will turn it into a concert for human pleasure.

True enough. I experienced that a lot at my parents' church, and because of my own concert training, can't/won't sing in a church choir anymore - it just doesn't mean anything to me when I sing sacred music in that setting. I'm not giving glory, I'm performing.

I am not even saying that all who have instruments are not truly worshipping God, but that is how it all gets started.

I see what you're saying, in light of your previous sentence, and of my own church choir experience, but I generally eschew slippery slope arguments on principle. Again, I see instruments - by themselves or used to enhance a vocal performance - as a possible means to give God even more glory, again hearkening back to what I said about wanting to give God the best we have.

It is not the instruments that are important, but using our talents and abilities to glorify Him.

So, going back to my first thought in this post - are the lyrics in song the most important part of the glorifying gift of music?

 

[Jeptha]

Glad to TUNE in here.

Since I was raised Catholic; once member of a Sovereign Grace Baptist church and now a Primitive Baptist, (on top of that I married a Church of God gal - she is converted!!!), I can say that I have experienced the use of instruments and the non use of instruments. I know all the arguments for and against. I know what history teaches about their use in divine worship services. And I love watching live use of instruments.

But one thing I have learned I'd like to share. When the service has instruments and qualified singers apart from the congregation the members have a tendency to watch, like being at a theater.

Whereas, congregational acapella singing seems to do a great job at including everyone in worship.

I was once approached by a Baptist of another order who ask me, "Is it true Primitive Baptist do not use instruments in church?" I said, "yes it's true." Then he said, "Oh, I could never do without my violin and piano."

That is when I knew intuitively that instruments in worhip services tend to glorify the creature rather than the creator. The stuff going on today can hardly pass for glorifying God. It does however jump out at honouring the talents of the individual. There are places for the honor of man, but not a true New Testament church.

Jeptha

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Artimaeus:
...Higgaion...Selah...All it takes is for ONE Psalm (even though there are many) to be acknowledged as legitimate worship material and the non use of musical instruments as being somehow, someway more spiritual is completely without merit.

Brother Artimaeus, you have provided us with quite a bit of information about the Psalms, which is all information relevant to the topic. But when posted in response to our discussion, which is confined to the words "psalmos" and "psallo," much of it does not directly address that topic, because whether or not the Old Testament Psalms were or could be performed with musical instruments is not under dispute, at least not to me. What I am disputing is whether a person reading the Greek words "psalmos" and "psallo" automatically understands that it must be talking about a song being sung with instrumental music accompanying.

These verses make perfect sense and are not even remotely nonsensical when using the correct definition. I can hum or whistle a tune even tought there are words for that song AND instrumental directions written right on the page. I can sing the words all by myself with no accompaniment. I can sing with a full orchestra. None of this changes the fact that the song was written to be accompanied with 1 or more instruments. Let everything that hath breath praise the LORD.

But we are not looking at a score of music. We are looking at the Greek New Testament, reading a word/words and understanding something when we read it/them. What we can or might do outside the definition of the word/words is not under dispute. But what is the meaning of the word/words? I understand that you are saying that "psalmos" has only one meaning - a song with instrumental music accompanying. Below are the two verses mentioned with your defintion inserted. It represents what I am understanding you to say.

1 Cor. 14:26 - How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a song with instrumental music accompanying, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

James 5:13 - Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing songs with instrumental music accompanying.

The above is what I consider nonsensical in context. Did Paul mean that these people only had songs with instrumental music accompanying? Isn't it more likely that he simply meant a song (generically)? Did James mean that only those merry ones who could also play a musical instrument should sing? Isn't it more likely that he simply meant for those who are merry to sing (generically)? This appears to be forcing something into the text that isn't encompassed in what these passages are saying.

Can one technically be rendering a psalm a cappella, if the meaning of "psalm" is that it is a song with an instrumental accompaniment? If the meaning is a song with instrumental accompaniment, then a song without instrumental accompaniment is not really a psalm, if that is what the word means.

 

[Artimaeus]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:


Can one technically be rendering a psalm a cappella, if the meaning of "psalm" is that it is a song with an instrumental accompaniment? If the meaning is a song with instrumental accompaniment, then a song without instrumental accompaniment is not really a psalm, if that is what the word means.

A "psalm" sang accappella is an oxymoron. That would be like saying I am singing a song acappella with piano accompaniment.

Psalm = a song with instruments.
Acappella = a song without intruments.
Song, hymn, spiritual song = a song with or without instruments.

Psalm does not mean that I MUST play the instrument AND sing at the same time. It just means that this was a song which was written to be sung to the accompaniment of musical instruments. I can hum a song that was written with words. I can whistle a tune that is an instrumental. None of this changes the fact that the song was actually written with the intent that musical instruments are part of the concept. There is no hint that God commands us to use musical instruments every time we sing a psalm. That does not change the fact that God implicitly gives authority to the use of musical instruments in praising Him. This is my point. Musical instruments are approved by God in His worship. What I am hearing from folks is that in this particular circumstance (NT worship services) it is somehow NOT approved. Can musical instruments be used in a manner that is not pleasing to God, of course. Is it being done in a manner not pleasing to God in some places, of course. Don't throw the baby out with the water. Musical instruments aren't wrong even though HOW they are used certainly can be.

 

[qwerty]

I don't think it is possible to prove a negative.
From the writings of the New Testament, it seems that the writers didn't think it necessary, or important, to include whether or not there were music instruments used in the church services.

Some issues might be:
There weren't too many, especially good ones, because they were very expensive, and Christians in the First Century usually weren't very wealthy.

Also, the church usually met in homes. Not too much room for a band in a home in those days.

You know, I also don't think the New Testament writers said that the early believers wore clothes in their services. So I would assume that some would think it would be just great to have nudist Christian services. (just a joke to make a point).
What else did the writers of the New Testament not include that could be important? Let us let the imagination work, and then apply our findings accordingly. If it works for music instruments, why can't it be expanded to other things?

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Artimaeus:
Psalm does not mean that I MUST play the instrument AND sing at the same time. It just means that this was a song which was written to be sung to the accompaniment of musical instruments.

OK, let's change those verses to the way you define the word here and see how they work:

1 Cor. 14:26 - How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a song with that was written to be sung with the accompaniment of instrumental music, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

James 5:13 - Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing songs that were written to be sung with the accompaniment of instrumental music.

When you plug in this definition of the only thing you say "psalm" means, it still doesn't make sense.

 

[TheOliveBranch]

Thank-you, Bro. Reed and Jeptha for your answers. I can respect that.

 

[Artimaeus]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Artimaeus:
Psalm does not mean that I MUST play the instrument AND sing at the same time. It just means that this was a song which was written to be sung to the accompaniment of musical instruments.

OK, let's change those verses to the way you define the word here and see how they work:

1 Cor. 14:26 - How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a song with that was written to be sung with the accompaniment of instrumental music, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

James 5:13 - Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing songs that were written to be sung with the accompaniment of instrumental music.

When you plug in this definition of the only thing you say "psalm" means, it still doesn't make sense. </font>[/QUOTE]Sure enough is silly, but, if we put the definition of the word song in, it is still just as silly.

James 5:13 - Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing a short metrical composition intended or adapted for singing

Putting the definition of a word into a sentence usually makes it look and sound odd. We should just leave the word there and learn its definition.

AMERICAN COLLEGE DICTIONARY
Psalm - GK: modification of Psalmos, song sung to the harp, orig., a plucking, as of strings.

STRONG'S EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE HEVREW DICTIONARY
4210 (Psalm) mizmowr, properly instrumental music; by implication a poem set to notes.

STRONG'S EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE GREEK DICTIONARY
5567 (Psalm) psallo; probably strengthened from psao (to rub or touch the surface; compare 5597); to twitch or twang, i.e. to play on a stringed instrument (celebrate the divine worship with music and accompanying odes):--make melody, sing (psalms).

STRONG'S EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE GREEK DICTIONARY
5568 (Psalm) psalmos; from 5567; a set piece of music, i.e. a sacred ode (accompanied with the voice, harp or other instrument; a "psalm");

VINE'S EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF NEW TESTAMENT WORDS
PSALM - Psalmos, primarily denoted a striking or twitching with the fingers (on musical strings); then, a sacred song, sung to musical accpmpaniment

God doesn't have to tell us on every page or in every situation what is right and wrong. He told us hundreds of times that songs with musical instruments were good things. He told us in the OT, He told us in the NT, He told us they were going to be in heaven. Now someone comes along and says, "Ah-Ha, He didn't tell us to use them inside of our NT churches so it must be wrong or at least not a good idea". He didn't tell us to use them in our cars, or in our homes, or on our daily walks, or lots of other particular places either but we do.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Artimaeus:
Sure enough is silly, but, if we put the definition of the word song in, it is still just as silly.

James 5:13 - Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing a short metrical composition intended or adapted for singing.

Putting the definition of a word into a sentence usually makes it look and sound odd. We should just leave the word there and learn its definition.

There is a difference between putting the definition of a word in a sentence and it sounding odd, and putting it in and it not making good sense. The first is a matter of looks and sound, while the second is a matter of meaning and understanding. If you put the whole definition of any word into a sentence where it is used, it may sound a little odd (or silly as you say), but it will still make good sense when you think about what the sentence is saying. When you put in what you supply as the only thing that "psalmos" and "psallo" can mean - a song that was written to be sung with musical accompaniment - it doesn't fit into the simple statement that James is making. If you are merry, sing a song that was written for musical accompaniment?? No, if you're merry, sing! That's fairly simple. This doesn't consider anything about whether the song was written to be sung a cappella or whether it was written to be accompanied by instruments. James is just saying singing generally is a way to express the merry heart. I have never disputed in any post the root origin of the words "psalmos" and "psallo" as having to do with "plucking the harp or strings." I have not even asserted that what I am talking about concerning the words "psalmos" and "psallo" proves that instruments shouldn't be used in church services. What I do assert is that we shouldn't force the root meaning of a word into every use of that word, that we must consider the entire semantic range of the word, and that we must let the context determine the meaning of a word within its semantic range. We do that every day when we talk and read, but often we won't do it when studying the Bible. In the definitions given above, they indicate the semantic range of "psalmos" goes beyond a song only sung with musical instruments. The etymology of the words "psalmos" and "psallo" is not a magical formula that proves whether or not instrumental music is proper for the New Testament church.

 

[Artimaeus]

rlvaughn, OK, let's assume for arguments sake that when James used "psalm" he just meant a song, a generic, plain old, singin' in the rain (spiritual)song. I could live with that. This thread however,was about whether or not musical instruments were good things or not good things in a NT worship service. The point I was trying to make was that they were used in the OT worship services, they were used in the time of Christ and the apostles, and they will be used in heaven. Not one word is ever said (in the Bible) to make anyone think that God's explicit approval of the use of musical instruments to praise Him has ever been reversed. Yet, we still have people saying that there is "something" not quite right about using ANY musical instrument EVER in a worship service. You will get no argument from me if you say that sometimes they are misused. I am just saying that sometimes a piano, or organ, or other accompanying instruments are a very good thing (In a NT worship service).

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Artimaeus,
I agree. The argument against musical instruments is an agrument from silence.

 

[RTB]

Just a couple of comments about this subject. I believe that there is nothing wrong with musical instuments being used as a means to give glory to God. I love to hear a person with the gift of singing perform a song accapella. But a question to ask. Can listening to someone with that kind of ability sing, have the same affect as listening to someone gifted with the ability to play an instrument. You listen to the beauty of the voice as much as the intended message? I've read posts where there were comments that the type of music in the service would be a determining factor in the selection of a Church. Shouldn't being led by the Holy Spirit be a determining factor for that? I hope that if God were to lead me to another church and that church's preference was an instrumentless song service, then I would be open to Holy Spirits guidance.
I've also read that listening to instuments outside of church worship was acceptable just that during worship sevices at Church was were the problem was.
What is the difference between worship at church and our everyday life outside of church?

Just some thoughts.

Yours in Christ
Ronnie