These are the same proof-texts "prohibitvists" always use, and most of them have already been answered on other threads already (and then, the discussion ends after that, with no further answers from your side)
1. The difference between Cain and Abel, the sons of Adam, was the difference between respecting what Jehovah had authorized, and what he had not. Cain offered the produce of the field; Abel offered the firstlings of his flock (Gen. 4:3-4).
The latter act was “by faith” (Heb. 11:4) - which comes by hearing what the Lord has spoken (Rom. 10:17) - not what he has left unspoken! The former act was obviously of human inclination, and so Cain was rejected by the Creator. Not all “Cains” have passed from earth’s scenes!
Yes, by FAITH; not by type of sacrifice! For plant sacrifices had their place in the OT system, too. Both brothers brought what they raised; else; then, it must have been a sin to be anything other than a farmer of sheep.
It seems the empasis on Abel bring the
first of his flock is what the difference was. So it has nothing to do with "adding anything left unspoken". Amazing how we read things into these passages!
2. Similarly, when Noah constructed the ark, he did so “by faith” (Heb. 11:7), which means the patriarch did “according to all that God commanded him” (Gen. 6:22), or, as the NIV renders the clause: “Noah did everything just as God commanded him.”
Though the question is frequently ridiculed these days - when authority is held in contempt - it is still appropriate to ask: Would Noah have been preserved if he had acted upon the presumption that “whatever is not forbidden is allowed,” and so had altered the divine pattern for the building of the ark?
We don't have much detail, other than the type of wood used (which noone is sure of), and to cover it with pitch. So if God gave him minute intructions, and left nothing "unspoken", then of course, Noah could not change it. But if God grants us today permission to add our own "expedients", then He could have with Noah as well. What you are still not getting is that your "we cannot add things left unspoken" directly contradicts you "expedients" logic! All of your "expedients" were left unspoken! They
may be able to "help us carry out the command", but it is still "unspoken". Now make up your mind which standard we follow.
3. Nadab and Abihu were sons of Aaron, the first Hebrew high priest. When they employed “strange fire,” i.e., fire not taken from the altar of sacrifice (cf. Lev. 16:12), they were destroyed by God. What was their crime? The inspired text states that they offered “that which [God] had not commanded them” (Lev. 10:1), or, to express it in another way: “[T]hey offered unauthorized fire before the Lord".
The so-called "strange fire" was connected with the
incense, commanded in Exodus 30. God had commanded that the censer was to be filled with "sweet" incense (v.7), so any other type of incense would have been the "Strange incense" (v.9) that would have made up "strange fire". So there is your "explicit command" in that instance. (Once again, nothing "left unspoken").
4. One of the sacred items of the tabernacle system was the ark of the covenant. The Mosaic law specified: “Jehovah set aside the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant” (Deut. 10:8). The Levites were thus authorized to carry the ark. There was no specific prohibition regarding the other tribes; the law was simply silent as to their privilege of transporting the holy vessel.
Was that silence prohibitive? Yes it was, for a parallel passage explicitly states: “None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites, for them Jehovah has chosen to carry the ark . . .” (1 Chron. 15:2). When the Levites were specifically authorized to bear the ark, in the absence of supplementary authority, that clearly implied that “none else” should function in that capacity. Silence excluded!
Furthermore, the Levites were to bear that ark by poles, which were passed through rings on the side of the golden box (Ex. 25:12-14). David, however, had borne the ark on a “new cart” (2 Sam. 6:3). Was such a sin, inasmuch as the law was silent respecting the matter of carts? Israel’s great king clarified this matter when he later confessed: “. . . we sought [God] not according to the ordinance” (1 Chron. 15:13), or, “in the prescribed way” (NIV).
One is not at liberty to go beyond what has been “prescribed” in a religious practice, any more than a pharmacist is allowed to add more to your medicine than what the physician prescribed!
Once again; you are talking about a physical tribe, that excludes all others. Not something that can be done.
To bring these analogies into music worship, it would be cloer to comparing "singing" with "talking" or "humming", or making some other "noise" with our vocal chords.
5. The very first commandment of the Decalogue stated: “I am Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Ex. 20:2-3). Of course the nation of Israel egregiously violated that prohibition across the centuries.
There is an interesting commentary on this matter in the book of Jeremiah. God’s prophet was instructed to stand in the gate of the temple compound and urge the nation to: “Amend your ways” (Jer. 7:3). What was their transgression? Among other things:
“[T]hey have built the high places [centers of idol worship] of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded not, neither came it into my mind” (Jer. 7:31).
A comparison of this passage, with the original law forbidding idolatry, plainly shows that a practice which the Lord has not commanded is equivalent to an explicit prohibition. The Bible is its own best commentary!
You people are so slick! But this can be refuted, because if He did "command" it; it would contradict His first Commandment. Other gods are not wrong because they were BOTH "forbidden" AND "not commanded", as if they could possible have been both "forbidden" and "commanded" at the same time!
They were "not commanded" BECAUSE they were explicitly "forbidden"; because God was NOT "silent" on, it not because He was "silent" on it! Once again; your argument would rule out your so-called "expedients".
New Testament Evidence
The New Testament record is equally lucid with reference to our obligation to acknowledge the principle of biblical silence.
1. In his first letter to the Christians at Corinth, Paul addresses the problem of attaching oneself to a church leader and forming a sect around that individual. The apostle condemns the practice by the use of some rhetorical questions: “Is Christ divided?”, etc. (1 Cor. 1:12-13).
Later, he apparently alludes to the issue again when he says:
“Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written . . .” (1 Cor. 4:6 - ASV).
The reference to “myself” and “Apollos” is “a veiled allusion to those who were actually responsible for the church factions, tactfully withholding their names . . .” (W. E. Vine, 1st Corinthians, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1951, p. 61). When one goes “beyond the things that are written,” he has entered the realm of silence. And the inspired apostle says that one must learn not to do that.
What was supposed to be "beyond the things that are written", there? Following Apollos or Paul instead of Christ? Once again, that would contradict following Christ. You follow one Master. Just like one tribe, one way to build one ark, and carry the other ark, and one way to carry our voices.
2. In Paul’s letter to the saints at Colossae, he condemned the practice of “will worship,” a disposition which is “after the precepts and doctrines of men” (Col. 2:22-23). W. E. Vine defines “will-worship” as “voluntarily adopted worship, whether unbidden or forbidden” (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Westwood, NJ: Fleming Revell Co., 1962, Vol. IV, p. 236).
We have no difficulty in understanding what it means to do that which is “forbidden.” But what does it mean to do that which is “unbidden” - if it is not doing that about which the Bible is silent?
Noted lexicographer J. H. Thayer described “will-worship” as “worship which one devises and prescribes for himself . . .” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958, p. 168).
Everett Harrison commented that “will-worship” is that which “is not prescribed by God but only by (the will of) man” (Colossians: Christ All-Sufficient, Chicago: Moody Press, 1971, p. 72).
Here is the issue: If one may, with divine approval, operate in the realm of silence, why can’t he “devise and prescribe for himself” whatever pleases him? And yet, it is this very thing that is censured.
The definition of "will worship" I have seen is what the passage is describing--"works" of legalism and asceticism, which like "wisdom" give off a "show". (Why would anyone "show off" some practice just because it was "unwritten"?). If anything; this silly argument on instruments falls right into the category, in either definition! You are "showing off" your "plainness" of worship music, and there is nothing commanding that anywhere!
3. In the opening chapter of Hebrews, the inspired author argued for the superiority of Jesus Christ over the angels. One of his points was this: One may not place angels in the same class as God’s Son. Why not? Because the Father never “at any time” said to an angelic being: “You are my Son” (1:5).
The principle is this: When God is silent about a matter, humanity has no right to be presumptive, and thus to speak (or to act) without his bidding.
That is not silence either! God has only ONE "only begotten "Son"; excluding all others. If people exalt angels as Son, they are clearly contradicting Christ's unique position; not simply adding something "unwritten".
4. One of the most powerful arguments setting forth the “silence” principle is found in Hebrews 7-8. In 8:4, it is affirmed that Jesus Christ, if on earth, could not function as a priest. And why was that the case? Because, as indicated in 7:14, the Lord Jesus was from the tribe of Judah (not Levi). Here is the crux of the matter. Concerning priests from the tribe of Judah, “Moses spake nothing,” or, to say the same thing in another way: He was silent about it!
Silence amounts to no authority, and is thus prohibitive. One scholar expresses it in this fashion:
“It was from the tribe of Judah that our great High Priest descended. The Mosaic legislation never authorized anyone from that tribe to be a priest” (William McDonald, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1971, p. 102).
Or note the comment of the renowned scholar John Owen, in his monumental seven-volume set of commentaries on the book of Hebrews:
“And this silence of Moses in this matter the apostle takes to be a sufficient argument to prove that the legal priesthood did not belong, nor could be transferred, unto the tribe of Judah”(An Exposition on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, Vol. V, p. 442).
Could a matter be clearer? This argument has never been answered by those who ridicule the “silence-is-prohibitive” concept.
Onc again, answered long ago. Naming one tribe excludes all others. If you are going to have one Messiah come out of one tribe, it can't be the others too. So they are excluded, not simply because they "weren't mentioned"; but because the ONE tribe had been specified.
5. An inspired apostle wrote:
“Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9).
There is an objective body of truth designated “the teaching of Christ.” To step beyond it - either into that which is specifically forbidden, or into the unauthorized realm of “silence” - is to transgress the will of God.
There has been considerable technical discussion over the grammar of this passage. Some have contended that the verse addresses only the nature of Jesus, but not peripheral matters of doctrine. The fact is, one of the most ludicrous positions that one can entertain is to allege that one must accept the New Testament teaching about Christ, but he may, with impunity, ignore the instruction that is from the Lord!
The “silence” principle is quite valid, and a repudiation of it leads to abject apostasy.
The Consequences of Rejecting the “Silence” Principle
We must at least give brief attention to the logical consequences that attach to rejecting the “silence” concept. Once one abandons this principle, “anything goes” becomes the name of the game. One of the leading digressive voices of today argued this very point:
“If it were the case that anything not expressly forbidden in the New Testament is permissible in the Christian religion, then we could not only use pianos to accompany our singing but beads to aid our prayers, crucifixes to focus our devotion, and hashish to enhance our sensitivity. We could also initiate an organizational network similar to that which has been protested so strongly in Catholicism or begin financing church projects with bingo games (where legal) on Tuesday evenings. Not one of these things is explicitly forbidden in the New Testament, and no one who denies the legitimacy of the authority principle as outlined above can consistently argue against any of them” (Rubel Shelly, Sing His Praise! A Case For A Capella Music as Worship Today, Nashville, 20th Century Christian, 1987, pp. 33-34).
Those things mentioned ARE forbidden "in principle"! Hashish", for instance, is a mind altering drug. That is "pharmakia" or "sorery"! Many of the RCC practices are pagan, and therefore to be avoided. Gambling comes from covetousness. What does ANY of this have to do with instruments, that would also not exclude the rest of your "eedients such as song books and microphones? You and your authors are shure putting a lot of energy into non-sequitur arguments, themselves based on "silence"!
A Recent Twist
We conclude this study by citing a recent “twist” to the “silence” controversy that, quite frankly, we have yet to decipher. In April of 1988, Alan E. Highers and Given O. Blakely (of the Independent Christian Church) debated the instrumental music issue in Neosho, Missouri. In that encounter, Blakely broke new ground in that he contended that “authority” is wholly irrelevant to the issue of worship. Our friend utterly rejects the “silence” principle. Amazingly, though, in the July, 1996 issue of Banner of Truth, the gentleman wrote these words:
“God’s silence is not a governing factor in matters pertaining to life and godliness. The whole idea of ‘silence,’ as those of the anti-instrumentalist position have used the term, requires the interpretation of fallible men. If God did not say it, then how can we be sure that men have said what He meant, but did not say? How dare mortal men to take upon themselves to thus unauthorizedly speak for God?".
If I understand the point being made, it is this: It is not legitimate to use the “silence” argument because God has been silent regarding the “silence” argument, and if God is silent with reference to the “silence” argument, then the “silence” argument is unauthorized, hence is improper as an argumentative device.
There are two things that may be said in response. First, as we have demonstrated already, God has not been silent regarding the “silence” principle.
Second, in view of Blakely’s reasoning - if God has not said it, it is unauthorized - why is it not the case that the employment of instrumental music in Christian worship is improper, inasmuch as the New Testament is silent concerning its use, and thus it is unauthorized?
Conclusion
There is but one hope of maintaining the purity of Christianity, as that system existed under the leadership of inspired apostles. We must plead that men remain within the guidelines of New Testament authority. That can be done only when the principle of the “silence” of the Scriptures is revered. Wayne Jackson, Christian Courier.Com
--but only when YOU want it to be! (you all decide for us what is "expedient") THAT is Blakely's argument. It is not HE who believes that silence is prohibitive; he is only using it to show how
your own argument cancels itself out! (and disproving the "proofs" of the principle above; it stands that God WAS silent on this "prohibitive" principle! You all consistently take these analogies that just DO NOT FIT!
All of them! You all are so desperate at one-upping everybody. Note in your 1 Cor.1:12 example, he was even criticizing a faction claiming to follow "Christ"! We had this silly nonsense even back then! (Hey, perhaps that WAS a NT reference to the CofC!
)
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17. Please post one scripture that teaches us to sing-play in worship as per the new testament. Is that to much ot ask from someone who argues for them.
All your "prohibitive" logic has been debunked; so you are the one who must find a scripture that teaches that an instrument somehow cancels out "sing" (and in the NT only at that, when apparently it didn't in the OT! Did the laws of nature change?). Else; by FAITH in the Word; I am not required to follow this silly rule!
)
