Discussion: Music and the Church of Christ

[jpholding]

From http://www.tektonics.org/cocmusic.html

Allow me to begin with a confession: J. P. Holding is for all intents and purposes tone-deaf and really wishes that church could be had without music. I'd prefer a double dose of sermon any day, as long as it had enough intellectual content. Even outside the church the music I prefer is either from the Bach school (either one of the older ones, or P. D. Q., makes no difference) or from the mouth of Weird Al Yankovic. So I have no axes to grind here, and really, had I my own preference, might want to agree with the Church of Christ's stance on musical instruments -- and extend that to singing as well.

I recognize that as a personal deficiency, though, so I choose to endure it rather than fight . But for those who do groove to the music, what of the CoC's stance? I was asked to look into an item justifying the CoC's refusal to use mechanical instruments, as presented by one Roger D. Campbell (though I also found some other material on other CoC sites). Now it is hard to tell what is meant at times by "mechanical instruments" -- Campbell names the piano, organs, and guitars, but I get the impression that "mechanical" is broadly defined for any musical instrument and not just "what you can plug in" or "anything with more than one moving part." But either way, let's see what Campbell has to say.

The item starts agreeably enough. "In every age of mankind's history the Lord God has wanted men to worship Him." Obviously true. "[Not] every form of worship that a person might offer to God will be pleasing in His sight." Still obviously true; the examples of Cain and Aaron, to say nothing of syncretistic worship in the divided kingdom, make that clear enough. Worship has to have the right object (God only, not Baal or Asherah), the right attitude (no faking it), and the right standard (i.e., we don't burn lizards or dance naked in the moonlight). So how does this relate to musical instruments? Campbell explains:

As we consider the matter of using or not using mechanical instruments of music (abbreviated "M.I. M.") when we sing and worship the Lord God, the question to which we will be pursuing an answer is basically this one: Is the use of such instruments according to God's truth? If so, then there is no problem in using them. On the other hand, if we do not find scriptural statements that authorize their use, then using them would not be according to His truth, and thus unscriptural.

And there at last we find the keystone. The Bible doesn't say that people in the NT church used instruments in worship; therefore we don't. That sounds fairly convincing, until you take a few things into account. (For some of what follows I am indebted to this site as well as Lang's Music in Western Civilization and the Concise Oxford History of Music.)

First, in the ancient world you didn't just pop down to the music store and buy a trombone. Most musical instruments were hand-crafted and very expensive. Most people couldn't spare the lira for one. Jesus' disciples at the Last Supper were certainly not wealthy enough to afford a clarinet to accompany them on the hymn -- or someone trained in music to do it for them. (Ancient musicians had professional guilds, sort of like unions today.)

Second, you didn't just get one of these instruments and start trumpeting anywhere you wanted. Paul and Silas in prison would not have been allowed to have such personal items with them; there were no travelling minstrels who came by ancient prisons to perform, and if anything any musical instruments Paul and Silas had would have most likely been smashed or stolen by sadistic guards and sold for their value. Campbell's cite of this passage is rather off base.

Third, if you got an instrument, few had the leisure time or the resources to learn to play properly.

Fourth, there were some pretty sound cultural reasons why we might not see instruments in the churches at the time. The site above notes:

...Greek philosophers considered music to have great psychological and even supernatural powers. The Doctrine of ethos maintained that different types of music could affect human behavior. For example, music in the Dorian mode would cause persons to become reasonable and contemplative. Conversely, music in the Phrygian mode would cause persons to become passionate and belligerent. Orpheus, one of the great mythic men of Greece, was said to have the power to move objects and influence the gods with his music. The sound of a given instrument was also very powerful. For example, the lyre and the kithara were said to evoke reason and were linked to the worship of Apollo, the god of reason. Similarly, a double-reed instrument known as the aulos was said to evoke passion and was linked to the worship of Dionysus, the god of ecstasy.
Our other sources add that in the time if the church, "music had sunk to the lowest regions of lascivious amusement." [Lang, 41] Music was also a racketering gig; musicians competed in games with the athletes and used bribery to make sure at least someone applauded.

Of course some have noted today, apart from CoC issues, that certain types of music or instruments may be psychologically inappropriate for a church setting. As a tone-deaf freak, I wouldn't know, but this may suggest that a) some types of music or instruments may be improper for worship, in some settings or in all of them -- those demanding a simple solution or wanting a chart of situations are politely declined and advised to think for themselves; b) a person who is psychologically vulnerable in some way may wish to consider their place of worship more carefully; c) the principle of not causing your brother to sin has some applications -- if your brother stumbles because you play Stryper, try Michael W. Smith instead when you are in their presence; d) mind your own soul and be cautious of your reasons for wanting music or musical instruments. Even singing by itself can be misused; instruments are in no sense special. In any event, these associations of instruments with pagan gods suggests one reason for a lack of instruments in the church -- but also suggests that, with the gods dissipated, a reason for not having them is removed (provided some modern psycho-god or mental idol is not put in their place!).

The site goes on to verify this point:

By the time the last Roman emperor, the young Romulus Augustulus, was finally deposed in 476, the papacy had established itself in Rome and was asserting jurisdiction over the Christian church. The music of the Christian church was for centuries the only cultivated art music in existence in Europe. Early Christian music, largely monophonic chant influenced by the Jewish cantorial tradition, was entirely vocal as the church attempted to purge the masses of the instrumental music associated with competing religions.

So what does this net out to? Campbell cites several verses where people are told to sing, and concludes:

The above-noted verses point out that the first century followers of Christ sang praises to the Lord: these passages make mention of singing but nor singing with mechanical accompaniment. In fact, the first time on record when those that called themselves "Christians" made use of M.I.M. in worship to God was in about the year A.D. 670- that was some 600 years after the New Testament was written.

I will take it for granted that Campbell is right on the 670 date, but this really doesn't matter. The conditions I have described above in terms of availability would endure for the next 1200-1500 years at least. Furthermore by 670 we would expect all pagan connections to various instruments to be erased; by now the church would be safe in taking over this aspect of culture and making it sacred for their own -- as they did for other social peripherals. At the core, though, what Campbell offers is simply a fallacious argument from silence. We don't need a mention of or a command to use instruments anymore than we need one to use a hymnbook. (In that case, of course, there were also social constraints: few people could read, or read music anyway, and printing was expensive -- but the Bible says nothing about hymnbooks or sheet music, so shall we not use those?) Instruments are a component of musical presentation just as these other elements are -- Biblical silence cannot be interpreted as lack of divine authority or non-authority, especially when there were significant social reasons for the silence and no direct provision against such things.

Beyond this of course we do have the evidence of the use of instruments in the OT. Campbell explains this away, however, by stating that the old law and method of sacrifice and worship have been abolished: "...[O]ur worship today is not based upon the teachings of the Old Testament. Israelites of the Old Testament age also burned incense, offered animal sacrifices, and went to Jerusalem to celebrate annual feasts. Are we prepared to say that all of these things that God's children did in the Old Testament worship are acceptable today? Surely not. If we go back to the Old Testament for our religious practices today, then we would be obligated to keep 'the whole law,' not just certain portions of it! (Gal. 5:2)." Nice try -- but musical instruments are only mentioned in the law where a trumpet is sounded (i.e., Lev. 25:9), and that wasn't for musical intent. Later use of instruments in worship was something the Israelites did on their own -- and if Campbell's silence tactic is valid, we may note that God never condemned the use of such things in the context of proper worship. Instruments were not in the law, so it cannot be part of the ritual law which Campbell argues has passed away. Indeed, such worship is a practice reflective of the Hebrew mindset in which suhc open praise was "the basic token of being alive" [Wilson, Our Father Abraham, 156]. The reserve of the CoC is a product of their own Western mores.

Moreover, there is a major distinction between the outward practice and the internal meaning of even the things like incense. Paul and the Jerusalem apostles did continue to visit the Temple and observe the holidays; they simply did not require new converts to do so, and they attended the festivals with a new appreciation of deeper meaning. Today churches may invite Jews for Jesus to speak and encourage parishoners to observe a Passover seder -- thereby gaining a new appreciation for their Juedo-Christian heritage.

Campbell reaches further with this argument: "What about adding chocolate cake to the Lord's Supper? Is there any New Testament command that directly forbids such? No. Why, then, would it be wrong to add chocolate cake to the communion?" This is profoundly irrelevant. The bread and wine have specific associations with the body and blood of Christ; chocolate cake would have no link at all. There is moreover a begged question inherent in this argument -- that instruments are inappropriate for worship just as chocolate cake is inappropos for the communion. But this merely assumes what has yet to be proven.

We are told correctly that worship has to have the right object and the right attitude. Musical instruments are no barrier to either of these in and of themselves. The "right standard" is what is at issue, and in that regard, it is clear that the standard, for the early church, was inextricably linked to the problem of the object. If flutes were associated with Apollo, you didn't use flutes. If Apollo is rendered impotent, then obviously he can't have had any power with respect to flutes in the first place, and you can flute (flout?) away in worship of the true God who has proven the other false. Christianity specialized in undermining social instutions such as slavery and the household codes -- there is no reason why it could not have effected similar reform in music, as they did as well in art. Indeed, is this not becoming salt to the world?

I find it significant that another CoC site finds it necessary to accompany this sort of argument with a closing threat: "Since we cannot be absolutely certain that God finds the use of musical instruments an appropriate form of worship, then it seems quite foolish to risk His wrath by adding something which He did not clearly authorize us to do during collective worship." Well, as far as I can see, altar calls, weekly collections, two services on Sunday and one on Wednesday, business meetings, and other standbys aren't clearly authorized either, but as far as I can see as well the CoC isn't throwing those out the window. The modern church, even the CoC, is a product of its time, and Paul and others would not recognize much of it. However, that it far from important, since the early church was also very much a product of its time; what is important is that they would recognize the members of the body of Christ. "Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's." (2 Cor. 7)

[dizzle]

:thumb:

[Em7add11]

This was a great read. Thank you.

[David O]

What about the psalms that call for musical instruments by name? 10 stringed lyres, and cymbals?

[jpholding]

07-18-2003 @ 08:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=152370#post152370)
David O:

What about the psalms that call for musical instruments by name? 10 stringed lyres, and cymbals?

That is excused away as part of the practice of the old covenant.

[David O]

Seems kind of convinient to me.

[AcousticJS]

Yesterday @ 06:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=154587#post154587)
jpholding:

That is excused away as part of the practice of the old covenant.

What's weird about that, though, is that Paul writes to Colossae and Ephesus telling them to sing Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Let's say one Sunday, the church get around to singing Psalm 150 - it would be strange to sing the Psalm and yet not be allowed to use musical instruments in the worship. I wonder how 'no music' people would answer that.

[David O]

Great question, Acoustic person, is somebody in here defending this concept?

[Solly]

If you had visited our church in 1880, as a reporter did, and wrote about it, you would have found no musical instrument save a tuning pipe to start the hymns. Musical instruments were a long time coming in some quarters; in others it wasn't quite what you would expect - string quartets were common. organs were for the Anglicans and their imitators. We have an electronic organ, with a computer control, because none of us can sing well enough to start and continue a tune; but if it fails we carry on acapella from one of the tunes we do know. We sing hymns from a book from the 19th century, with the emphasis on commnity singing. Where there are enough people, you probably get the "parts" being sung - bass and treble.

I was in a charismatic church for two years, and gained a great distate for contemporary pop idiom music in worship. for a start, it is usually bad, and made more so by the amount of noise genereated; secondly, if leads to individualism and pride in the wrong place, with guitar solos, soaring keyboards, competing drum kits, etc. Third, it is a poor substitute, bringing the world into the church on the principle that the world will then come in - but I would rather listen to Queen or Gary Moore at home that thrid rate musicians who spent the hour before service practising their spontaneous da capos.

Everything should be done decently and in order, not taking away from what the service is about, nor setting the mind on things other than the glory of God. Too much pop idiom music - and I hear it all the time in my local christian bookshop - does this, focussing on men, not God. CoC is merely reflecting its origins by holding onto its position, which has become an extreme position now, and defended with a fanaticism that forgets the original aims.

A few thoughts

slly5

[David O]

Do you sing "A Mighty Fortress is our God?"

[Solly]

Yes, although usually in the translation A Safe Stronghold Our God Is Still

[David O]

Do you know where the melody came from?

[Solly]

I believe Bach (JS) had something to do with it.

[David O]

It was a pop song. Martin Luther used it and put Hymn-type lyrics to it. People still sing it with the original words while getting plastered. Many hymns are set to borrowed pop song melodies. Like, "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross" to "I have a Bonnet trimmed with Blue." I dislike much of the new Christian music because of the terrifyingly bad theology in the lyrics and the seeming lack of creativity, but I can't go with you on the pop music idiom is wrong idea. All popular music is pop music. Bach, Beethoven, Bartok, Brahms all used folk tunes and based works on them (Ode to Joy is also a folk-or pop song melody.) There is no taint on a melody or a style of music. I agree with you that worship should be God-centered and not self-centered. The psalms say "I will" a lot, but keep their focus on God.
Would you allow a violin solo of a Bach work in your church? I have heard it done to the glory of God. A guitar is just as capable of being used for the glory of God. I know of a church where 2 men played the saws with violin bows to the glory of God.
India's music probably sounds like noise to you, but it is just a matter of varieties within a system. I can't tell sophisticated Indian music from base, but an Indian music-loving man can. I can drink fine wine and completely miss all the great nuances that make it wonderful. Blues guys can play one or two notes and speak volumes. Some people hate the blues. I believe that Eminem is a musical genius. You might not hear what he's doing because I can't imagine you have any experience with the rhythm structures he is using. I'm hoping that there is some redeeming quality to most Christian music that I'm missing, since I don't really like much of it. But I'm not telling anyone else not to use it- except for the errant theology songs.

[Solly]

Thanks David, i guessed you were trying to set me up as a patsy for you retort.

You mention eminem -I have heard his music.

You mention rhythm; rhythm is everything for a start. Pounding rhythms in church do not create a sense of peace and tranquility that is conducive to the worship of God. Music on its own has no cognitive content, but it certainly has a psychological one.

Yes, many of our old hymn tunes are old folk and "pop" tunes; but not at the speed they are sung now; how you use music, and what kind of music does matter. Would you use John Cage in a worship service? As for the content of hymns, I can't speak for modern doggeral; let the music match the content then.

A tune should not interfere with the cognitive worship of God; modern pop music does that, and I speak as someone who listened to a lot of it before I was a Christian, particularly heavy metal. Whether someone can play an instrument "to the glory of God" is probably a matter of personal judgment, since there is no standard. When music is linked with words, and usually bodily actions as in modern worship, you are apeing the world, and pandering to the lowest senses, not the higher.

Question: would you play eminem for the inauguration of the President of the USA? Is that appropriate - it's just a tune after all? I won't dump the British national anthem just because the tune appeared in a popular work first. By "pop" I obviously mean a certain style of music, not its current popularity.

sorry if these thoughts are disjointed, I am on dial up and the screen is flashing like crazy...

slly5

[David O]

Solly;
I assumed that you knew where I was going and didn't consider you a "Patsy." Your careless condemnation of pop music was asking for it.

Hymns are almost invariably played faster than the folk songs that they are taken from. Hymns are shockingly accellerated in churches all over the world. I've checked. In Zimbabwe they are slower and really great. The rhythm is spot on perfect. Western church musicians are generally not listening to each other or watching the leader and their rhythm is usually about as orderly as a 4 year old Sunday school class. Well-played rhythm is not a distraction, sloppy rhythm is. God can use both kinds. Melody can overwhelm and rhythm can overwhelm. Why do you act like it would be OK for melody to be sophisticated and not rhythm?

Your beloved hymns are "aping the world" by your logic. They come directly from the world. Would you fault David for his body movements, or the Psalms for their directions to clap hands? Some Psalms call for "loud crashing cymbals." Is this condusive to what you have erroneously decided that worship properly is?

Fleetwood Mac played for an inaguration of a president. They wrote a magnificent song called "Peacekeeper" in defence of our current president's actions. Eminem is capable of writing a magnificent song for a presidential inaguration. I might find an occation for John Cage in church. You can't just decide that the style of music that you like (or understand) is the only appropriate one for worship.
By "pop" you seem to mean just whatever music you don't like. We can't have words mean what we want them to mean. They mean what they mean.
There is a standard for "To the glory of God." God knows when it is. You can miss it. I could play an Indian worship service tape and a Hindu music tape and you couln't tell the difference. God can.

[themuzicman]

Since when is worship only about "creat[ing] a sense of peace and tranquility"?

As I read the psalms, I find a variety of emotional settings, from grief to boundless joy to anger. Seems to me that you want to limit worship to what you're comfortable with.

Personally, I'd rather worship with people who don't sing so well, but have an open an honest heart about where they are and their appreciation for God that sit in a perfectly played and organized group that mouths the words and only seeks "peace and tranquillity."

Michael

[Mike K]

07-22-2003 @ 01:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=155145#post155145)
Solly:


I was in a charismatic church for two years, and gained a great distate for contemporary pop idiom music in worship. for a start, it is usually bad, and made more so by the amount of noise genereated; secondly, if leads to individualism and pride in the wrong place, with guitar solos, soaring keyboards, competing drum kits, etc. Third, it is a poor substitute, bringing the world into the church on the principle that the world will then come in - but I would rather listen to Queen or Gary Moore at home that thrid rate musicians who spent the hour before service practising their spontaneous da capos.

Everything should be done decently and in order, not taking away from what the service is about, nor setting the mind on things other than the glory of God. Too much pop idiom music - and I hear it all the time in my local christian bookshop - does this, focussing on men, not God. CoC is merely reflecting its origins by holding onto its position, which has become an extreme position now, and defended with a fanaticism that forgets the original aims.

A few thoughts

slly5


Whoa....

Ok, here we go. First of all, if the reason you have a distaste for a certain "type" of music in church is for the reasons you listed above, then we should probably take the pastor off the platform, lay him prostrate on the floor, and have him preach the word from behind a curtain because there is a great potential for him to become prideful standing in front of people. And heaven forbid someone exclaims "Amen" in agreement with him, that would most certainly encourage his prideful antics.

Secondly, ANY gift or talent given by God has the propensity for misuse. Would you suggest musicians play down their gifts or hold back and not invest fully what the Lord has deposited in them? That would surely be sinful.

Musicians have the awesome responsibility to play to God the father, to the best of their ability, for His pleasure. The audience is simply along for the ride. If I play and feel the pleasure of the Lord and want to impress Him by expressing what I feel for Him with a guitar solo, in proper context and sync with the band, who are you to judge me? You should be worshiping and not focusing on me.

Musicians should express the creativity of God the father, and their music should exhault and show forth the greatness of Christ as well as the humility of a life submitted to Him. If they dumbed down what God has invested in them, they should be sorely punished! If anyone in leadership should attempt to put a harness on them, he should be publically flogged. (Lord please remind me not to do this in the future and have to eat my words :-)

EVERYONE has the potential to misuse what God has entrusted to them. I wonder what would happen if we tried to harness financial administrators of the Church? "Excuse me sir, but you can't work to the best of your ability, that would intice you to be prideful, only work to half-capacity." :-)

[Chika4Jesus]

The problem with arguing that only certian types of enviornments are condusive to worship is that it differs from person to person. At my church there are alot of people from Church of Christ background and they do not necessarily enjoy Sunday morning worship like others do. Thankfully they relize that songs of praise are only part of our worship of God. I think the best we can do in reguard to the "how to's" as Christians and espically those who are music leaders in our churches is look to the scriptures as our guide for worship and try to bless the people we are leading in the congregation. Obviously heart attitude and focus is our most import concern during worship time not the style of music or how that music is played. I think we should take our thoughts on Sunday mornings off what we would prefer for worship (style rhythm ect) and instead focus on the greatness of our God.

[mrsnacks]

Solly wrote :
was in a charismatic church for two years, and gained a great distate for contemporary pop idiom music in worship. for a start, it is usually bad, and made more so by the amount of noise genereated; secondly, if leads to individualism and pride in the wrong place, with guitar solos, soaring keyboards, competing drum kits, etc. Third, it is a poor substitute, bringing the world into the church on the principle that the world will then come in - but I would rather listen to Queen or Gary Moore at home that thrid rate musicians who spent the hour before service practising their spontaneous da capos.
---------------------------------------------------
mrsnacks responds:

Correction ; it CAN lead to individualism and pride.The third rate musicians are there serving the Lord generally speaking. I have led worship and been part of it in various churches.I am a pro musician in the business and I have never put down the lesser musicians in service . They are there to serve. Sorry, they don't measure up to your standard. Doesn't the Lord look at the heart? You seem to have your eyes focused on the outside there my friend.

Straw man there on generalizing that music is in the church to draw the people . I am sure churches do use music as a draw, but many do not. It is just part of the service. I would rather listen to Miles, Hancock, Coltrane than forth rate musicians such as Queen or Gary Moore anyday (sorry ). Jazz and classical is so much a higher form than rock. I like rock and I've played with many huge rock acts in stadiums. But a typical rock song has no complicated chords and may use 4-6 chords per song. The solos are based on one scale - the blues scale. Compared to the solos of Mike Stern, David Brecker, Art Tatum, Hancock,Joe Pass, Wes Montgomery and etc there is no comparison. I'm sorry I like Queen but that's elementary stuff. It has taken me as long as 3 months to learn a classical piece. It would take me 5 minutes to learn a Queen song. But that's not the issue though. I am not musically challenged listening to pop. But I enjoy a lot of it. I would never by a country album , but I respect the art. Great stories and beauty in simpliciity .

I have been in churches where there weren't any musical instruments. There wasn't anyone in the congregation that could play unfortunately. So they all sang accapella. Talk about pride. Pride and individualism comes from the human heart. The voice is an instrument also. And without musical instruments then what is left are just voices. And you know as well as I do there are some with better voices than others. So I have known singers who know they have a great voice and they let everyone know that they do by singing out loudly (ego ). We are dealing with human nature and emotions . They are not left at the entrance when one enters the church building. In fact the NT church didn't meet in buidings but in homes. So what should we do about that ?

I have seen jealousy , envy, and pride, come out of a service without the instruments. And the focus should be God , I agree. But standing next to someone singing out of tune and horribly can easily take your focus off of God pretty quickly. But I smile and continue as best as I can.
I also think being a pro -musician , that the pop christian songs that you don't like are written by songwriters who have been motivated in their heart of hearts to praise God. I know I have written songs that have been recorded and at the time of writing - I just desired to honor God using my abilities and talent which comes from Him to praise and thank Him. What's wrong with that ?Also you have a choice.

I think that Black gospel music is joyful and exciting and I am a little bias being mixed with black . It was exciting in the days of slavery in this country as well as today. Remember, churches were segregated back then . Blacks weren't allowed in the white Christian churches. So life was hard and difficult and the black church was a release. It was a place where Bible preaching and singing was joyful. White churches were generally dead and boring. One of the fruits of the Spirit is JOY isn't it ?I know 95% plus here at the site are white but I am just being honest. So if someone picks up a tamboreen or sits at the piano or plugs in a guitar and does it in the name of the Lord-- what's the fuss if there's order ?

So try to be sensitive to those songwriters and performers who do this in honoring God. I am sure if someone said to you that they didn't like the way you worship God or your singing and expressions were awful- it wouldn't go over very well .

The church is a place to worship God among other things. some worship with their voices , others in dance and in drama. I don't see anything wrong with it. True pride can grow from having these things. But pride and ego can come from not having these either.

[David O]

09-13-2003 @ 07:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=211124#post211124)
mrsnacks:

But standing next to someone singing out of tune and horribly can easily take your focus off of God pretty quickly. But I smile and continue as best as I can.
.


There is your error. The most joyful singing I have ever heard came from a wheelchair-bound man who could not manage the tune or the sylables, but made a very loud joyful noise whenever he sang in church. Those who were bothered by his inability to match notes or form words were the arrogant ones. Your smile is a cynical one. "As best you can" would really involve joining in with that one who is infinitessimally less in control of their voice than you. More complicated doesn't necessarily equal better. In the guitar world we call people like you "wankers."

[mrsnacks]

David O : You jumped on the bandwagon to quick without thinking first. Let me explain myself - I believe I know myself better than you know me. I can only speak one sentence at a time. If I am singing and there's a voice that is coming through loud and clear and it is completely off pitch- I can do nothing but do the best I can. What is wrong with doing the best I can ? You seem to think something is wrong.That the way to act is be imitate you - do nothing , say nothing , and act like everything is fine. Everyone isn't like you. So you look down on people who don't respond like you do ? No matter what you say it's annoying to me- like your comment . It can be very difficult trying to sing on key when one is nearby off key. Maybe your tone deaf so it doesn't affect you. It bothers me. That's why in church, the pastor prefers that the parents take the children to class during the service . Kids make a joyful noise , but like the out of tune singer -- it can be annoying when one is trying to concentrate on the sermon or the song. Here's what Solly said earlier :
=========================
but I would rather listen to Queen or Gary Moore at home that thrid rate musicians who spent the hour before service practising their spontaneous da capos.
===========================
Solly is in his opinion is judging the musicianship of those who play at church. He calls them third rate and has expressed his dislike for third rate musicians . Is he arrogant too ? Is he a "wanker ? Could it be that the third rate musicians' hearts were in the right place making a joyful noise ? So give him a speech .

"I am a musician and it may be true that the one singing off key his heart is right, but I'm sorry a bad singer is a bad singer. A third rate musician is third rate. Heart isn't the issue.

And others were affected by his bad pitch , not just me. If I choose to buy a CD - I choose to listen to an artist that has good vocal ability style and pitch. Joyful noise but in tune .

[Socrates]

Great IP by JP. :highfive:

About styles of music, there are some I find distasteful :eww:, e.g. the trite 7-11 choruses (7 words repeated 11 times :hrm:). But it's important not to confuse personal taste with right and wrong. So any idea that some music style is satanic is off the mark. :shocked:

[David O]

Mr. Snacks. This is a subject that I have spent years thinking about. Jimmy Swaggart mentioned my band in one of his pompous anti Christian rock books. I've made records. I can sing on pitch and tell you when you're off. I can sing joyfully on pitch with a noisy retarded guy bellowing his praise to God right next to me. The difference between the music you like and the music you don't like has nothing to do with what God likes. You are an arrogant wanker. Heart is the issue, and yours is offensive. God's not saying, "Wow, Mr. Snacks is so cool, I wish that off-pitch guy would just shut up with all of his heart-felt praise."

If a 7-11 chorus is used by someone to praise God, then I'm happy about it. I don't have to enjoy the style of the chorus or the genre, but if the lyrical content is Theologically sound, I'll make myself join in. If the Theology is off, I'll not join in but will hope that those who do will be pleasing to God in their hearts.

I love Brian May, but one day in God's house (with musicians that he can play circles around) is better than a thousand spent at home with a CD player.

When I get the magnificent opportunity to play or sing in church I do it to the best of my ability, just like the off-pitch guy does, only I am lucky enough to have some skills and control that he lacks. He and I are on the same team, and my ability is infinitessimaly different than his in God's sight. Your arrogant exclusivity is noteworthy, though.

[mrsnacks]

The difference between the music you like and the music you don't like has nothing to do with what God likes. Edited by a moderator. Heart is the issue, and yours is offensive. God's not saying, "Wow, Mr. Snacks is so cool, I wish that off-pitch guy would just shut up with all of his heart-felt praise."
============================
mrsnacks responds:
Offensive to you but not to God. And you're not God. You do speak for God a lot . It may be God is saying "Wow mrsnacks is having trouble singing on pitch because of the guy next to him . They are both cool. But I wish David O would stop giving mrsnacks such a hard time. "

It can be that God likes all music if it gives praise and honor to Him . He inhabits the praises of His people. I was not talking about styles. That's personal taste. You 've spent years thinking about it and that's good . It could be your thinking is incorrect . My question is - what have you been thinking about ? I've spent years thinking about various issues leaning on my own understanding and have found out later I was in error.

I started in the music biz at 6 years old. Since that time I've produced , played, wrote hits, and been a part of many major acts and recordings. Basically in the secular market.
========================
I can sing joyfully on pitch with a noisy retarded guy bellowing his praise to God right next to me
=======================
mrsnacks responds:
Did you say noisy ?
Every one that is singing during the service is singing praise to God whether one is on key or off. The heart is a different matter. i can't see the person's heart and neither can you -see the heart of the individual. The one singing off pitch may have an off- pitched heart also, Who knows ? I know this person who attends a church who just sings out with power and joy and sounds off pitch , but not annoying . He lifts his hands and is so into the worship. But I know this guy. He's a Sunday Christian . The rest of the week he spends his time living deep in sin. The rest in the church think so highly off him - but obviously they don't see the heart. He's got them fooled.

You missed my point thus making a mountain out of a molehill. One singing loudly off pitch throws me off and is annoying to me. If the person would sing softer or standing farther away from me - it wouldn't be an issue. So it doesn't bother you- so it bothers me .An example is when I have led a choir. One that is singing off key throws the the other singers off a little . But maybe in your case it's not the pitch that matters. So why should I rehearse the choir you say ? Why have a piano or organ ? In fact all churches I've been in have the piano tuned regularly. Did you ever wonder why ? Just have everyone just sing out and grab whatever note they want as long as their heart is in the right place. But then how do you judge that ?

Let me ask you being that you were in a group. You said that one singing off pitch next to you doesn't throw you off. Did you tune your guitars before a performance ?Having to sing to an untuned guitar throw you off ?
======================
If a 7-11 chorus is used by someone to praise God, then I'm happy about it
=====================
Well I'm happy that your happy.

=====================
Socrates said :
About styles of music, there are some I find distasteful , e.g. the trite 7-11 choruses (7 words repeated 11 times ). But it's important not to confuse personal taste with right and wrong. So any idea that some music style is satanic is off the mark.
======================
mrsnacks responds:

I agree. So you would rather have a chorus not repeat itself ? i would think that on that basis - you don't like a lot of music. I don't mean this as a slam on you so please don't take it in a wrong way.

I mean take" Hey Jude" by the Beatles. The chorus is repeated at the end over and over and then it fades. That's typical of pop or modern music. Take practically all of the Beatle songs or songs in general. The 1st verse is repeated in the 2nd and 3rd verse . The chorus is repeated at least three times in the song. That's music. In language you are using the same words over and over again , but I guess that's okay(smile).

I had one person say to me that they didn't like "Handel's Messiah" because it has too many Hallelujahs in the piece. To repetitive.
You are right in that it's about right and wrong not style. . I've had christians say that this particular style of music is evil because of the beat. It sounds satanic they say. I press them for a reason why if one plays the drums using a certain pattern ( kick on the one and the and of two and three ) why is that evil ? But it's not evil if the drums are played more quietly and the kick is not used as much . Go figure.

But many christians equate style with what's right and wrong I notice. They label let's say todays pop music as terrible and distasteful , but really imply that they think it's objectively wrong or evil. The lyrics maybe, but the music behind it is neutral don't you think ? A C chord is a C chord.

[IBreakCellPhone]

OK, I'm definitely not the average attendee of a church of Christ. With that out of the way...

My own take on instruments is that the argument from silence is lacking. Nothing seems to force the issue to be one of correct versus incorrect teaching. I don't mind instruments in a worship setting, however, there are a few things that I think instruments should be held in check by.

1. A tune cannot be labled a "Christian" tune. There's nothing about a certain series of notes that makes a tune "Christian" or not. For this reason, I don't like to have instruments alone. They should be accompanied with words.

2. A song that can't be understood isn't really a song at all. One time, on the radio, I heard a rendition of "A Mighty Fortress" with a full choir and orchestra. I couldn't even figure out what vowels they were sounding out. I was thoroughly unedified. Of course, the host came on after that and said, "Wasn't that a great verse?" It was an exposition on the hymn, but I had no clue as to what was just sung.

3. It can't be so loud as to cross the threshold of pain. My parents used to attend a church where they wore earplugs for the song service. I don't think God is glorified by having people bleed out their ears, and this could have likely happened at this place.

So long as these three conditions are met, I can worship with instruments. If they're not, I feel uncomfortable and out of place.

[Spiritus Naturae]

I am currently experiencing a dilemma with my spouse in regards to the CoC. She has been a member since childhood and is unable to see any error in their teaching but plenty of error everywhere else. The non instrumental worship is only one of a myriad of things that keep the congregation there isolated and unable and unwilling to fellowship with fellow christians. However, according to them everyone else outside of a CoC is not a Christian. :bonk: Quite troublesome and a cross that is difficult to bear. I appreciate this posting on CoC and music as I was unaware of exactly what this church taught until after I was married to my beloved. I think it's important to explore the other doctrines and teachings of the CoC as well. Somewhere on TW I posted a thread entitled Baptism and the Churches of Christ, as that is another teaching of theirs I cannot agree with. Thanks again JP :teeth:

Spiritus Naturae

[Harrell]

Although I came across this discussion a couple of weeks ago, I have been a bit hesitant to comment. This is partly due to personal time constraints, and partly due to the way the discussion was couched (i.e., “Music and the Church of Christ”). Although I am a member of the Church of Christ and am quite willing to explain why I believe as I do, I much prefer to discuss this (or any other subject) from the standpoint of “what does the Bible teach” than from the standpoint of “what does the (name the church) teach.” Even if we pursued the latter question fully, we would not necessarily have discovered the truth, since it matters very little what (name a church) teaches if it is not the truth. The better course to follow would be to find what the Bible teaches and then if (name a church) happens to be following the Bible pattern, then we can be certain that it is teaching the truth. If it isn’t, it ain’t. It’s as simple as that.

With that in mind, I’d like to rephrase the subject to “Music in the New Testament Church,” and see where it takes us. I’d first like to lay a bit of groundwork so that (1) we’ll all be on the same footing, and (2) you’ll better understand where I’m coming from as this discussion progresses.

Before commenting on what kind of music is authorized in the NT church, I think it is first important to understand something about "authority." There are only two possible sources of authority: God and man. In Matt. 21:23-27 there is an interesting exchange between Jesus, the chief priests and elders. The chief priests and elders knew that they had not authorized Christ to teach or to do what he had been doing, so they inquired about his authority and the source of it. They recognized, by their questions, that we must not only have authority for what we teach or practice, but our authority must also come from the right source. In his response, Jesus asked them, “The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or of men?” By this response, Jesus not only acknowledged the need for authority but He also showed us that authority comes from only one of two sources: from heaven (God) or from men (our own doctrines). Now Jesus’ response put the religious leaders squarely on the horns of a dilemma, for, as they reasoned among themselves, “If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why then did ye not believe him? But if we shall say, From men; we fear the multitude; for all hold John as a prophet.” By their reasoning, it is evident that these men recognized four important truths: That authority can emanate from only two sources. It can come from God, or from men. That whatever did not come from God must have man as its source. That whatever is authorized by men is of no consequence. That all men are obligated to order their lives within the bounds of what God has authorized.

The scene in Matt. 21:23-27 shows that whatever is not “from heaven” is “from men” and if our practices are “from men” then they may not only be irrelevant but even unacceptable to God. A case in point is the traditions of the Pharisees regarding handwashing (Matt. 15:1-9). They had made their handwashing tradition a matter of religious piety and in so doing they made their worship "vain."

In its primary sense, the word "authority" refers to the right or power to command or issue orders. It is so used in Matt. 28:18, where Jesus said, "all power (i.e., authority) is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” Because He is Deity, Jesus has the right and the power to command, to issue orders- He is Authority. But in a secondary sense, the word "authority" can also be used to refer to the right or power to act in a certain way. This secondary authority (i.e., right to act) can only be conferred by one who has primary authority (i.e., who has the right to command), and it is therefore limited only to those things which are "authorized." This secondary authority is what is spoken of in 1Pet. 4:11, "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever." From this, we may reasonably conclude that we are acting "with authority" (secondary authority) only when God has "authorized" (primary authority) what we are doing.

This, of course, brings up another question, and that is "must God authorize everything that we do?" And then a third question, "how can we determine what God has authorized?" The answer to the first question is really rather simple. In Col. 3:17, Paul commands, "whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus." In this text, “in the name of” means “by the authority of.” So, we are instructed to have authority from God for all that we do “in word or in deed.” That's a pretty exhaustive command… "whatsoever." Did Paul really mean what he said? Do I really have to have authority from God for everything I do or say? Most professing Christians are not bold enough to dismiss this command out of hand, but different approaches are taken to ascertain what is "authorized" and what is not. The approach that some have taken is that everything that God has not specifically commanded is forbidden. Others take the approach that everything is authorized unless it is specifically forbidden. I would suggest that both of these approaches to establishing Biblical authority is deficient. The first is far too narrow, and the latter is much too broad. There is, I think, a middle approach that makes much more sense, one which we operate under every day of our lives.

Obviously, anything that God has specifically commanded is "authorized." But these specific commands can be simultaneously inclusive and exclusive. To illustrate, look at Gen. 6:14-16. God commanded Noah to build an ark. He gave him specific instructions as to what things to put into the ark. Noah was to put in one window, one door, and make it of gopher wood. It was not necessary for God to specifically condemn the addition of other doors or windows in order for Noah to understand what God had authorized. God did not need to instruct Noah not to use any other kind of wood before Noah could understand that the specific command to use gopher wood automatically excluded any other kind of wood. Noah understood the concept of authority as set forth by Paul thousands of years later in Colossians 3:17. He was only free to do what God had told him to do. Anything more or less would have been without God’s authority, and would not have met with God’s approval.

Of course, when God specifically commanded (authorized) a certain kind of wood (gopher), every other kind of wood was excluded. It was therefore not necessary for God to say "build the ark out of gopher wood, but do not use pine, or oak, or cypress, or ash, or mahogany…". So a specific command automatically excludes every other classification. On the other hand, a specific command is inclusive of all "kinds" within the specified "class." To continue the illustration, when God specified "gopher wood," all other classes of wood were excluded and unauthorized. However, the Lord did not choose to restrict Noah as to the source of the gopher wood or the "kind" of gopher wood (assuming that there were different kinds) that he could use. So, Noah was authorized to use gopher wood from any location that was convenient (expedient) for him- so long as it was gopher wood. Similarly, he was authorized to choose red gopher, white gopher, or any other "kind" of gopher wood that was convenient (expedient) for him to select. From this, we may conclude that when God specifies a particular class of thing or a particular process to follow, then we are authorized to do whatever is convenient (expedient) within that specified class, but we are forbidden from doing anything that does not fall within that class.

Now, how may these principles be brought to bear on the matter of music in worship? Well, in Col. 3:16 and Eph. 5:19 God specified a particular class of music (vocal, singing) and a particular class of song (psalms, hymns, spiritual songs). Any other class of music or any other class of song is therefore "unauthorized" by God. Does that mean that another class of music or song is inherently sinful? No, of course not. It just means that God has authorized our worshiping Him in singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. "But," someone objects "Turkey in the Straw and The Star-Spangled Banner are perfectly good songs. Why can't we introduce these and other songs like them into our worship?" The answer should be obvious. Although there is nothing inherently immoral or sinful about these songs, they are of a different "class" than "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs." Inasmuch as God specified the latter, all other classes are to be excluded from our worship. "Well, what about our piano? We can make music on it. We can even play psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs on it. And we can make prettier music on it than we can by merely singing." But again, music that is formed by mechanical instruments such as a piano is of a different class than that which is formed in the heart and comes forth as the fruit of our lips. God's Word specifically authorizes the latter, and thereby excludes the former.

Well then, is everything authorized by command? No, at least not by an explicit command. There are some things that we know that God has authorized even though there is no specific statement or command regarding them. One way that we may reach this conclusion is by looking at approved Biblical examples. Now, if we can find New Testament examples of Christians using instruments of music in their worship toward God, then this would indicate that it had been approved by God. To my knowledge, there are no such examples.

Another way that we might learn what is authorized by God is by drawing necessary inferences from the scripture. Paul uses this method in Hebrews 7:14 where he argues that the Old Testament law (the law of Moses) had been done away. How did he reach this conclusion? Notice, "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." So what does this mean? Simply that Jesus, the Messiah, was prophesied to be both king and priest. He could not, however, be a priest under the law of Moses because He was from the tribe of Judah, not Levi (the priestly tribe). Now, since Jesus is our high priest, and since He could not be our high priest if the old law was still in force (seeing that He was not from the tribe of Levi), then He could only be our high priest if there has been a change in covenants. This is the only inference that one could draw from the scriptures, Paul says. Now, as pertains to instrumental music, I'm not aware of any logic that would compel a person to necessarily infer that New Testament Christians used instrumental music in their worship. Please notice, I said necessarily infer- that is, an inference that must be drawn, one which is unavoidable, undeniable.

This may not answer all questions, but hopefully it will give those of you who are interested something to think about.

[jpholding]

Harrell,

Your entire commentary is merely a restatment of the position that my article refutes. It is absurd to speak of what is "authorized" without taking some consideration of contexual constraints. The "authorization" (command!) to build barriers around our roof in the Law is intelligible only in that context of the ANE setting in which people lived and worked on the roof as a matter of course. So likewise the NT "authorization" for types of music is only intelligible within the understanding that instruments were simply not readily available.

The simplistic "solo sciptura" mindset this sort of argument is based on can only be a disservice to the Body of Christ.

[Harrell]

Jpholding,

Your entire commentary is merely a restatement of the position that my article refutes. It is absurd to speak of what is "authorized" without taking some consideration of contextual constraints. Actually, your original article refuted nothing at all, and certainly not in “consideration of contextual constraints.” Now, if you had said that you had refuted arguments against instrumental music in the NT church by appealing to “conjectural constraints” then I would have no complaint. Of course, conjecture doesn’t pass for proof. Since you brought up your original article, let’s revisit your arguments, shall we?

"[Not] every form of worship that a person might offer to God will be pleasing in His sight." Still obviously true; the examples of Cain and Aaron, to say nothing of syncretistic worship in the divided kingdom, make that clear enough. Well, it’s “obvious” that God wasn’t pleased with Cain’s sacrifice, but why? I’d like to hear your explanation, if you have one. It might help you to take a look at Heb. 11:4 and Rom. 10:17. When you arrive at an answer, let me know.

The Bible doesn't say that people in the NT church used instruments in worship; therefore we don't. That sounds fairly convincing, until you take a few things into account. (For some of what follows I am indebted to this site as well as Lang's Music in Western Civilization and the Concise Oxford History of Music.) And so begins your “contextual constraints” arguments. Not an appeal to context at all, but an appeal to the history of music in general coupled with your own conjecture as to how this applied to the early church.

Jesus' disciples at the Last Supper were certainly not wealthy enough to afford a clarinet to accompany them on the hymn -- or someone trained in music to do it for them. (Ancient musicians had professional guilds, sort of like unions today.)Conjecture, not founded on Biblical context. To begin with, you have no idea how wealthy or poor Jesus’ disciples might have been. I would concede that they were not generally a wealthy bunch of folks, but then, neither am I. But I can afford a clarinet. In fact, I can afford a clarinet, two flutes, and two guitars. I’m not saying it’s been easy, but I was able to do it and I have no reason to believe that the early disciples could not have done the same- either on an individual basis or by pooling their collective resources. Furthermore, it is pure conjecture to suppose only “professional” musicians would have been “trained” (or capable) of playing upon an instrument. I know quite a few folks who are quite adept on various musical instruments, though they never received a single hour of formal training. Which brings me to your fourth conjecture, that none of Jesus’ disciples were “professional” musicians. Within just a few weeks of Pentecost there were well over 8,000 members of the NT church. Are you willing to assert that among this large number that there was no one who was a musician? That there was no one who owned a musical instrument? That there was no one who was wealthy enough to afford to purchase an instrument? That such a large body of believers couldn’t raise enough money to buy an instrument (Acts 4:34 might be a verse you’d want to think about here)?

Second, you didn't just get one of these instruments and start trumpeting anywhere you wanted. Paul and Silas in prison would not have been allowed to have such personal items with them... Campbell's cite of this passage is rather off base. I’m not familiar with the article to which you are referring, and I’m not here to defend anything that may have been written there. However, I’ve got a hunch that you spun Mr. Campbell’s reference to build your own straw man. In any case, I agree with you that the example of Paul and Silas singing in prison does not necessarily rule out the possibility that instrumental music was also acceptable to God in NT worship. Of course, it doesn’t rule it in either, does it? What this reference does do, however, is to demonstrate for us that worshiping God with singing (vocal music, as opposed to instrumental music) was authorized by God, was acceptable to God. Instrumental music may also be authorized and approved by God, but this passage certainly doesn’t make the case for you, does it?

Third, if you got an instrument, few had the leisure time or the resources to learn to play properly.hooey! Is this what passes for “contextual” consideration where you come from? Just more conjecture.

Fourth, there were some pretty sound cultural reasons why we might not see instruments in the churches at the time. You move cautiously away from personal conjecture here, but still offer no scriptural “contextual” support for your contention that instrumental music was authorized by God and approved in NT worship.

At the core, though, what Campbell offers is simply a fallacious argument from silence. We don't need a mention of or a command to use instruments anymore than we need one to use a hymnbook. Finally, you decided to try to make an argument from something other than conjecture. Unfortunately, your argument is a non-starter. In my last post, I explained in some detail the concept of general and specific authority. I won’t restate my arguments, but would encourage you to respond to them. With respect to your statement here, I would point out that the Lord specified the kind of music He desired from us (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Unless you can demonstrate from these or other NT passages that some other kind of music was equally authorized and acceptable, then there is only one logical (and scriptural) conclusion: any kind of music that is different than what God has specified (authorized) is excluded.

Concerning the hymnbook, it is authorized under the category of general authority. The Lord specified the kind of music (vocal, singing) and the kind of songs (psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs). He did not, however, specify the medium that should be used. Therefore, any medium that is expedient to carry out the command to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs would be acceptable to God (for more discussion, I refer you to my last post). They could sing from memory, or from scrolls, or parchments, or by writing the words in the sand. As long as it would expedite the congregation’s worship to God in song, God did not care.

Instruments are a component of musical presentation just as these other elements are -- Biblical silence cannot be interpreted as lack of divine authority or non-authority, especially when there were significant social reasons for the silence and no direct provision against such things. Well, I suppose that if the Lord had said in Eph. 5:19, “make a musical presentation to the Lord” then you might have a case. You could make any sort of “musical presentation” that suited your fancy and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The only problem is that the Lord didn’t say that, did He? He specified the particular kind or type of “musical presentation” that we were to make to Him, didn’t He?

As to the last comment in this excerpt (“no direct provision against such things”), I’d like you to answer these questions, and explain your answers: Would it be acceptable to God to add Turkey in the Straw or Ol’ Dan Tucker to or songs of worship, since there is “no direct provision against such things?” Would it be acceptable to use steak and ice cream in the Lord’s Supper since there is “no direct provision against such things?” Would it be permissible for Jesus to be a priest on earth since there is “no direct provision against such things?” (for help on this one, and I’d like to hear your comments, see Heb. 8:4).

Beyond this of course we do have the evidence of the use of instruments in the OT. The quote you offered from Mr. Campbell dealt with this sufficiently, I thought. Of course, you didn’t think so, and responded, Nice try -- but musical instruments are only mentioned in the law where a trumpet is sounded (i.e., Lev. 25:9), and that wasn't for musical intent. Later use of instruments in worship was something the Israelites did on their own -- and if Campbell's silence tactic is valid, we may note that God never condemned the use of such things in the context of proper worship. Nice try, but musical instruments are mentioned in a number of places in the OT, in the context (this, by the way, is the proper use of the term “contextual”) of acceptable worship to God. The fact that “God never condemned the use of such things in the context of proper worship” (as in the Psalms, for example), supports my position rather than yours. Again, I refer you back to my last post. In the third paragraph from the end, I note the place of “approved examples” in establishing scriptural authority. While it may very well be true that we have no record of God specifically commanding or authorizing the use of musical instruments in OT worship, the mere fact that we have a record that they were used and that their use was apparently accepted by God inasmuch as He never did a single thing to put a stop to it (as He did with things that the Israelites did with which He was not pleased) is evidence enough that God authorized their use. The problem that you are facing is that not only do you not have evidence of any specific authorization of musical instruments in the NT church, you can’t even supply us with evidence in the form of approved examples where they were employed.

Moreover, there is a major distinction between the outward practice and the internal meaning of even the things like incense. Paul and the Jerusalem apostles did continue to visit the Temple and observe the holidays; they simply did not require new converts to do so, and they attended the festivals with a new appreciation of deeper meaning. And this proves instrumental music was acceptable in the NT worship? Does it prove that the Levitical priesthood was still valid as a part of God’s church? Does it prove that animal sacrifices remain valid as part of our worship to God? You’re traveling back down that road of conjecture again.

Campbell reaches further with this argument: "What about adding chocolate cake to the Lord's Supper? Is there any New Testament command that directly forbids such? No. Why, then, would it be wrong to add chocolate cake to the communion?" This is profoundly irrelevant. The bread and wine have specific associations with the body and blood of Christ; chocolate cake would have no link at all. The question is perfectly relevant, and you didn’t touch topside nor bottom of it. Only because you are able to “see” a “specific association” between the unleavened bread / fruit of the vine and the body / blood of Christ does the question become “irrelevant.” This is nothing more than “walking by sight” rather than by faith. Yours is an argument that says “I see a connection, therefore I believe.” By implication, your argument is that unless you can see “specific associations” between what God has specified and what you want to do, then you aren’t limited to doing what God has authorized. Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain to me how it is possible for you to obey God by doing something that God hasn’t commanded or authorized by approved example or necessary inference.

We are told correctly that worship has to have the right object and the right attitude. Musical instruments are no barrier to either of these in and of themselves. The "right standard" is what is at issue, and in that regard, it is clear that the standard, for the early church, was inextricably linked to the problem of the object. If flutes were associated with Apollo, you didn't use flutes. Again, conjecture. You are assuming that the early church did not use musical instruments because they “were associated with Apollo.” Of course, the fact that sex was associated with the worship of all sorts of pagan gods and goddesses of that time didn’t keep married couples from making babies, did it? And while there were some Christians who had personal conscience against eating certain meats that had been offered to pagan idols, Paul took great care to show that it was not necessary to avoid any kind of food simply because of how it might have been used in pagan worship. Now then, if they were smart enough to see that sex and meat were still OK, even though both were “associated” with idol worship, don’t you think they would have been smart enough to see that musical instruments were not “tainted” by pagan worship?

Christianity specialized in undermining social institutions such as slavery and the household codes -- there is no reason why it could not have effected similar reform in music, as they did as well in art.These things were “undermined” by regulating their proper use. Christians still owned slaves, but they were taught to treat them with dignity and respect (more like the modern employer/employee relationship). And whatever “household codes” you have in mind were dealt with in the same fashion. These are not good examples for the case you are trying to make with respect to musical instruments.

Well, as far as I can see, altar calls, weekly collections, two services on Sunday and one on Wednesday, business meetings, and other standbys aren't clearly authorized either, but as far as I can see as well the CoC isn't throwing those out the window.Again, I refer you to my last post and the discussion on the difference between general and specific authority. All of these things are authorized in scripture, and I’d be happy to explain it to you, but first you need to digest the concept of general and specific authority.

[jpholding]

Harrumph,

Actually, your original article refuted nothing at all, and certainly not in “consideration of contextual constraints.”

It most certainly did, though barefaced denial of relevance of such matters is a hallmark of CoC teaching. There is not one thing "conjectural" involved in what I wrote. The data gathered is supported by scholarship and constitutes sufficient evidence against the simplistic CoC position, which takes silence as far as it can, to the extent of paranoia.

Well, it’s “obvious” that God wasn’t pleased with Cain’s sacrifice, but why? I’d like to hear your explanation, if you have one.

Why? It isn't in the least relevant to the issue at hand. Cain was not playing a trombone. Spare me the dilletante citations of Heb. 11:4 and Rom. 10:17; that Cain did not act in loyalty to Yahweh is known even by the most elementary of commentators.

And so begins your “contextual constraints” arguments. Not an appeal to context at all, but an appeal to the history of music in general coupled with your own conjecture as to how this applied to the early church.

:argh: :argh: :argh:

Notice this, folks? The history of music IS part of the contextual constraint; all Harrelll does is spout, "nuh uh" and toss in the word "conjecture" as though it is enough to say, "Well, how do YOU know the church just didn't happen to have people who were exceptions to all of this?" This is typical CoC forced logic.

Conjecture, not founded on Biblical context.

Fact, founded on the larger social context. Once again CoC logic-magic denies any relevance to any data found outside the Bible.

To begin with, you have no idea how wealthy or poor Jesus’ disciples might have been.

Yes, actually, Harrell, we DO. Luke 8:3 shows that Jesus' ministry was financed within a client-patron relationship and this indicates he had no wealth of his own. We also know exactly how well-off the persons whose professions were named (fishermen) were. It is also clear how much dough they had when Peter said they had given up EVERYTHING to follow Jesus. No spare change. But do spare us your contextual miseducation, please!

But I can afford a clarinet. In fact, I can afford a clarinet, two flutes, and two guitars

Can you afford someone to play them in your house, too? Did you miss what was said about the cost of instruments in this day? Excuse me, Harrell, but the reason you can get a clarinet, et al on the cheap today is because we have this little convenience called assembly line production. Back then all instruments were painstakingly hand-crafted by master artisans who didn't come cheap. Once again your contextual miseducation trips you. That is why YOU have "no reason to believe" this. So now that you are informed, what is the next excuse?

no reason to believe that the early disciples could not have done the same- either on an individual basis or by pooling their collective resources.

"Hmmm. Peter, should we buy food today? Or a clarinet for a price that would feed us for three weeks?" :ahem: Say, where in the Bible do you see that they could have done this? That's CONJECTURE! :rofl:

Furthermore, it is pure conjecture to suppose only “professional” musicians would have been “trained” (or capable) of playing upon an instrument.

That's right, Harrell, professional scholars of the history of music in the ancient world are all wrong, aren't they? Why? Because YOU know "quite a few folks" TODAY who are adept at music! Yessir, that really is relevant to the first and second century, isn't it! Tell me, Harrell, do you also think they had grocery stores and telephones back then?

Which brings me to your fourth conjecture, that none of Jesus’ disciples were “professional” musicians.

Pffft...hack...and YOUR supposition that any of the 12 were, is...?

Within just a few weeks of Pentecost there were well over 8,000 members of the NT church. Are you willing to assert that among this large number that there was no one who was a musician?

I sure am where the Last Supper was concerned! :ahem: The 8000 had yet to convert by then! Did you forget the subject matter? Given the numbers, there may have been as many as 2 pro musicians in that crowd, Harrell, but since they were from all over the Empire/Diaspora, the odds that we'd hear about one of them playing their tunes anywhere in the rest of the NT is pretty slim. Especially since there's no reason for going on about Josiah playing his piccolo in the first place even when he did.

That there was no one who owned a musical instrument?

Maybe 1 in that 8000, again.

That there was no one who was wealthy enough to afford to purchase an instrument?

1 in maybe 500,000 would have the wealth in the age to spare. Know anything at all, do you, about wealth distribution in the ancient world? Over 90% were as poor as the people now living in Calcutta.

That such a large body of believers couldn’t raise enough money to buy an instrument (Acts 4:34 might be a verse you’d want to think about here)?

"OK, Peter, should we buy food for the widows for this month, or a clarinet?" :ahem:

However, I’ve got a hunch

Spare us your "hunches". If you can't offer a direct answer then pass the reference. No one argues that this passage ruled it in, or that it did not show singing was allowed, so keep your scarecrow on your own couch. I was answering a negative reference, not offering a positive one. (Does this remind anyone of Farrell Till.)

hooey

Yes, that is what Harrell thinks of scholars who know the history of music. It's all "conjecture" and all their years of study was just bunk. Maybe Harrell is really Acharya S, not Till?

You move cautiously away from personal conjecture here, but still offer no scriptural “contextual” support

NONE IS NEEDED. As long as you have your head glued between the pages of the Bible and pretend that it was written yesterday for you personally, you will never offer more than "nuh uhs" based on a decontextualized assumption that only what's been the black covers defines what it said. Tell us, do you also forbid the use of Greek lexicons?

In my last post, I explained in some detail the concept of general and specific authority. I won’t restate my arguments, but would encourage you to respond to them

My article IS a response, and a completely sound and overwhelming one that you can do nothing to answer other than hide between your Bible covers and pretend the contextualizing world outside the pages didn't exist. You tell ME what license we have to use hymnals, as well as collection plates, choir robes, and big screen TVs. This nonsense about "general authority" is merely an excuse you invent, based on the begged question of silence as a positive. In essence you were just "lucky" that Paul or someone else didn't say, offhand, "Use the looseleaf sheets I provided to sing from." If he had said THAT, you would be blubbering at us for using hymnbooks and claiming we had no "authority" to bind them into covers. Next you'll use 1 Tim. 4:13 to forbid bound Bibles!

I’d like you to answer these questions, and explain your answers:

The fearsome "questions"! It sounds like Till again! :rofl:

Would it be acceptable to God to add Turkey in the Straw or Ol’ Dan Tucker to or songs of worship, since there is “no direct provision against such things?”

Of course not, since those songs are not worship songs! :duh: Category error! Voices are not "worship voices" and instruments are not "worship instruments".

Would it be acceptable to use steak and ice cream in the Lord’s Supper since there is “no direct provision against such things?”

I answered this question in my article. Check what I said about chocolate cake versus Campbell.

Would it be permissible for Jesus to be a priest on earth since there is “no direct provision against such things?” (for help on this one, and I’d like to hear your comments, see Heb. 8:4).

Once again, spare me your miseducated insolence. There IS direct provision against it: He was not of Levi.

number of places in the OT, in the context (this, by the way, is the proper use of the term “contextual”)

Yeah, right! Limited to between the covers is all that is "proper".

of acceptable worship to God. The fact that “God never condemned the use of such things in the context of proper worship” (as in the Psalms, for example), supports my position rather than yours

It does no such thing, other than by the same immensely begged question that takes silence with no other informing factors as an argument.

The problem that you are facing is that not only do you not have evidence of any specific authorization of musical instruments in the NT church, you can’t even supply us with evidence in the form of approved examples where they were employed.

Once again, Harrell, this paranoid form of argumentation is nothing but a disservice to the Body of Christ. The continued promulgation of this sort of ignorance leads directly to apostasies and frightened, ineffectual believers who are unable to maintain their faith with any strength. Your demand for "specific authorization" fails miserably, and on a very specific ground. Here's one last effort to educate you:

The Bible was written in what anthropologists call a "high-context" society. In such societies people "presume a broadly shared, well-understood, or 'high' knowledge of the context of anything referred to in conversation or in writing." Readers were required and expected to "fill in the gap" because their background knowledge was a given. Extended explanations were unnecessary.

In contrast, we in the modern US are a "low-context" society. We assume little or no knowledge of he context of a communication. This is in part because we have so many specialized fields requiring specialized knowledge. Thus we expect background to be given when communication is given between fields. This is in contrast to the ancient world where there was little specialized knowledge.

Malina and Rohrbaugh set forth in summary what I now use as a stinging indictment of yours and CoC's methodology and argumentation: "The obvious problem this creates for reading the biblical writings today is that low-context readers in the United States frequently mistake the biblical writings for low-context documents. They erroneously assume that the author has provided all of the contextual information needed to understand it." And thus your demand for "specific authorization," and your pooh-poohing of informing contextual data, is completely wrongheaded. The contextual data provided by scholars of music is ALL we need, and is ALL we should expect to get. God gave you a brain. Use it!

Does it prove that the Levitical priesthood was still valid as a part of God’s church? Does it prove that animal sacrifices remain valid as part of our worship to God? You’re traveling back down that road of conjecture again.

If so I meet you on your way back from the path of miseducation. Both the Levitical priesthood and the sacrifices are specifically said to be superseded by Christ.

The question is perfectly relevant, and you didn’t touch topside nor bottom of it.

There is nothing to touch because the question is a phantom. I did not merely "see" a “specific association” -- I relied on the specific association MADE BY JESUS, PLUS the relevant contextual knowledge that bread and wine were typical ancient fellowship staples. This is the sort of contextual education the CoC church doesn't give you.

This is nothing more than “walking by sight” rather than by faith.

Do you REALLY know what "faith" is, Harrell? Define it for us.

Again, conjecture. You are assuming that the early church did not use musical instruments because they “were associated with Apollo.” Of course, the fact that sex was associated with the worship of all sorts of pagan gods and goddesses of that time didn’t keep married couples from making babies, did it?

Dumb comment, Harrell. The worship you speak of was done in public places, in temples, on altars. Not in private bedrooms. There is again no "conjecture" here at all -- this is normal and valid historical detective work. Spare us your attempt to put a blindfold over what others see when they try to contextualize.

And while there were some Christians who had personal conscience against eating certain meats that had been offered to pagan idols, Paul took great care to show that it was not necessary to avoid any kind of food simply because of how it might have been used in pagan worship.

The problem with that analogy, Harrell, is that people can HEAR YOU playing music from a ways off, which means if an instrument was associated with pagans, and some pagan neighbor heard a church playing it, it would have been just like a Christian taking that meat and waving it around and announcing that is was offered to a pagan idol. Think out of the box for once!

These things were “undermined” by regulating their proper use.

No kidding! The point is that they could and did do the same with instruments, Harrell. But you'll excuse them, given the expense of instruments, and important stuff like feeding widows and influencing household codes, that was probably far down on the list of things to do!

and I’d be happy to explain it to you, but first you need to digest the concept of general and specific authority.

This "concept" is an artificial construct that you use to arbitrarily construct your theology. It has nothing to do with the Bible and has no correlation in first century thought or practice.

Become educated, then try again. :thumb:

[Harrell]

Jpholding,

There is not one thing "conjectural" involved in what I wrote. The data gathered is supported by scholarship and constitutes sufficient evidence against the simplistic CoC position. I didn’t say that the data itself was conjectural, only that your application of it to the present discussion was conjectural. The data is whatever it is… but how we interpret the data is the problem. For example, you suggested that musical instruments were expensive (a likelihood I’m willing to concede for the sake of discussion, but which you didn’t prove), and from this piece of “data” you drew your own personal conclusion that Jesus’ disciples “were not wealthy enough to afford a clarinet.” That sir, is what I mean by “conjecture!” You went on to observe that “ancient musicians had professional guilds” and concluded from this that early Christians either could not afford “someone trained in music” to play for them or that there were no trained musicians who were Christians. Again, its not the historical data that is in question, but your own brazen conjecture as to how this – in your opinion – applied to the early church. In addition to these, I noted other similar examples in my last post of how you inserted your own personal speculation on matter wherein you have no proof.

As for as “the simplistic CoC teaching” is concerned, all I’ve said is that I can find evidence (real honest to goodness Biblical evidence) of NT Christians worshiping with singing. Based on this irrefutable evidence, I conclude without fear of contradiction that singing is an authorized form of worship to God today. Do you deny it? The one thing I can’t find, however, is any Biblical evidence of NT Christians employing musical instruments in their worship. And, I gather from your posts, neither can you… hence your resort to historical data regarding musical instruments in general and your speculation as to how this applies to the NT church.

I said: Well, it’s “obvious” that God wasn’t pleased with Cain’s sacrifice, but why? I’d like to hear your explanation, if you have one.

To which you replied: “Why? It isn't in the least relevant to the issue at hand. Cain was not playing a trombone. Spare me the dilettante citations of Heb. 11:4 and Rom. 10:17; that Cain did not act in loyalty to Yahweh is known even by the most elementary of commentators.” To begin with, it was you who brought up Cain and Abel, not I. But since you brought them up, I thought it was quite relevant to understanding some principles that come into play in our present discussion. And I suspect that you perceive the difficulty that these principles would have to your position, which would explain your rather cranky response. In any case, in the event I’ve misjudged you and for the benefit of any who might be following this discussion, let me spell it out for you. The Genesis account of the offerings of Cain and Abel tells us that “for Cain and for his offering [God] had no regard.” If this was all that we knew of this episode, we could only speculate (something you seem to be fond of doing) as to why God was not pleased with Cain’s sacrifice. However, Heb. 11:4 sheds more light on the matter when we are informed that “By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain.” This short statement speaks volumes, particularly when it is coupled with Rom. 10:17, “faith comes from hearing… the word of God.” In order for Abel to offer his sacrifice “by faith,” he must have been offering a sacrifice that God had authorized or commanded. Cain’s sacrifice, on the other hand, was not acceptable because it was not “by faith;” that is, it was not what God had authorized or commanded. The reason this is relevant to our discussion is that I can say with full confidence that I am offering acceptable worship God “by faith” when I sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. I can say that because I can show you where God authorized it. But, like Cain, you have offered not one scintilla of Biblical evidence for instrumental music in the NT worship. And like Cain, you have decided to attack the guy that’s doing what God said than to change what you’ve already decided you’re going to do no matter what.

Notice this, folks? The history of music IS part of the contextual constraint; all Harrell does is spout, "nuh uh" and toss in the word "conjecture" as though it is enough to say, "Well, how do YOU know the church just didn't happen to have people who were exceptions to all of this?" This is typical CoC forced logic. Give me a break. There is absolutely nothing in the Biblical context (and isn’t that, after all, what our faith rests upon?) that suggests that any of your conclusions are valid. Nothing! Finding nothing in the Bible, you go outside the Bible to try to establish some cultural context and then read your own conclusions from this into the Biblical text. This is nothing more than eisegesis. It is not exegesis, which, after all, is what I thought we were supposed to be about.

Fact, founded on the larger social context. Once again CoC logic-magic denies any relevance to any data found outside the Bible.I didn’t deny the historical facts, I simply denied your conclusions from them. Here’s the way your logic(?) works: It’s an historical fact that oil was discovered at Spindletop in Beaumont, Texas. Harrell was born and raised in Beaumont, Texas. Therefore, it is obvious that Harrell owns a piece of Spindletop! I wish your logic held true to the facts, but sadly it does not. The “logic-magic,” if it exists at all, exists in your repeated speculations about how historical data should be interpreted.

Yes, actually, Harrell, we DO. Luke 8:3 shows that Jesus' ministry was financed within a client-patron relationship and this indicates he had no wealth of his own. We also know exactly how well-off the persons whose professions were named (fishermen) were.So far as I’m aware, there were only four fishermen among Jesus’ apostles. But, of course, there were other apostles, and many other disciples who were not apostles as well. Do you “also know exactly how well-off” all of these were? Joseph was apparently a disciple, yet wealthy enough to own a tomb which had never been used (until it was used by Jesus). Luke was a physician, so presumably (I hate to stick my nose into your neighborhood of presumption and speculation) he was at least moderately well-off. Lydia was a seller of purple, which, by all accounts must have provided her with a fair living. And consider all the Christians in Acts 4 who were possessors of land and property, who sold these to bring the money to help other saints? Sounds like there must have been at least a few folks who were moderately wealthy. Of course, all of this is speculation, isn’t it? Both on your part and mine. Who’s to say which of us is right? It doesn’t really matter… the Bible authorizes a particular class of music in worship, and we both know what it is, don’t we? And that, more than anything else, is the reason that you make your entire case on your speculative theories.

That's right, Harrell, professional scholars of the history of music in the ancient world are all wrong, aren't they? To begin with, there are no “professional scholars of the history of music” who would stand with you on your assertion that no one in the ancient world was able to play musical instruments except those who had been “professionally trained.” But even I were to grant your conclusion to be true, just for the sake of this discussion, you would still have to prove that out of 8,000+ members of the church in the first few weeks after Pentecost that there were no “professionally trained musicians!”

Which brings me to your fourth conjecture, that none of Jesus’ disciples were “professional” musicians.

Pffft...hack...and YOUR supposition that any of the 12 were, is...? Come on, JP, you’re smarter than this. And even if you aren’t, those who read this discussion certainly are! How many disciples (I didn’t say “apostles”) did Jesus have? Twelve? 120? 3000? 8000?

Within just a few weeks of Pentecost there were well over 8,000 members of the NT church. Are you willing to assert that among this large number that there was no one who was a musician?

I sure am where the Last Supper was concerned! The 8000 had yet to convert by then!To begin with, this discussion is not limited to instrumental music at the Last Supper. It has to do with instrumental music in the Lord’s Church. Inasmuch as the church wasn’t established until 50 days or so after the Last Supper, you’re tilting at windmills.

Given the numbers, there may have been as many as 2 pro musicians in that crowd, Harrell, but since they were from all over the Empire/Diaspora, the odds that we'd hear about one of them playing their tunes anywhere in the rest of the NT is pretty slim. Boy, you never give up on spouting speculations do you? How about let’s just cut to the chase, shall we? Do you have any evidence, any evidence at all, that God authorizes the use of instrumental music in NT worship? I don’t want speculative theories. I’m not going to listen to more conjecture. I want you to give me some reason to believe (and since faith comes from God’s word, this means I need evidence from the Bible) that the use of instrumental music in NT worship is authorized by God. We’ll see whether or not you’re up to the challenge.

Know anything at all, do you, about wealth distribution in the ancient world? Over 90% were as poor as the people now living in Calcutta. I don’t know about the rest of the ancient world, but I know that this was not true of the area of Palestine and those parts of the Roman empire.

"OK, Peter, should we buy food for the widows for this month, or a clarinet?" You exhibit a galling lack of knowledge of the facts. According to Acts 4:34, everyone’s personal needs were fully met. You are assuming that after providing for the personal needs of “the widows” that there was nothing left over! I guess your assumptions shouldn’t surprise me though. That’s all that your case rests upon.

Tell us, do you also forbid the use of Greek lexicons? No. And your point is?

Would it be acceptable to God to add Turkey in the Straw or Ol’ Dan Tucker to or songs of worship, since there is “no direct provision against such things?”

Of course not, since those songs are not worship songs! Category error! Voices are not "worship voices" and instruments are not "worship instruments".Check. And mate. The “category error” is one that you are guilty of. Musical instruments are not a “category” of singing. They are a different category of music altogether. The music “category” that is authorized in NT worship is “singing.” If you can add a different category of music to that which the Lord authorized, then why can’t you also add a different category of songs to those which the Lord authorized? You need to work on this answer a bit more, but you might want to first go see a doctor about the hole you just shot in your foot.

Would it be acceptable to use steak and ice cream in the Lord’s Supper since there is “no direct provision against such things?”

I answered this question in my article. Check what I said about chocolate cake versus Campbell.Oh, I read what you said, and I responded to it. Since you see a “connection” between bread/fruit of the vine and body/blood, then you’ll accept it. That’s walking by sight, not by faith.

Once again, spare me your miseducated insolence. There IS direct provision against it: He was not of Levi. Getting a bit cranky aren’t we? Actually, you’re right. Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, “a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests” (Heb. 7:14)! I don’t want you to miss this point, JP. The only “scriptural basis” (and I use this term very, very loosely) of your argument rests on the notion that “there is no direct provision against” the use of musical instruments in NT worship. You pooh-pooh the argument that when God specifies a particular thing (i.e., category), then any thing else is excluded. And yet, when it comes to the priesthood of Christ you assert that He could not be a priest on earth because “he was not of Levi.” Thank you very much! You see, God had specified that the priests were to come from the tribe of Levi. He did not say that priests could not come from Judah or any other tribe, because by specifying the priestly tribe, all other tribes were automatically excluded. That is the very argument of the Hebrew writer in 7:14. He is making an argument from the silence of the scriptures: “our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests!” What did Moses say about priests from Judah? NOTHING! Well, then, since Moses never said anything about priests from Judah, could priests be taken from the tribe of Judah? NO! Why not? BECAUSE MOSES SPOKE NOTHING CONCERNING PRIESTS FROM JUDAH!

Now, with respect to music in NT worship, what has God spoken? Well, He authorized singing. What did He say about musical instruments? God spoke nothing concerning musical instruments in NT worship! Then, since God spoke nothing concerning musical instruments in NT worship, does that mean that we are free to use them? NO! Why not? For the same reason that Jesus could not be priest on earth… because God spoke nothing concerning musical instruments in NT worship.

Once again, Harrell, this paranoid form of argumentation is nothing but a disservice to the Body of Christ. Imagine that! I’m doing a “disservice to the Body of Christ” by asking you for your authority for using musical instruments. And you, I suppose, are doing a great service to “the Body of Christ” by insisting that such authority is unnecessary, and that you find your authority in your own interpretation of “historical evidence.”

The continued promulgation of this sort of ignorance leads directly to apostasies and frightened, ineffectual believers who are unable to maintain their faith with any strength.Good grief! I keep trying to draw you back to the Bible and am accused of leading to apostasy. You ignore the Bible and try to draw me into your historical web and insist that in this way you are helping believers to “maintain their faith.” Go figure.

God gave you a brain. Use it! I’ll try. God gave you a Bible. Now, will you please try to use it? Paul told Timothy that the Scriptures are able to “equip [us] for every good work.” You say, “well, we need something else as well, because the scripture doesn’t give us all that we need to know.”

I’m going to pass over the rest of your post… it’s more of the same and I’ve already dealt with it.

[jpholding]

I didn’t say that the data itself was conjectural, only that your application of it to the present discussion was conjectural.

Six of one, half dozen of the other, Harrell. The data shows what was IN EFFECT at the times stated. You call it "conjecture" to argue as though what was IN EFFECT, APPLIED and your arguments amount to, "How do we know there wasn't a very special exception, even though I have no evidence for it?" "Conjecture" is the word you use to fend off arguments that destroy your preferred view of the world by showing what was normal and in evidence. What is truly "brazen" is your constant resort to this sort of exception-begging to keep your view from sinking. No professional historian would accept such tactics as valid.

I conclude without fear of contradiction that singing is an authorized form of worship to God today. Do you deny it?

I deny that this means this is the ONLY authorized form of worship, inasmuch as your "authority" argument is based on a false presupposition that silence equates with non-authorization.

And, I gather from your posts, neither can you… hence your resort to historical data regarding musical instruments in general and your speculation as to how this applies to the NT church.

As noted, Harrell, words like "speculation" and "conjecture" are merely weasel-words you use to get around contextually informing data that defeats your purpose.

To begin with, it was you who brought up Cain and Abel, not I.

To begin with, I did not bring up Cain and Abel in the context of the question you raised. Hence you are merely offering skilled rationalizations (per the typical CoC exegetical method) for bringing them up in the other context.

And I suspect that you perceive the difficulty that these principles would have to your position, which would explain your rather cranky response.

I perceive that this is an example of more CoC manipulation. Your apostates do this, Harrell. And I know where they get it from. In any event your Cain and Abel lesson is an irrelevant waste of space. It is not huge secret that Cain lacked loyalty to Yahweh, and that is plainly evident even in Genesis. This is what external contextual study will do for you, Harrell.

reason this is relevant to our discussion is that I can say with full confidence that I am offering acceptable worship God “by faith” when I sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. I can say

Unfortunately, Harrell, you definition of "faith" is out of context as well. Pistis means loyalty. One can offer praise by instruments with loyalty as well. Intent and not means is the issue. What you say is "faith" is actual an example of your hard-headed and misplaced obedience to an inadequate principle of head-in-the-sand exegesis.

And like Cain, you have decided to attack the guy that’s doing what God said than to change what you’ve already decided you’re going to do no matter what.

And like Benny Hinn, you claim to be doing "what God said" and use this alleged "what God said" as a bludgeon when you can't answer arguments with actual data.

Give me a break. There is absolutely nothing in the Biblical context (and isn’t that, after all, what our faith rests upon?) that suggests that any of your conclusions are valid. Nothing!

You NEED a break, in an educational facility, to get out of the mindset that a high-context document can be read with low-context presupposition. "Biblical context" includes all that surrounded the people who lived in that time: literary methods, cultural factors, social science factors, language. Your method uses the Bible in isolation from this is favor of "it was written yesterday and for me personally". This is indeed exegesis, for it uses the informing values behind the text to interpret the text. Your view resists this kind of education because of fear.


It’s an historical fact that oil was discovered at Spindletop in Beaumont, Texas. Harrell was born and raised in Beaumont, Texas. Therefore, it is obvious that Harrell owns a piece of Spindletop!

Not even close, Harrell, but CoC is notorious for not teaching thinking skills. Here is what it is really like:

1) Oil was discovered at Spindletop in 1978.
2) Paul allows use of cars that run on wood, but says nothing about gas.
3) Paul wrote in 1956 before gas was available in Spindletop because of the oil discovery.
4) Therefore, nothing Paul writes means we can only use hydrogen cars.

Once again, it is yours' and CoC's obscuratanism that would have using wood in our cars because we aren't allowed to use the extra-Biblical data that oil was not discovered until 1978 to interpret what Paul is saying.

Do you “also know exactly how well-off” all of these were?

As I stated, only the tiniest portion of the world in that time had any sort of wealth. We know exactly how well off such people were, and your resort rests in begging exceptions unknown, and irrelevancies you are too out of it to perceive:

Joseph was apparently a disciple, yet wealthy enough to own a

Um, Harrell? Joseph was a SECRET disciple of Jesus, so he's hardly going to be providing them with instruments for the Last Supper!

Luke was a physician, so presumably (I hate to stick my nose into your neighborhood of presumption and speculation) he was at least moderately well-off.

And well you shouldn't, because not only was Luke too late by at least 15-20 years to provide music for the ministry of Jesus, physicians in this time were more often than not slaves with no financing of their own. Yes, you should definitely keep your nose where it belongs.

Lydia was a seller of purple

Who was also 10-20 years AFTER the ministry of Jesus. So what, Harrell, did she buy a time machine and go back and buy Simon a kazoo?

And consider all the Christians in Acts 4 who were possessors of land and property, who sold these to bring the money to help other saints?

Once again, Harrell, after the ministry period, and as noted: "So should we buy food for the widows, or a clarinet for the singing?" Which fits right in with my point about the expense issue, and refutes your methods. The diff between my "speculation" and yours is that mine is grounded in firm social realities, while yours is grounded in begging exceptions from them for no other purpose that to keep yourself afloat. Which is why you want to aoid the question of who is right and switch it back to that text you can hide between.

To begin with, there are no “professional scholars of the history of music” who would stand with you on your assertion that no one in the ancient world was able to play musical instruments except those who had been “professionally trained.”

Oh, really? Then find one that says the opposite. Well? I had my source; where's yours? (Note that the issue is not "able to" but DID.)

8,000+ members of the church in the first few weeks after Pentecost that there were no “professionally trained musicians!”

No, Harrell, we don't, for reasons I clearly gave. The odds favor only 1-2 such people being of that sort to begin with; then, since they were from all over the Empire, you need to hope that one of them was in a place Paul or someone else wrote a letter to our from. In other words your grasping efforts look more vain by the minute.

Come on, JP, you’re smarter than this.

And you can read better than this, I hope. The context of the remark was the Last Supper. I had that limit and you ignored it, so don't blame me for your presumption.

Boy, you never give up on spouting speculations do you?

I never give up offering conclusions rooted in hard scholarship, you bet. That's why you want to traipse back between those limited texts and ignore the relevant informing contexts. Scholarship is so scary! :rofl:

I don’t know about the rest of the ancient world, but I know that this was not true of the area of Palestine and those parts of the Roman empire.

Er, yes it was, Harrell. It was true of 90% of it. This is what sociologists, archaeologists, and historians have to say. The opposite is what Harrell says. Who to believe, who to believe....life is full of difficult decisions! :huh:

You exhibit a galling lack of knowledge of the facts. According to Acts 4:34, everyone’s personal needs were fully met.

You exhibit a galling lack of common sense. It may not occur to you that the only reason everyone's personal needs were met was because the needs were made the focus and secondary matters such as instruments, not essential to survival, were not purchased. Otherwise:

You are assuming that after providing for the personal needs of “the widows” that there was nothing left over!

A really, really dumb comment, Harrell. Have you ever heard of the ancient conception of "limited good"? Even IF there was something left over -- which I do consider likely -- to spend it on luxuries like instruments would have been would have been sheer folly in their eyes. But in fact you are wrong about there likely being anything left over. The ancients had no banks or ways to save things, so any money or goods that came in were used as quickly as possible. Surprise! Your lack of education shows yet again!

No. And your point is?

Throw 'em out. Those are external to the Bible, Harrell. No lexicons allowed; they're not the Bible.

Check. And mate. The “category error” is one that you are guilty of. Musical instruments are not a “category” of singing.

No, they are a category of object. Objects, unlike songs which have intellectual content, are not automatically oriented towards a specific direction. Hence your poor analogy. Your rook just kicked you off the board. This is why you are forced yet again to resort back to hiding between the pages of the text and arguing from silence. The doctor says you need to see him about the hole in your head. :rofl:

Since you see a “connection” between bread/fruit of the vine and body/blood, then you’ll accept it. That’s walking by sight, not by faith.

Since the connection exists, I accept it. As for "faith" your definition of that needs a tune-up. http://www.tektonics.org/whatfaith.html It uses forbidden external contexts, so it might scare you.


Getting a bit cranky aren’t we?

Finding you a bit funny, really. :lol:

You pooh-pooh the argument that when God specifies a particular thing (i.e., category), then any thing else is excluded. And yet, when it comes to the priesthood of Christ you assert that He could not be a priest on earth because “he was not of Levi.” Thank you very much! You see, God had specified that the priests were to come from the tribe of Levi.

And God did not specifiy that instruments were forbidden. The end, of your false analogy and your argument.

He did not say that priests could not come from Judah or any other tribe, because by specifying the priestly tribe, all other tribes were automatically excluded.

That equivocation won't wash, sorry. There are reams of material in the OT specifying Levi as the priestly tribe and making it clear no one else is allowed in and that Levi is given special regard; for example, their exclusion from any land inheritance. All you have is one verse that isn't even specific against anything else. Nice try. Failure again. Try to get more contextually oriented for next round.

Then, since God spoke nothing concerning musical instruments in NT worship, does that mean that we are free to use them? NO!

Um hm. Since God spoke nothing concerning cars, we can't drive them; we have to ride donkeys like Jesus did. Typical CoC tricksegesis to get out of a jam.

And you, I suppose, are doing a great service to “the Body of Christ” by insisting that such authority is unnecessary, and that you find your authority in your own interpretation of “historical evidence.”

Darned straight. I'm getting you out of the primitive mindset that hurts the Body and turns us all into robot drones with no defense against those who attack the faith. The parallels between you and Farrell Till are amazing.

Paul told Timothy that the Scriptures are able to “equip [us] for every good work.” You say, “well, we need something else as well, because the scripture doesn’t give us all that we need to know.”

Paul and Timothy were both high context persons, Harrell. I don't blame you for passing over that part of my explanation. Meanwhile, we obvioysly don't need lexicons, since the Bible gives us "all we need to know," literally and fully. Right? So when you gonna trash that lexicon?


See ya later, Farrell -- er, Harrell! Good grief, even their NAMES sound the same! :eek: You last name isn't Krill or Pill, is it?

[Harrell]

If we were scoring this discussion on sarcasm and invective, you’d win hands down. I’ve gone to the Word of God and shown authority for singing in NT worship. I asked you for your authority for using the instrument, expecting you to make at least a token stab at Biblical proof. Boy, was I disappointed!

You didn’t go to God’s Word at all to make your case. Didn’t even make the feeblest of attempts in that direction. Rather, the essence of your argument comes down to something like this: “Well, the Lord never said anything about instrumental music in the NT, but the reason He didn’t do so is because, you see, those instruments were so darned expensive. And besides, no one knew how to play them anyway. And even if they did, why all the pagans in the neighborhood would have heard them playing their instruments in their worship and would have thought they were pagans too. But I just know that if they could have gotten a few good used instruments on the cheap, and maybe raised a little money with a camel wash, and if they could’ve just gotten those cotton-pickin’ pagans to mind their own business… the Lord would have said, ‘Get those instruments out, boys! An’a one, an’a two, an’a three, an’a heeere we go…!’ I know that’s what the Lord would’ve said if His hands hadn’t been tied by all that other stuff. And so there’s my authority for instrumental music in NT worship. Now, Harrell… whaddaya gotta say about that!?”

Not surprisingly, I don’t have anything else to say. You’ve convinced me. I’m retiring my Bible… won’t need it anymore. Gonna replace it with a few good history books. I’ll base my faith on what they say.

Good day, JP. In closing, just a piece of advice from an old man for you to consider in future “discussions”: you might want to be more careful about giving someone else a piece of your mind… I’m not sure you’d be able to survive on what’s left.

[jpholding]

To Harrell Till:

If we were scoring this discussion on sarcasm and invective, you’d win hands down. I’ve gone to the Word of God and shown authority for singing in NT worship

No, Harrell, you have gone to an emasculated version of the Word of God, devoid of all defining contexts and restricted in application to what you find between the pages. That's not the Word of God but the Word of Harrell and the Word of CoC. A false gospel. My case depends on God's Word AND the contexts that tell us what it means when it says what it says. If you really restrict yourself to the Word of God, then why have you not thrown out your lexicons? And have you also thrown away your Manners and Customs of the Bible? If not, perdition awaits you! :rofl:

Your kind of "exe-Jesus" DESERVES scorn and contempt, Harrell. It is people like YOU that I have to clean up after when cognitive dissonance sets in and they can't defend their faith using the false head-in-sand exegetical premisses your kind spouts off with. And when cornered your resort is typical -- a screenplay that does not even answer the arguments. Not just Till, but Wallack too. There's no fundamental difference in thinking between you and between atheists who mangle the Word in ignorance.

Not surprisingly, I don’t have anything else to say. You’ve convinced me. I’m retiring my Bible… won’t need it anymore. Gonna replace it with a few good history books. I’ll base my faith on what they say.

Use them BOTH so that you can understand what that Bible ACTUALLY says, Harrell. Throw away your ignorance instead.

Good day, JP. In closing, just a piece of advice from an old man for you to consider in future “discussions”

Here's a better bit of wisdom: You can't teach an old dog new tricks. The arrogance of "experience" has left you thinking that you have all the answers and that any rebuttal must be a conspiracy. Swell, Harrell, you won't be around to pick up the pieces of the broken lives you leave behind in your ribald ignorance. I've counseled any number of near-apostates and troubled persons who have been shattered by their inability to come to grips with the problems that your arbitrary forms of "exe-Jesus" and decontextualized commentary causes. You make the mess, and I clean it up, and you go on your merry way with a baby's smile on your face and surfing the demented ego trip of, "I'm just following the Wurd of Gawd!" Praise God for His Word AND for the ability to get back into the world it was written in and the minds used to write it. What's next, Harrell? You gonna side with those who say we don't need the thoughts of the Founders to understand the intent of the Constitution? :rofl:

Your silence is no loss. You have the right to remain silent, and should take full advantage of it.

[dizzle]

I have a bit of a different take on this, though agreeing fully with JP's points. I hope to be able to jump in.....eek!!!

[Lazy Agnostic]

Oh, please continue...

[jpholding]

We will in a few months. :tongue:

[Anie]

hey JP... you said:
"I've counseled any number of near-apostates and troubled persons who have been shattered by their inability to come to grips with the problems that your arbitrary forms of "exe-Jesus" and decontextualized commentary causes."

Can you elaborate on what types of problems you have couseled ppl through? (and maybe explain that sentence in smaller words I can understand :pray: )

Wonder what I might be in store for with my husband (COC member). We are attempting to address bringing our family together for worship - where is the question. Of course for him to even entertain leaving the COC gives him incredible pangs of guilt, but - after reading this conversation I doubt that I am anywhere near being intellectually up to that kind of sparring! Any ideas?

[Abigail]

JPHolding have you ever read Leroy Brownlow's 'Why I am a member of the Church of Christ' ? My minister gave me a copy of that and Edward C. Wharton's 'Redemption Is...planned, needed, provided' (one of my favourite books).

I am C of C (mainline)

[Solly]

Slightly off topic, but could someone point me in the way of who CoC are? Are they the same as Disciples of Christ, and the Campbellites?

[Abigail]

Solly, I havent heard of Disciples of Christ, maybe that is someone other.

[jpholding]

Can you elaborate on what types of problems you have couseled ppl through? (and maybe explain that sentence in smaller words I can understand :pray: )



Sure. I have had to help people get through their misunderstandings of the Bible that were rooted in the sort of interpretation CoC gave them. Because such interpretations are ultimately indefensible, it troubled them greatly when they worked through them and discovered problems.


Abigail: I have not heard of it, no. Is that a book in the UK?

[Anie]

JPHolding have you ever read Leroy Brownlow's 'Why I am a member of the Church of Christ' ? My minister gave me a copy of that and Edward C. Wharton's 'Redemption Is...planned, needed, provided' (one of my favourite books).

I am C of C (mainline)
Hi Abigail - can you explain mainline? thanks

[Anie]

Sure. I have had to help people get through their misunderstandings of the Bible that were rooted in the sort of interpretation CoC gave them. Because such interpretations are ultimately indefensible, it troubled them greatly when they worked through them and discovered problems.


Thanks :smile:

[Abigail]

mainline not being International Church of Christ (ICC)

JPH, I think the book is from America

[Spiritus Naturae]

Slightly off topic, but could someone point me in the way of who CoC are? Are they the same as Disciples of Christ, and the Campbellites?

Hiya Solly. They do indeed find their origins in the same 'movement' as the Disciples of Christ. Here is a great site covering the whole dang deal:

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/index.html



By the way, I wanted to throw a question out there for the CoC members...where do you find contextual, Biblical evidence for how one can place the inclusion or exclusion of musical instruments in worship as a Salvational issue?

And if JP could offer some help in combating this mentality it would be appreciated.

:innocent:
Jonathan

[Anie]

Hiya Solly. They do indeed find their origins in the same 'movement' as the Disciples of Christ. Here is a great site covering the whole dang deal:

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/index.html

Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for the website - it has a lot of background that I found helpful and even dialouge from debates between CoC and Baptists dating way back. I thought it was pretty neat - thanks.

Anie

ps
I also wonder where that Biblical evidence is on instruments in worship preventing one from receiving salvation...

[rldb]

Hi! Just a note of comment from a born and bred C of C. Excellent points here. While many people in the C of C would hold strong to the idea of musical instruments being wrong in God's eyes, a growing majority view it as a church tradition. We go to Contemporary Christian concerts, own the records and some churches even use instruments in limited settings. That being said, most keep the tradition, particularly on Sunday AM and there are some great benefits. Here are some misnomers I've heard over time:
1) "They're the ones who don't do music." We have great music. Acappella worship can be beautiful (of course in some rural small churches it can be... ummm... less than beautiful) and there is great power in worship with people singing their hearts out. Rebecca St. James/Newsboys "Adoration" Tour featured several audience sing a-longs where the band dropped out and we all sang acappella. They don't just do that for their C of C audience members ;) ! They do it because its powerful worship to God.
2) "Music is not full without the instruments" We sing in parts -- just part of the tradition -- as opposed to the typical instrumental church where everyone sings the melody.

So, worship wars will always abound. While we argue amongst ourselves about the inclusion of instruments, the instrumental churches will argue about the use of a electric guitar or saxophone! We use the same arguments. There is much to be learned in analyzing our arguments. But, there is much to be learned from each other.

[Spiritus Naturae]

Hi! Just a note of comment from a born and bred C of C. Excellent points here. While many people in the C of C would hold strong to the idea of musical instruments being wrong in God's eyes, a growing majority view it as a church tradition. We go to Contemporary Christian concerts, own the records and some churches even use instruments in limited settings. That being said, most keep the tradition, particularly on Sunday AM and there are some great benefits. Here are some misnomers I've heard over time:
1) "They're the ones who don't do music." We have great music. Acappella worship can be beautiful (of course in some rural small churches it can be... ummm... less than beautiful) and there is great power in worship with people singing their hearts out. Rebecca St. James/Newsboys "Adoration" Tour featured several audience sing a-longs where the band dropped out and we all sang acappella. They don't just do that for their C of C audience members ;) ! They do it because its powerful worship to God.
2) "Music is not full without the instruments" We sing in parts -- just part of the tradition -- as opposed to the typical instrumental church where everyone sings the melody.

So, worship wars will always abound. While we argue amongst ourselves about the inclusion of instruments, the instrumental churches will argue about the use of a electric guitar or saxophone! We use the same arguments. There is much to be learned in analyzing our arguments. But, there is much to be learned from each other.


:thumb: Thanks for your honesty and looking beyond the power of tradition. Accappella worship is truly beautiful but as you pointed out, tradition does'nt bring about our salvation.

Jonathan

[Gabby]

I would just like to point out that there are and have always been instramental CofC's around. The non-instramental CofC's didn't always aknowledge them, but they were there.

chris

[Oliver Cromwell]

You NEED a break, in an educational facility, to get out of the mindset that a high-context document can be read with low-context presupposition. "Biblical context" includes all that surrounded the people who lived in that time: literary methods, cultural factors, social science factors, language. Your method uses the Bible in isolation from this is favor of "it was written yesterday and for me personally". This is indeed exegesis, for it uses the informing values behind the text to interpret the text. Your view resists this kind of education because of fear.
Well said j.p. - and I agree - a formal education (preferably at the graduate level) is the remedy for the simplistic Bible interpretation that passes for biblical exegesis these days, especially on the internet.

The comparison with Till's hermeneutic was spot on and quite apropos considering where he came from.

Warm regards,

Cromwell

[Christoff]

First of all, I think we should ask ourselves, what is instruments???

Isnt it nothing more than a mere tool?

Look at Noah, the Bible doesnt mention the tools he used to build the Ark, and in the same way I wont expect the Bible to tell us exactly what they used to worship in the NT - why mention something self explanatory?

The same goes for all the other ministries in the Word of God, not only music, nowhere we are told what tools to use to evangelise, yet we will use things like videos and the internet, all sorts of media, all just simple tools to get the work done.

For me, instruments are mere tools, which makes it a lot easier in praise and worship of God. I've talked to a few CoC members, they actually find worshipping a painful thing, it doesnt need to be!

But if they feel they dont want to use it, for what reason ever, I am ok with it, its after all their choice, the only thing that concerns me, is the fact that they call themselves the only true church of Christ....

Which makes it impossible for me to ever work together with them on evangelistic projects, why? Cause they will try to convert everyone to their ideas and their Church, rather than the Body of Christ... Cause hey, if your church is the only way to God, that makes everybody else not?

Its strange, Jesus Christ used to be the only way to heaven...

[Dixie Al]

Mr. J. P. Holding's rebuttal to the traditional Church of Christ arguments against instrumental music are wonderful and perfectly sum up my own feelings which led me quite early in my Christian life to leave the CoC for the Disciples and finally the Anglican Church where I now practice my Christian faith. Even as a kid in smalltown Tennessee I could not fathom why my small CoC (sorry, coC) congregation hated the Methodists and Baptists so. Partly it was because of our varied stances on baptism, partly because they sang with instruments. We weren't even allowed to have food in the church house because it was unwarranted in scripture (but they didn't
seem to notice the lack of warrant for a church building either). Neither were we allowed a baseball team for the local little league. I remember one of the hardline elders pounding his fist in his palm and shouting, "If Jesus had wanted us to have a baseball team he would have said so in scripture." I remember asking, a mere 10 year old, "but did they have baseball back then?" The same arguments against 'the instrument' didn't make sense to me then, nor do they now. I don't know who J. P. Holding is nor with which Christian group he aligns himself, but every member of the anti-instrument brigade ought to know him and hear him. Thanks for your comments.

From http://www.tektonics.org/cocmusic.html

Allow me to begin with a confession: J. P. Holding is for all intents and purposes tone-deaf and really wishes that church could be had without music. I'd prefer a double dose of sermon any day, as long as it had enough intellectual content. Even outside the church the music I prefer is either from the Bach school (either one of the older ones, or P. D. Q., makes no difference) or from the mouth of Weird Al Yankovic. So I have no axes to grind here, and really, had I my own preference, might want to agree with the Church of Christ's stance on musical instruments -- and extend that to singing as well.

I recognize that as a personal deficiency, though, so I choose to endure it rather than fight . But for those who do groove to the music, what of the CoC's stance? I was asked to look into an item justifying the CoC's refusal to use mechanical instruments, as presented by one Roger D. Campbell (though I also found some other material on other CoC sites). Now it is hard to tell what is meant at times by "mechanical instruments" -- Campbell names the piano, organs, and guitars, but I get the impression that "mechanical" is broadly defined for any musical instrument and not just "what you can plug in" or "anything with more than one moving part." But either way, let's see what Campbell has to say.

The item starts agreeably enough. "In every age of mankind's history the Lord God has wanted men to worship Him." Obviously true. "[Not] every form of worship that a person might offer to God will be pleasing in His sight." Still obviously true; the examples of Cain and Aaron, to say nothing of syncretistic worship in the divided kingdom, make that clear enough. Worship has to have the right object (God only, not Baal or Asherah), the right attitude (no faking it), and the right standard (i.e., we don't burn lizards or dance naked in the moonlight). So how does this relate to musical instruments? Campbell explains:

As we consider the matter of using or not using mechanical instruments of music (abbreviated "M.I. M.") when we sing and worship the Lord God, the question to which we will be pursuing an answer is basically this one: Is the use of such instruments according to God's truth? If so, then there is no problem in using them. On the other hand, if we do not find scriptural statements that authorize their use, then using them would not be according to His truth, and thus unscriptural.

And there at last we find the keystone. The Bible doesn't say that people in the NT church used instruments in worship; therefore we don't. That sounds fairly convincing, until you take a few things into account. (For some of what follows I am indebted to this site as well as Lang's Music in Western Civilization and the Concise Oxford History of Music.)

First, in the ancient world you didn't just pop down to the music store and buy a trombone. Most musical instruments were hand-crafted and very expensive. Most people couldn't spare the lira for one. Jesus' disciples at the Last Supper were certainly not wealthy enough to afford a clarinet to accompany them on the hymn -- or someone trained in music to do it for them. (Ancient musicians had professional guilds, sort of like unions today.)

Second, you didn't just get one of these instruments and start trumpeting anywhere you wanted. Paul and Silas in prison would not have been allowed to have such personal items with them; there were no travelling minstrels who came by ancient prisons to perform, and if anything any musical instruments Paul and Silas had would have most likely been smashed or stolen by sadistic guards and sold for their value. Campbell's cite of this passage is rather off base.

Third, if you got an instrument, few had the leisure time or the resources to learn to play properly.

Fourth, there were some pretty sound cultural reasons why we might not see instruments in the churches at the time. The site above notes:

...Greek philosophers considered music to have great psychological and even supernatural powers. The Doctrine of ethos maintained that different types of music could affect human behavior. For example, music in the Dorian mode would cause persons to become reasonable and contemplative. Conversely, music in the Phrygian mode would cause persons to become passionate and belligerent. Orpheus, one of the great mythic men of Greece, was said to have the power to move objects and influence the gods with his music. The sound of a given instrument was also very powerful. For example, the lyre and the kithara were said to evoke reason and were linked to the worship of Apollo, the god of reason. Similarly, a double-reed instrument known as the aulos was said to evoke passion and was linked to the worship of Dionysus, the god of ecstasy.
Our other sources add that in the time if the church, "music had sunk to the lowest regions of lascivious amusement." [Lang, 41] Music was also a racketering gig; musicians competed in games with the athletes and used bribery to make sure at least someone applauded.

Of course some have noted today, apart from CoC issues, that certain types of music or instruments may be psychologically inappropriate for a church setting. As a tone-deaf freak, I wouldn't know, but this may suggest that a) some types of music or instruments may be improper for worship, in some settings or in all of them -- those demanding a simple solution or wanting a chart of situations are politely declined and advised to think for themselves; b) a person who is psychologically vulnerable in some way may wish to consider their place of worship more carefully; c) the principle of not causing your brother to sin has some applications -- if your brother stumbles because you play Stryper, try Michael W. Smith instead when you are in their presence; d) mind your own soul and be cautious of your reasons for wanting music or musical instruments. Even singing by itself can be misused; instruments are in no sense special. In any event, these associations of instruments with pagan gods suggests one reason for a lack of instruments in the church -- but also suggests that, with the gods dissipated, a reason for not having them is removed (provided some modern psycho-god or mental idol is not put in their place!).

The site goes on to verify this point:

By the time the last Roman emperor, the young Romulus Augustulus, was finally deposed in 476, the papacy had established itself in Rome and was asserting jurisdiction over the Christian church. The music of the Christian church was for centuries the only cultivated art music in existence in Europe. Early Christian music, largely monophonic chant influenced by the Jewish cantorial tradition, was entirely vocal as the church attempted to purge the masses of the instrumental music associated with competing religions.

So what does this net out to? Campbell cites several verses where people are told to sing, and concludes:

The above-noted verses point out that the first century followers of Christ sang praises to the Lord: these passages make mention of singing but nor singing with mechanical accompaniment. In fact, the first time on record when those that called themselves "Christians" made use of M.I.M. in worship to God was in about the year A.D. 670- that was some 600 years after the New Testament was written.

I will take it for granted that Campbell is right on the 670 date, but this really doesn't matter. The conditions I have described above in terms of availability would endure for the next 1200-1500 years at least. Furthermore by 670 we would expect all pagan connections to various instruments to be erased; by now the church would be safe in taking over this aspect of culture and making it sacred for their own -- as they did for other social peripherals. At the core, though, what Campbell offers is simply a fallacious argument from silence. We don't need a mention of or a command to use instruments anymore than we need one to use a hymnbook. (In that case, of course, there were also social constraints: few people could read, or read music anyway, and printing was expensive -- but the Bible says nothing about hymnbooks or sheet music, so shall we not use those?) Instruments are a component of musical presentation just as these other elements are -- Biblical silence cannot be interpreted as lack of divine authority or non-authority, especially when there were significant social reasons for the silence and no direct provision against such things.

Beyond this of course we do have the evidence of the use of instruments in the OT. Campbell explains this away, however, by stating that the old law and method of sacrifice and worship have been abolished: "...[O]ur worship today is not based upon the teachings of the Old Testament. Israelites of the Old Testament age also burned incense, offered animal sacrifices, and went to Jerusalem to celebrate annual feasts. Are we prepared to say that all of these things that God's children did in the Old Testament worship are acceptable today? Surely not. If we go back to the Old Testament for our religious practices today, then we would be obligated to keep 'the whole law,' not just certain portions of it! (Gal. 5:2)." Nice try -- but musical instruments are only mentioned in the law where a trumpet is sounded (i.e., Lev. 25:9), and that wasn't for musical intent. Later use of instruments in worship was something the Israelites did on their own -- and if Campbell's silence tactic is valid, we may note that God never condemned the use of such things in the context of proper worship. Instruments were not in the law, so it cannot be part of the ritual law which Campbell argues has passed away. Indeed, such worship is a practice reflective of the Hebrew mindset in which suhc open praise was "the basic token of being alive" [Wilson, Our Father Abraham, 156]. The reserve of the CoC is a product of their own Western mores.

Moreover, there is a major distinction between the outward practice and the internal meaning of even the things like incense. Paul and the Jerusalem apostles did continue to visit the Temple and observe the holidays; they simply did not require new converts to do so, and they attended the festivals with a new appreciation of deeper meaning. Today churches may invite Jews for Jesus to speak and encourage parishoners to observe a Passover seder -- thereby gaining a new appreciation for their Juedo-Christian heritage.

Campbell reaches further with this argument: "What about adding chocolate cake to the Lord's Supper? Is there any New Testament command that directly forbids such? No. Why, then, would it be wrong to add chocolate cake to the communion?" This is profoundly irrelevant. The bread and wine have specific associations with the body and blood of Christ; chocolate cake would have no link at all. There is moreover a begged question inherent in this argument -- that instruments are inappropriate for worship just as chocolate cake is inappropos for the communion. But this merely assumes what has yet to be proven.

We are told correctly that worship has to have the right object and the right attitude. Musical instruments are no barrier to either of these in and of themselves. The "right standard" is what is at issue, and in that regard, it is clear that the standard, for the early church, was inextricably linked to the problem of the object. If flutes were associated with Apollo, you didn't use flutes. If Apollo is rendered impotent, then obviously he can't have had any power with respect to flutes in the first place, and you can flute (flout?) away in worship of the true God who has proven the other false. Christianity specialized in undermining social instutions such as slavery and the household codes -- there is no reason why it could not have effected similar reform in music, as they did as well in art. Indeed, is this not becoming salt to the world?

I find it significant that another CoC site finds it necessary to accompany this sort of argument with a closing threat: "Since we cannot be absolutely certain that God finds the use of musical instruments an appropriate form of worship, then it seems quite foolish to risk His wrath by adding something which He did not clearly authorize us to do during collective worship." Well, as far as I can see, altar calls, weekly collections, two services on Sunday and one on Wednesday, business meetings, and other standbys aren't clearly authorized either, but as far as I can see as well the CoC isn't throwing those out the window. The modern church, even the CoC, is a product of its time, and Paul and others would not recognize much of it. However, that it far from important, since the early church was also very much a product of its time; what is important is that they would recognize the members of the body of Christ. "Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's." (2 Cor. 7)

[jpholding]

I remember one of the hardline elders pounding his fist in his palm and shouting, "If Jesus had wanted us to have a baseball team he would have said so in scripture." I remember asking, a mere 10 year old, "but did they have baseball back then?"

Thanks for the good word, DA. :smile:

So what dio the elder say when you asked him that question?

[Dixie Al]

When in my precocity I asked why Jesus would have not allowed a baseball team in his time had they existed, that being the reason our little church of Christ could not field a team against the Methodists and Baptists in smalltown Tennessee, the elder sputtered a bit and came up with same old 'we speak where the scriptures speak; we are silent where the scriptures are silent' argument. Since I was taught at home never to contradict an older person (such as a teacher, an auntie, or God forbid my parents, I just sighed and shut up.

My dad did, however, play a mean violin, sang hearty bass, and helped teach me piano, so -- oddly for the church of Christ -- he and I would join the Methodists across the street from our church during their annual Christmas and Easter cantatas. our little church thought it wrong to hang a wreath on the church door for 'Christmas' which we ignored totally as far as 'liturgy' went, though in Sunday school we would exchange presents. We did acknowledge Easter, but it seemed grudgingly, and the singing of 'Up from the grave He arose' probably caused some to thing we had gone over to 'denominationalism'.

The church of Christ is good at throwing out the baby with the bath water. There are some good people within that Christian body, but there are also a lot of less than generous literalists who still refuse to acknowledge that there are also disciples of Christ, those who have been added to the universal church, who do not worship with non-instrumental small c churches of Christ. And so it goes . . .

[sreaver]

I am a member of the body of Christ (which i believe to be the true church). I choose to worship at a Church of Christ. One thing that I ask you all to remember is that Churches of Christ claim to be non-denominational making each one of them different in their own way. Obviously any church claiming to be non-denominational then makes themselves a denomination just by that claim in a sense. But where the CofC differs from certain denominations is that the CofC has no universal doctrine (though with their websites and tracts you could argue differently), therefore you can visit two Churches of Christ in the same town and be taught two different ways and worship two different ways. Same as all other denominations, they have their issues that they condemn and their issues that they dont. Some churches have leaned so much away from the text that brought their faith that they dont condemn anything. I think condemn is too harsh a word.....but then again that is our culture speaking through me, I have read that word in my Bible.

I love to sing acappella. I also love to worship with instruments, on my knees, with my hands up in the air. Yes, if you asked me, I would say that I am "Church of Christ". But I would be offended if you assumed that I associated my faith with everything that you read about the CofC on "some" of their websites. I would also be hurt if their were people on this website that claimed the name of Christ and looked down on their brothers and sisters in the Churches of Christ because of what they read on a website or maybe even experienced first hand. Yeah, I know that our churches dont have all the answers and we dont have everything correct, but then the church that claims that is making a very bold claim. I want to apologize if any of you have been condemned from someone of the same "building name" as I, but ask also that you might still treat us with that "unconditional love" that Jesus Himself gave so freely.

I believe that we are washed by Jesus blood and we should praise Him for that. I do not believe and will never claim that we are "the churches of Christ mentioned in the bible". I will never tell anyone that we are the only church going to heaven. I believe that I was added to one body of Christ that contains people from many other denominations.

I think that too many "Christians" spend all of their time arguing or "discussing" minute faith issues (usually out of their own pride to prove to the other that they are correct) that they dont leave any time to go around the world (or even their neighborhood) teaching and preaching the good news. Why cant we disciples humble ourselves out of arguing and let Christ take us out to the world to tell the story? What story? The Baptist doctrine? No. The Church of Christ doctrine? No. The Lutheran doctrine? No. etc.

By the sea one morning, the Messiah came and called some fisherman to what? Come follow my doctrine? No. Come follow my pastor? No. Come follow my band? No. Come follow my lists? No........He simply said "come follow Me." Let us do just that......follow Him.

- Cameron

[sreaver]

this post was an accident. please read my post above. i will try my best to pray for everyone here...though i cant promise that i dont forget things to pray for. have an awesome day and i hope that you consider what you read above.

[{Tim}]

this post was an accident. please read my post above. i will try my best to pray for everyone here...though i cant promise that i dont forget things to pray for. have an awesome day and i hope that you consider what you read above.
Psst, you can delete your post, it's at the top of the "edit" page. (You can't anymore though, because it's been too long since you posted it.)

[elijahfischer]

First, I want to thank you for taking your valuable time to read my logical answer to this question. Based on simple engineering theory, I say not. Now I am not say that non-instrument worship is wrong. However, I am saying that if you really belief in non-instrumental worship, then you must also believe any instrument or electronic device that produces artificial sound is also non-scriptural. This would include the use of electronic microphones and pitch pipes. Any sound that doesn't originate from the human voice cords is artificial. This includes the alteration of a human voice through an electronic microphone. The electronic microphone amplifies the sound source and the output is produced with mechanical vibration just as any other musical instrument produces sound through mechanical vibration. When the audible sound of a human voice is pickup by the microphone, transmitted into an electronic amplifier, and out of a vibrating speaker, the human voice has change from its original condition. Thus, under this simple engineering theory an electronic microphone produces sound equal to any musical instrument, as the same mechanical vibration is produced and heard in both of these devices. In fact, for any sound to be heard, a mechanical vibration is necessary. This means the human voice cords produce sound on the same mechanical theory as any musical instrument does.

In conclusion, if you really believe that musical instruments are non-scriptural then you must find a church that does not use any electronic or mechanical instrument(s) that produce artificial sound or alter the human voice in any way. Thank you for taking your valuable time to read this documentary.

[C. Road Warrior]

From http://www.tektonics.org/cocmusic.html

Allow me to begin with a confession: J. P. Holding is for all intents and purposes tone-deaf and really wishes that church could be had without music. I'd prefer a double dose of sermon any day, as long as it had enough intellectual content. Even outside the church the music I prefer is either from the Bach school (either one of the older ones, or P. D. Q., makes no difference) or from the mouth of Weird Al Yankovic. So I have no axes to grind here, and really, had I my own preference, might want to agree with the Church of Christ's stance on musical instruments -- and extend that to singing as well.

I recognize that as a personal deficiency, though, so I choose to endure it rather than fight . But for those who do groove to the music, what of the CoC's stance? I was asked to look into an item justifying the CoC's refusal to use mechanical instruments, as presented by one Roger D. Campbell (though I also found some other material on other CoC sites). Now it is hard to tell what is meant at times by "mechanical instruments" -- Campbell names the piano, organs, and guitars, but I get the impression that "mechanical" is broadly defined for any musical instrument and not just "what you can plug in" or "anything with more than one moving part." But either way, let's see what Campbell has to say.

The item starts agreeably enough. "In every age of mankind's history the Lord God has wanted men to worship Him." Obviously true. "[Not] every form of worship that a person might offer to God will be pleasing in His sight." Still obviously true; the examples of Cain and Aaron, to say nothing of syncretistic worship in the divided kingdom, make that clear enough. Worship has to have the right object (God only, not Baal or Asherah), the right attitude (no faking it), and the right standard (i.e., we don't burn lizards or dance naked in the moonlight). So how does this relate to musical instruments? Campbell explains:

As we consider the matter of using or not using mechanical instruments of music (abbreviated "M.I. M.") when we sing and worship the Lord God, the question to which we will be pursuing an answer is basically this one: Is the use of such instruments according to God's truth? If so, then there is no problem in using them. On the other hand, if we do not find scriptural statements that authorize their use, then using them would not be according to His truth, and thus unscriptural.

And there at last we find the keystone. The Bible doesn't say that people in the NT church used instruments in worship; therefore we don't. That sounds fairly convincing, until you take a few things into account. (For some of what follows I am indebted to this site as well as Lang's Music in Western Civilization and the Concise Oxford History of Music.)

First, in the ancient world you didn't just pop down to the music store and buy a trombone. Most musical instruments were hand-crafted and very expensive. Most people couldn't spare the lira for one. Jesus' disciples at the Last Supper were certainly not wealthy enough to afford a clarinet to accompany them on the hymn -- or someone trained in music to do it for them. (Ancient musicians had professional guilds, sort of like unions today.)

Second, you didn't just get one of these instruments and start trumpeting anywhere you wanted. Paul and Silas in prison would not have been allowed to have such personal items with them; there were no travelling minstrels who came by ancient prisons to perform, and if anything any musical instruments Paul and Silas had would have most likely been smashed or stolen by sadistic guards and sold for their value. Campbell's cite of this passage is rather off base.

Third, if you got an instrument, few had the leisure time or the resources to learn to play properly.

Fourth, there were some pretty sound cultural reasons why we might not see instruments in the churches at the time. The site above notes:

...Greek philosophers considered music to have great psychological and even supernatural powers. The Doctrine of ethos maintained that different types of music could affect human behavior. For example, music in the Dorian mode would cause persons to become reasonable and contemplative. Conversely, music in the Phrygian mode would cause persons to become passionate and belligerent. Orpheus, one of the great mythic men of Greece, was said to have the power to move objects and influence the gods with his music. The sound of a given instrument was also very powerful. For example, the lyre and the kithara were said to evoke reason and were linked to the worship of Apollo, the god of reason. Similarly, a double-reed instrument known as the aulos was said to evoke passion and was linked to the worship of Dionysus, the god of ecstasy.
Our other sources add that in the time if the church, "music had sunk to the lowest regions of lascivious amusement." [Lang, 41] Music was also a racketering gig; musicians competed in games with the athletes and used bribery to make sure at least someone applauded.

Of course some have noted today, apart from CoC issues, that certain types of music or instruments may be psychologically inappropriate for a church setting. As a tone-deaf freak, I wouldn't know, but this may suggest that a) some types of music or instruments may be improper for worship, in some settings or in all of them -- those demanding a simple solution or wanting a chart of situations are politely declined and advised to think for themselves; b) a person who is psychologically vulnerable in some way may wish to consider their place of worship more carefully; c) the principle of not causing your brother to sin has some applications -- if your brother stumbles because you play Stryper, try Michael W. Smith instead when you are in their presence; d) mind your own soul and be cautious of your reasons for wanting music or musical instruments. Even singing by itself can be misused; instruments are in no sense special. In any event, these associations of instruments with pagan gods suggests one reason for a lack of instruments in the church -- but also suggests that, with the gods dissipated, a reason for not having them is removed (provided some modern psycho-god or mental idol is not put in their place!).

The site goes on to verify this point:

By the time the last Roman emperor, the young Romulus Augustulus, was finally deposed in 476, the papacy had established itself in Rome and was asserting jurisdiction over the Christian church. The music of the Christian church was for centuries the only cultivated art music in existence in Europe. Early Christian music, largely monophonic chant influenced by the Jewish cantorial tradition, was entirely vocal as the church attempted to purge the masses of the instrumental music associated with competing religions.

So what does this net out to? Campbell cites several verses where people are told to sing, and concludes:

The above-noted verses point out that the first century followers of Christ sang praises to the Lord: these passages make mention of singing but nor singing with mechanical accompaniment. In fact, the first time on record when those that called themselves "Christians" made use of M.I.M. in worship to God was in about the year A.D. 670- that was some 600 years after the New Testament was written.

I will take it for granted that Campbell is right on the 670 date, but this really doesn't matter. The conditions I have described above in terms of availability would endure for the next 1200-1500 years at least. Furthermore by 670 we would expect all pagan connections to various instruments to be erased; by now the church would be safe in taking over this aspect of culture and making it sacred for their own -- as they did for other social peripherals. At the core, though, what Campbell offers is simply a fallacious argument from silence. We don't need a mention of or a command to use instruments anymore than we need one to use a hymnbook. (In that case, of course, there were also social constraints: few people could read, or read music anyway, and printing was expensive -- but the Bible says nothing about hymnbooks or sheet music, so shall we not use those?) Instruments are a component of musical presentation just as these other elements are -- Biblical silence cannot be interpreted as lack of divine authority or non-authority, especially when there were significant social reasons for the silence and no direct provision against such things.

Beyond this of course we do have the evidence of the use of instruments in the OT. Campbell explains this away, however, by stating that the old law and method of sacrifice and worship have been abolished: "...[O]ur worship today is not based upon the teachings of the Old Testament. Israelites of the Old Testament age also burned incense, offered animal sacrifices, and went to Jerusalem to celebrate annual feasts. Are we prepared to say that all of these things that God's children did in the Old Testament worship are acceptable today? Surely not. If we go back to the Old Testament for our religious practices today, then we would be obligated to keep 'the whole law,' not just certain portions of it! (Gal. 5:2)." Nice try -- but musical instruments are only mentioned in the law where a trumpet is sounded (i.e., Lev. 25:9), and that wasn't for musical intent. Later use of instruments in worship was something the Israelites did on their own -- and if Campbell's silence tactic is valid, we may note that God never condemned the use of such things in the context of proper worship. Instruments were not in the law, so it cannot be part of the ritual law which Campbell argues has passed away. Indeed, such worship is a practice reflective of the Hebrew mindset in which suhc open praise was "the basic token of being alive" [Wilson, Our Father Abraham, 156]. The reserve of the CoC is a product of their own Western mores.

Moreover, there is a major distinction between the outward practice and the internal meaning of even the things like incense. Paul and the Jerusalem apostles did continue to visit the Temple and observe the holidays; they simply did not require new converts to do so, and they attended the festivals with a new appreciation of deeper meaning. Today churches may invite Jews for Jesus to speak and encourage parishoners to observe a Passover seder -- thereby gaining a new appreciation for their Juedo-Christian heritage.

Campbell reaches further with this argument: "What about adding chocolate cake to the Lord's Supper? Is there any New Testament command that directly forbids such? No. Why, then, would it be wrong to add chocolate cake to the communion?" This is profoundly irrelevant. The bread and wine have specific associations with the body and blood of Christ; chocolate cake would have no link at all. There is moreover a begged question inherent in this argument -- that instruments are inappropriate for worship just as chocolate cake is inappropos for the communion. But this merely assumes what has yet to be proven.

We are told correctly that worship has to have the right object and the right attitude. Musical instruments are no barrier to either of these in and of themselves. The "right standard" is what is at issue, and in that regard, it is clear that the standard, for the early church, was inextricably linked to the problem of the object. If flutes were associated with Apollo, you didn't use flutes. If Apollo is rendered impotent, then obviously he can't have had any power with respect to flutes in the first place, and you can flute (flout?) away in worship of the true God who has proven the other false. Christianity specialized in undermining social instutions such as slavery and the household codes -- there is no reason why it could not have effected similar reform in music, as they did as well in art. Indeed, is this not becoming salt to the world?

I find it significant that another CoC site finds it necessary to accompany this sort of argument with a closing threat: "Since we cannot be absolutely certain that God finds the use of musical instruments an appropriate form of worship, then it seems quite foolish to risk His wrath by adding something which He did not clearly authorize us to do during collective worship." Well, as far as I can see, altar calls, weekly collections, two services on Sunday and one on Wednesday, business meetings, and other standbys aren't clearly authorized either, but as far as I can see as well the CoC isn't throwing those out the window. The modern church, even the CoC, is a product of its time, and Paul and others would not recognize much of it. However, that it far from important, since the early church was also very much a product of its time; what is important is that they would recognize the members of the body of Christ. "Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's." (2 Cor. 7)
Great article brother JP! Keep up the good work.

[Soundsurfr]

Jesus' disciples at the Last Supper were certainly not wealthy enough to afford a clarinet to accompany them on the hymn -- or someone trained in music to do it for them.

Indeed it would have been expensive as all get-out seeing as how the clarinet was not to be invented for another 1500 years.

[YeshuaMarine]

I'm here to just debunk a few myths about the Church of Christ:

1) Concerning whether the Church of Christ label is necessary to go to heaven, absolutely not. My ministers all agree that Baptists are equally as saved as anybody else. We even agree that Catholicism is a form of Christianity and they are saved, though some of their teachings we believe to be misguided and do not adhere to several of their doctrines. My ministers are constantly stating to find a church that you are comfortable with, not "find a Church of Christ that you are comfortable with." As long as its the body of Christ, its all to the good.
2) Church attendance is not a matter of salvation at all as presupposed about the CoC. There are two types of worship with Christ. There is a personal worship and fellowship worship. (as once again, the ministers I have talked with agree with). I always recommend for new Christians to engage in fellowship worship because I see that as important in learning the nature of Christ. However, my Uncle does not go to church on a regular basis, and I see him equally as saved as anybody else since he follows Christ with all of his heart.
3) I hear many people say that the Church of Christ condemns those who practice music in their church to hell. I guess we're going to hell then. We've got 3 pianos and 2 organs at my church. Not to mention, plenty of speaker equipment and guitars to go along with it.
4) I also hear people say that the Church of Christ puts too much emphasis on Communion once a week. Communion is a time of fellowship to have with your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I don't know what the Bible says on this issue, however, I believe Communion to be an essential part of the personal worship with Christ. It is, a time where we simply go in prayer and meditate over what Christ has done for us. I don't know my minister's stance on this, but I doubt that a Church of Christ minister would state that if a church took communion once a month, they would go to hell. Thats at least how I was brought up to believe in my church.
5) Lastly, I hear that the immersion has too much emphasis for salvation and is based around the blood of Jesus Christ. It has nothing to do with the blood of Christ. The water symbolizes purifying of sins and nothing more than that. It is the same practice that Baptists adhere to. I guess the only difference is that we would recognize a member to the church after they have been immersed in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. We would never say something like, "If you are on your death bed and accept Christ as your Savior, you're going to hell because you were not baptized." Not at all. I have meant several people within the Church of Christ who are kind of bent on this issue. I personally believe that Baptism is a testimony to Christ that should be made when the individual is ready to make a commitment to serving Christ. It is a very important part to being a Christian. What I will say though, is that we accept Christians from other churches without reimmersion for the most part. Again, if someone accepts Christ as their personal Savior (Faith over works) this is all that is necessary to be saved in my view. Faith is the no. 1 thing emphasized in our church, that and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Works are important but we kind of recognize something like, faith without works is dead, simply because if you don't practice in the way of a Christian and follow the teachings of Christ, then your faith in the object of Christ is contradictory to your actions and thats a no go for Jesus. Its not like, "See how many souls you can save this week" or anything. Its just, "Follow the commandments of Christ and be a good witness and light to the world." Standard practice taught in just about any Christian church I've been to.

I think the International C o C is the big no no though.

[YeshuaMarine]

I keep hearing about all of these Churches of Christ without any instruments. WHERE? I've looked all over and don't see any.

[YeshuaMarine]

Hiya Solly. They do indeed find their origins in the same 'movement' as the Disciples of Christ. Here is a great site covering the whole dang deal:

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/index.html



By the way, I wanted to throw a question out there for the CoC members...where do you find contextual, Biblical evidence for how one can place the inclusion or exclusion of musical instruments in worship as a Salvational issue?

And if JP could offer some help in combating this mentality it would be appreciated.

:innocent:
Jonathan

That answer is simple....we don't.

[Demonhacktioner]

Great article JP

The only thing that bothers me about praise music, is the lack of talent. The bands are so bad its ridicolous. I have nothing against people singing and praising God, but the people on stage need to have talent. Music is a God-given gift and I dont know why people think that talent isn't even a issue when it is. Music is not everyones gift so I think we need musicians with talent to do the music, and I rarely ever see that in church. It annoys me alot.

[YeshuaMarine]

How do I get one of those cool looking crosses by my name?

[One Bad Pig]

From http://www.tektonics.org/cocmusic.html

The item starts agreeably enough. "In every age of mankind's history the Lord God has wanted men to worship Him." Obviously true. "[Not] every form of worship that a person might offer to God will be pleasing in His sight." Still obviously true; the examples of Cain and Aaron, to say nothing of syncretistic worship in the divided kingdom, make that clear enough.
Cain and Aaron? :huh:

We don't need a mention of or a command to use instruments anymore than we need one to use a hymnbook. (In that case, of course, there were also social constraints: few people could read, or read music anyway, and printing was expensive -- but the Bible says nothing about hymnbooks or sheet music, so shall we not use those?)
Printing was not just expensive, it wasn't invented yet.

[Darth Executor]

Printing was not just expensive, it wasn't invented yet.

The word printing has more than one definition. Are you thinking of printing with plates of some kind? Because it can be done by hand...

[One Bad Pig]

The word printing has more than one definition. Are you thinking of printing with plates of some kind? Because it can be done by hand...
print·ing
n.
1. The art, process, or business of producing printed material by means of inked type and a printing press or by similar means.
2.
a. The act of one that prints.
b. Matter that is printed.
3. All the copies of a publication, such as a book, that are printed at one time.
4. Written characters not connected to one another and resembling those appearing in print.

It can refer to that, but not typically. I've never seen pre-printing press documents referred to as "printed" before. "Copying" would be a much better word there IMO. :shrug: I thought the article was well-done as a whole; that word just bugged me.

[MaxVel]

Quote:
God gave you a brain. Use it!



I’ll try. God gave you a Bible. Now, will you please try to use it? Paul told Timothy that the Scriptures are able to “equip [us] for every good work.” You say, “well, we need something else as well, because the scripture doesn’t give us all that we need to know.”

I note with interest that Paul's comment to Timothy would presumably at the time of writing have referred to the OT only....


Looks like Harrell better tear the Nt out of his Bible... It's 'extra-biblical' too :wink:

[jpholding]

Great article JP

The only thing that bothers me about praise music, is the lack of talent. The bands are so bad its ridicolous. I have nothing against people singing and praising God, but the people on stage need to have talent. Music is a God-given gift and I dont know why people think that talent isn't even a issue when it is. Music is not everyones gift so I think we need musicians with talent to do the music, and I rarely ever see that in church. It annoys me alot.

Thank you.

Being tone deaf I'm not in a position to judge talent, but it's fascinating that very often when my wife listens to Christian music she's quick to spot deficiencies in theology. I inevitably shrug and say I suspect they sacrificed accuracy for the sake of a good rhyme.

What you say, incidentally, can also be said of cartoonists and teachers....

How do I get one of those cool looking crosses by my name?

You have to get into your personal settings (preferences) and note your alignment as Christian.




Cain and Aaron?

As examples of rejected forms of worship: Cain's sacrifice, the golden calf (and also Aaron's two sons).

Maybe the word I want is "publishing".

[Teallaura]

How do I get one of those cool looking crosses by my name?
Control Panel > Profile > Religion

Check 'Christian'.

:smile:

[One Bad Pig]

As examples of rejected forms of worship: Cain's sacrifice, the golden calf (and also Aaron's two sons).
Oh, ok. That makes sense.

Maybe the word I want is "publishing".
:hrm:

pub·lish
v. pub·lished, pub·lish·ing, pub·lish·es
v.tr.
1. To prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale.
2. To bring to the public attention; announce. See Synonyms at announce.
v.intr.
1. To issue a publication.
2. To be the writer or author of published works or a work.

That might work.

:offtopic: The "Dictionary Tooltip" Firefox extension rawks. Double-click on any word to see its definition.

[Alanstallion]

I'm here to just debunk a few myths about the Church of Christ:

1) Concerning whether the Church of Christ label is necessary to go to heaven, absolutely not. My ministers all agree that Baptists are equally as saved as anybody else. We even agree that Catholicism is a form of Christianity and they are saved, though some of their teachings we believe to be misguided and do not adhere to several of their doctrines. My ministers are constantly stating to find a church that you are comfortable with, not "find a Church of Christ that you are comfortable with." As long as its the body of Christ, its all to the good.
2) Church attendance is not a matter of salvation at all as presupposed about the CoC. There are two types of worship with Christ. There is a personal worship and fellowship worship. (as once again, the ministers I have talked with agree with). I always recommend for new Christians to engage in fellowship worship because I see that as important in learning the nature of Christ. However, my Uncle does not go to church on a regular basis, and I see him equally as saved as anybody else since he follows Christ with all of his heart.
3) I hear many people say that the Church of Christ condemns those who practice music in their church to hell. I guess we're going to hell then. We've got 3 pianos and 2 organs at my church. Not to mention, plenty of speaker equipment and guitars to go along with it.
4) I also hear people say that the Church of Christ puts too much emphasis on Communion once a week. Communion is a time of fellowship to have with your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I don't know what the Bible says on this issue, however, I believe Communion to be an essential part of the personal worship with Christ. It is, a time where we simply go in prayer and meditate over what Christ has done for us. I don't know my minister's stance on this, but I doubt that a Church of Christ minister would state that if a church took communion once a month, they would go to hell. Thats at least how I was brought up to believe in my church.
5) Lastly, I hear that the immersion has too much emphasis for salvation and is based around the blood of Jesus Christ. It has nothing to do with the blood of Christ. The water symbolizes purifying of sins and nothing more than that. It is the same practice that Baptists adhere to. I guess the only difference is that we would recognize a member to the church after they have been immersed in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. We would never say something like, "If you are on your death bed and accept Christ as your Savior, you're going to hell because you were not baptized." Not at all. I have meant several people within the Church of Christ who are kind of bent on this issue. I personally believe that Baptism is a testimony to Christ that should be made when the individual is ready to make a commitment to serving Christ. It is a very important part to being a Christian. What I will say though, is that we accept Christians from other churches without reimmersion for the most part. Again, if someone accepts Christ as their personal Savior (Faith over works) this is all that is necessary to be saved in my view. Faith is the no. 1 thing emphasized in our church, that and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Works are important but we kind of recognize something like, faith without works is dead, simply because if you don't practice in the way of a Christian and follow the teachings of Christ, then your faith in the object of Christ is contradictory to your actions and thats a no go for Jesus. Its not like, "See how many souls you can save this week" or anything. Its just, "Follow the commandments of Christ and be a good witness and light to the world." Standard practice taught in just about any Christian church I've been to.

I think the International C o C is the big no no though.


Your beliefs are very similar to the Baptist beliefs. If you hadn't specified that you are a member of the CoC, I would have thought that you are a Baptist. Except that we believe that you are saved by faith not works. But through faith comes works. What I believe is that if someone claims to be saved and doesn't follow the teachings of Christ then that person is lying to God and to themselves. In effect what the Bible is saying is that faith without works is not faith. But I enjoyed your post. Thanks for the intereristing read.

[martinezjosei]

Mr. Michael S. Cole, M.D.

I read your article titled: "Why Don't We Use Musical Instruments in Worship?"
at http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/music.htm
And I want to comment on your comment: "Since we cannot be absolutely certain that God finds the use of musical instruments an appropriate form of worship, then it seems quite foolish to risk His wrath by adding something which He did not clearly authorize us to do during collective worship."

About the phrase appropriate form of worship let me ask you a question:

If you thinkg using musical instruments is not an appropriate form of worship then why did God himself told us in His scriptures that He HIMSELF will give us musical instruments to worship him?

REVELATION 15:2 clearly says:
2. And I saw what looked like a sea of glass mixed with fire and, standing beside the sea, those who had been victorious over the beast and his image and over the number of his name. They held harps given them by God 3. and sang the song of Moses the servant of God and the song of the Lamb:
"Great and marvelous are your deeds,
Lord God Almighty.
Just and true are your ways,
King of the ages.



Jose Martinez,

[kglee]

So this dicussion may be over and done with but I am going to say this anyway. I understand that the CoC believes only in the new covenant of the NT but they still believe in the OT and hold in admiration those found in the OT who are praised for their faith in Hebrews right? So David, "A man after God's own heart" praised God HIMSELF using a harp and was widely known for this talent. I do not understand why a new body of believers could not be expected to do the same.
Ecclesiastes 9:10 says "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might"
If we do this for the Lord we are worshipping him.
If I play my guitar even if I am not singing, if i am doing it to the best of my ability I am worshipping God. He wants our best offered to Him in everything we do. So whether there is music playing in your church chapel or the music is silenced to fully grasp the presence of God. You can still worship and isn't that why he created us.
Sorry if I'm crazy or off topic, I read the article we are discussing and found it terrribly refreshing. I have a past with the CoC so this was really enlightening.

[OfficialPro]

I think those CoC types don't read the Psalms much. What the heck do they think "Praise him with the harp and lyre" means?! (check Psalm 150)

[The Curtmudgeon]

I think those CoC types don't read the Psalms much. What the heck do they think "Praise him with the harp and lyre" means?! (check Psalm 150)

To the best of my knowledge they simply discount that as being Jewish, not Christian worship. They want an NT reference to musical instruments in worship, not OT.

The (of course, there's no NT reference to church business & prayer meetings on Wednesday nights, either :shrug:) Curtmudgeon

[kglee]

There are so many parallels between the OT and the NT in the Bible that it is incredible to think that one could simply forget what the other half says. One of the main verses the CoC uses for there support of "only voices" is Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.
Notice the word PSALMS. Because the NT quotes the OT so much it is not a stretch to believe that the Psalms metioned in colossians is the same as that of David's. Once again I will bring up David. How can some one pass it off as just a Jewish belief or practice if it is mentioned in the NT also. And what did David use when he sang his psalms? His harp. I don't personally believe that this is a stretch this WHOLE Bible came from the same Inspiration. God, He's Good. You would also think that if God is going to show his almighty wrath on us if we play instruments to accompany our worship he would have made it clear NOT to.

[AngelDragon]

This is a very nice read. Great job. :thumb:

[OfficialPro]

To the best of my knowledge they simply discount that as being Jewish, not Christian worship. They want an NT reference to musical instruments in worship, not OT.

The (of course, there's no NT reference to church business & prayer meetings on Wednesday nights, either :shrug:) Curtmudgeon

They split hairs like that? Wow. Talk about retentive.

[DoomRater]

This is an awesome necro. I gotta go over it again, especially after being reminded of how I often check secular lyrics but rarely worship lyrics! Yeah, I forget that both are written by man and should be double checked. Eh, not that I ever listen to SMILE FM anyway...

[kglee]

I'm here to just debunk a few myths about the Church of Christ:

1) Concerning whether the Church of Christ label is necessary to go to heaven, absolutely not. My ministers all agree that Baptists are equally as saved as anybody else. We even agree that Catholicism is a form of Christianity and they are saved, though some of their teachings we believe to be misguided and do not adhere to several of their doctrines. My ministers are constantly stating to find a church that you are comfortable with, not "find a Church of Christ that you are comfortable with." As long as its the body of Christ, its all to the good.
2) Church attendance is not a matter of salvation at all as presupposed about the CoC. There are two types of worship with Christ. There is a personal worship and fellowship worship. (as once again, the ministers I have talked with agree with). I always recommend for new Christians to engage in fellowship worship because I see that as important in learning the nature of Christ. However, my Uncle does not go to church on a regular basis, and I see him equally as saved as anybody else since he follows Christ with all of his heart.
3) I hear many people say that the Church of Christ condemns those who practice music in their church to hell. I guess we're going to hell then. We've got 3 pianos and 2 organs at my church. Not to mention, plenty of speaker equipment and guitars to go along with it.
4) I also hear people say that the Church of Christ puts too much emphasis on Communion once a week. Communion is a time of fellowship to have with your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I don't know what the Bible says on this issue, however, I believe Communion to be an essential part of the personal worship with Christ. It is, a time where we simply go in prayer and meditate over what Christ has done for us. I don't know my minister's stance on this, but I doubt that a Church of Christ minister would state that if a church took communion once a month, they would go to hell. Thats at least how I was brought up to believe in my church.
5) Lastly, I hear that the immersion has too much emphasis for salvation and is based around the blood of Jesus Christ. It has nothing to do with the blood of Christ. The water symbolizes purifying of sins and nothing more than that. It is the same practice that Baptists adhere to. I guess the only difference is that we would recognize a member to the church after they have been immersed in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. We would never say something like, "If you are on your death bed and accept Christ as your Savior, you're going to hell because you were not baptized." Not at all. I have meant several people within the Church of Christ who are kind of bent on this issue. I personally believe that Baptism is a testimony to Christ that should be made when the individual is ready to make a commitment to serving Christ. It is a very important part to being a Christian. What I will say though, is that we accept Christians from other churches without reimmersion for the most part. Again, if someone accepts Christ as their personal Savior (Faith over works) this is all that is necessary to be saved in my view. Faith is the no. 1 thing emphasized in our church, that and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Works are important but we kind of recognize something like, faith without works is dead, simply because if you don't practice in the way of a Christian and follow the teachings of Christ, then your faith in the object of Christ is contradictory to your actions and thats a no go for Jesus. Its not like, "See how many souls you can save this week" or anything. Its just, "Follow the commandments of Christ and be a good witness and light to the world." Standard practice taught in just about any Christian church I've been to.

I think the International C o C is the big no no though.


To be frank, (you can still call me Karie though) (ha! sorry) I have many CoC friends and none of them believe like this and they are adamant about it too. I know that their CoC is not international though also. So this whole thing gave me a completely different view. Also the whole Faith without works is dead thing, think of that passage of James like this, I believe he even uses this example
If your a tree you bear fruit for everyone to see
but if you dont bear fruit then what good are you?
your still a tree though, right? just not showing those around you that you are a tree
We as Christians are told to be the light of the world so that they (unbelievers) may see your good deeds and praise the father in heaven. On that note, christians who are not doing good deeds, or works are still christians and still have faith but are not serving there true purpose, showing unbelievers Christ through are actions and works to bring them to Him. So no one can see that you are really a Christain, thus looking dead to others as those unbelievers are because they dont have Christ . Once you have accepted Chirst as your personal savior you are never dead him, you have entered into the kingdom of God and are now a child of His.

I hope that makes sense.
I like what you are offereing to this discussion.

[JusticeMachine]

I believe that Eminem is a musical genius. You might not hear what he's doing because I can't imagine you have any experience with the rhythm structures he is using. I'm hoping that there is some redeeming quality to most Christian music that I'm missing, since I don't really like much of it. But I'm not telling anyone else not to use it- except for the errant theology songs.

I get your point, but Eminem is not a musical genius. Can he play any instrument? Does he sit and layer his own music and mix it? Does he even engineer the backing beats to his track? I doubt it. He writes his own snaps, that's it. I don't consider that a genius of any sort.

[MrManNo1]

They split hairs like that? Wow. Talk about retentive.

Well, God (being God) foresaw the mass production of instruments and decided that He didn't want to hear a bunch of hippie guitar players singing squishy, happy songs of "praise", so He decided to cut out the whole instrument as a means of praise concept.

That, and maybe the CoC allows the harp and lyre, just not other instruments?

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Nah, though they will allow a harmonica to get the starting note for a song....

(I was in the ICoC...bleh)

[Mountain Man]

I get your point, but Eminem is not a musical genius. Can he play any instrument? Does he sit and layer his own music and mix it? Does he even engineer the backing beats to his track? I doubt it. He writes his own snaps, that's it. I don't consider that a genius of any sort.
Calling Eminem a "musical genius" is an insult to true musical geniuses.

[smithman]

Harrell and Jpholding: honestly guys, neither of you guys seem to embody Christianity (Christianity=in the likeness of Christ). Sorry if that comes across as judgmental, but that’s just the way I see it. Comments such as, “you never give up on spouting speculations”, “Check. And mate”, “Become educated, then try again. ” and “But do spare us your contextual miseducation, please!”…come on guys/gals, are you trying to further the truth of the gospel or prove your own rightness and worth?

Harrell:
You wrote, “you would still have to prove that out of 8,000+ members of the church in the first few weeks after Pentecost that there were no “professionally trained musicians!”---
I believe he’s talking about “possibilities” not absolutes. The point being that the possibility (or maybe even probability) exists that mechanical instruments were not used for reasons other than God’s disapproval. This is relevant because we (yes, I am a member of the church of Christ) assert to know WITH CERTAINTY (talk about conjecture) that God is silent on mechanical instruments because of his disapproval of them rather than (possibly)his silence being the mere irrelevance of mechanical instruments (MIs).

I anticipate the response of “it doesn’t matter why God didn’t authorize MIs, the fact of the matter is that He didn’t.” You know what? I can totally respect that point and it’s one of the main reasons that I continue to choose to worship a cappella. However, not knowing for certain why God did not specifically approve/condemn it, makes both pro and con MIs assumption (conjecture) and thus a matter of personal conviction and not a matter of doctrine.

I do have to say though, connecting the impropriety of Jesus being an, earthly, priest because his tribe or the incorporation of additional foods into the Lord’s supper is only vaguely relevant (if relevant at all) to singing and musical instruments. The reason being is that there is no connection between the tribe of Judah and priesthood or cake, and fruit of the vine and bread. However, there is currently (and I assume historically has been) a connection between singing and instrument playing. If a friend knew I had a good voice and said, “sing a song for me” I would imply that they wouldn’t be upset if I strummed a guitar while I sang. Another illustration of the implied connection is just because we may call Randy Travis a country music SINGER (rather than a country MUSICIAN) doesn’t restrict him to singing only.

In the past I’ve been VERY dogmatic and very “direct command, approved example, necessary inference” oriented. However, this way of thinking necessitates that God’s word and will is nothing more than a checklist. Consequently, over the last 10 years or so my thinking has been gradually transformed from the former into more of a “what is God really trying to tell me in this passage” mentality. I personally believe that this is a more holistic, faith-based and less of a legalistic way of viewing my service to God. Taking this approach, it is absolutely necessary to take in the context (both biblical and non-biblical) of the writing (who’s writing it, who’s it being written to, how would they have likely understood it, what are the societal conditions under which it’s written, etc.).

To both Harrell and Jpholding:I don’t believe that there is anything inherently sinful with having cake at the Lord’s supper. Let’s not forget that Christ himself instituted his memorial during a feast/supper. I think it’s reasonable to assume that there was other food and desserts there. There’s even biblical evidence that the disciples continued this in the first century church (I Cor. 11:20-22). One could even make the argument that, by the verses following vs 22, scripture does forbid bringing in cake to the Lord’s supper.

[smithman]

"Not even close, Harrell, but CoC is notorious for not teaching thinking skills."
JP-that hurts...at least throw in a "generally speaking" or something. I know for a fact that not all CoC congregations and certainly not all individuals fit your profile.

[jpholding]

Harrell and Jpholding: honestly guys, neither of you guys seem to embody Christianity (Christianity=in the likeness of Christ)

Then your view of Christ is deficient. Try Matthew 23 for a change. It's all been discussed to death here for years.

JP-that hurts...at least throw in a "generally speaking" or something. I know for a fact that not all CoC congregations and certainly not all individuals fit your profile.

I don't see much need to add constant qualifiers for sake of the unreasonably sensitive. Especially someone who drops in on the discussion FIVE YEARS after the fact.

[elijahfischer]

God wasn't silent about musical instruments in the old testament nor was he in Revelations which is NT. True the Lord's Supper is meant to be a reverent time of communion with God and we should only use the food that Jesus designated. However, if you are applying this theory with the musical instruments you are comparing apples with oranges. Neither did God say to add microphones or hymnals yet COC does it. Furthermore, COC does use a musical instrument in their worship service as they use a pitch pipe. Does that make COC a hypocrite? Doing what they say not to do. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, guess what, it's a duck!

[JonLanceBarker]

So JP...ever heard any Orthodox music (http://ancientfaith.com/)? :teeth:

[jpholding]

So JP...ever heard any Orthodox music (http://ancientfaith.com/)? :teeth:

Is it better than Weird Al?

[JonLanceBarker]

Is it better than Weird Al?

Depends on what you mean by "better." :teeth:

Are they better at parodying than Weird Al? No.

Are they more reverent than Weird Al? Yes.

I like Weird Al too, but for different reasons. :ahem:

(Go ahead, click the link. :teeth: If you like old choir music, you'll like this.)

[Theotimos]

Dear Fellow Believers,

I attend a Church of Christ and have, off and on, for 20 years. The church's ban on musical instruments in worship as reflective of spiritual condition or salvation has been and remains a sore point for me.

On the one hand, I respect the elders, most, if not all, of whom are more learned and better men than I am.Their years of study and Christian living make my checkered efforts pale.

After some study of my own, however, I think it is a mistake to create and elevate the ban on musical accompaniment to a doctrine. The problems are multiple.

First, the Greek words used that mean psalm or psalms and hymn or hymns explicitly or implicitly bear the meaning of musical accompaniment. There is no way around that understanding. If anything, under the hermeneutic the CoC employs, the inclusion of these words would help to sustain a claim that use of musical instruments is mandated, not banned.

Second, when we use the word "song" or "hymn," as in, "Hey, let's get together and sing some songs," we neither mean that we are singing without musical instruments nor with them. We could do either. We are certainly not making a moral or ethical comment on whether it is just and good to sing with or without musical instruments in any context. What's more, the CoC uses a special phrase to describe singing without musical instruments, "a cappella singing," which, interestingly, does mean "in the manner of a choir."

Third, many, if not most, of the verses cited by those who ban musical instruments have nothing to do with worship; rather, they are exhortations to a proper spirit and attitude in the praise of God or mere descriptions of what happened, as when Paul and Silas sing in prison, without instruments because they would not have been allowed to have any.

Fourth, unlike other positive commands or negative injunctions, no reward or punishment, no moral value, is ever placed on the use or nonuse of musical instruments in worship. We hear that sexual immorality and greed and idolatry are practices of the pagans and activities that bring the wrath of God on them; or, we hear that faith working through love, humility, steadfastness in the face of adversity or persecution, etc., are those qualities that transform us into the image of Christ and God and bring us closer to our final hope.

Nowhere do we read the use or nonuse of musical instruments described in that light.

Fifth, the hermeneutic of positive expression or affirmation assumes and presumes that the Holy Spirit was making a statement about the spiritual condition of a person who used or did not use musical instruments in worship.

Sixth, nowhere in the Bible does the scripture state the use or nonuse of musical instruments constitutes a condition of salvation.

Seventh, I heard a disturbing sermon wherein the preacher (a former elder, not the actual evangelist for the congregation) equated the importance of singing without musical accompaniment to the Lord's Supper. I believe that statement to be in error.

Scripture, in particular the words of Jesus, refute that notion. He and the apostles emphasize the special place of the body and the blood of Christ in the life and worship of the Christian. No emphasis at all can be found on the issue of singing in the worship service with or without musical accompaniment unless someone wants to "read between the lines." The problem with reading between the lines is adding something to scripture that is not there, an action strictly forbidden.

No church is immune from doctrinal error or a certain amount of waywardness. Despite planting and watering from the earliest, most respected Christian leaders filled with the Holy Spirit, the churches mentioned in Revelation were criticized by the Lord for their errors. The CoC is no different. The CoC's emphasis on a return to New Testament Christianity is admirable and to be sought by all churches. Temptations and man-made ideas, unfortunately, can always creep in.

I do not think it is wrong to sing without or with musical accompaniment, so I am content to sing a cappella in the worship service. I find Catholic chants particularly spiritually satisfying, though we do not use them, obviously. Singing a cappella is not, however, an indicator of my salvation or of my spirituality.

Love and Respect to All,
Theotimos

[Challenger Grim]

Sixth, nowhere in the Bible does the scripture state the use or nonuse of musical instruments constitutes a condition of salvation.

Seventh, I heard a disturbing sermon wherein the preacher (a former elder, not the actual evangelist for the congregation) equated the importance of singing without musical accompaniment to the Lord's Supper. I believe that statement to be in error.

Scripture, in particular the words of Jesus, refute that notion. He and the apostles emphasize the special place of the body and the blood of Christ in the life and worship of the Christian. No emphasis at all can be found on the issue of singing in the worship service with or without musical accompaniment unless someone wants to "read between the lines." The problem with reading between the lines is adding something to scripture that is not there, an action strictly forbidden.

No church is immune from doctrinal error or a certain amount of waywardness. Despite planting and watering from the earliest, most respected Christian leaders filled with the Holy Spirit, the churches mentioned in Revelation were criticized by the Lord for their errors. The CoC is no different. The CoC's emphasis on a return to New Testament Christianity is admirable and to be sought by all churches. Temptations and man-made ideas, unfortunately, can always creep in.

I do not think it is wrong to sing without or with musical accompaniment, so I am content to sing a cappella in the worship service. I find Catholic chants particularly spiritually satisfying, though we do not use them, obviously. Singing a cappella is not, however, an indicator of my salvation or of my spirituality.

Love and Respect to All,
Theotimos

Much agreed. I regularly attend CoC services, but have disagreed with the idea that musical instruments are a damnable offense (and once derailed a whole class by voicing that). There might be some discussion about the slippery slope idea (is a church obsessing over instruments going to go off the deep end into heresies?) - but that's for another time. Really, the matter should just be regulated to one of personal preference, so that we may all discuss more important things.

Allow me to begin with a confession: J. P. Holding is for all intents and purposes tone-deaf and really wishes that church could be had without music.

Now JP, I'm pretty sure there's a commandment somewhere to sing praises. :wink:

[Theotimos]

Thanks for the concord, Challenger Grim.

I add that I do not find in scripture that singing with or without musical accompaniment is an offense of any kind. I admire the CoC's search for the New Testament preaching and practice, I simply do not find the kind of affirmative command or negative command in scripture upon which their theology of a cappella worship rests. It's important to distinguish descriptive passages from prescriptive passages. In regard to musical instruments, many of the CoCers fail to do that.

It is noteworthy that the CoC and Disciples of Christ, who otherwise believe much the same way, split over that issue. It should be clear to Bible students and to believers that it is NOT clear what, if anything, God is saying about singing, except that it should be from the heart, as should all worship.

All praise and thanks be to the Most High and to His Messiah, Yeshua!

[Meta Knight]

T I admire the CoC's search for the New Testament preaching and practice, I simply do not find the kind of affirmative command or negative command in scripture upon which their theology of a cappella worship rests.
What about Psalm 98?

5 make music to the LORD with the harp,
with the harp and the sound of singing,

6 with trumpets and the blast of the ram's horn—
shout for joy before the LORD, the King.

[MetalMark]

Good article.
I'm worrying about whether after the transfiguration of the universe and deification of humanity if there will still be music.
I don't want my skillz to go to waste!

[MetalMark]

(i.e., we don't burn lizards or dance naked in the moonlight)

I want to dance naked in the moonlight... :(
Not fair!!!

[MetalMark]

I do agree that not all music is appropriate for church.
As fun as it would be, I don't think Frost Like Ashes (A Christian metal band with extremely heavy music and extreme vocals ranging from demongrowlz to mouse squeeks, as well as extremely aggressive lyrics) would be appropriate for church.
They are about 80 skillion times more extreme then Stryper.
:grin:

You don't want that in Church
Of course I'd have the time of my life :P

[NathanDavid]

When I was about 17 years old I worked with an ex-viet nam vet who complained that he'd trained in the military for many weeks (or months) in the use of a parachute, only to be assigned to travel via a helicopter; (back then you couldn't parachute from a chopper). That man was as bitter as grass about that.

On the other hand, that same man, really believed in his heart that I was not a Christian. He believed that since I was baptized in a Baptist church that I was a Baptist, but not a Christian, because "God's church didn't have any denomination."

My friend had books on how that the Church of Christ is the original church from the Bible, and how that they had remained hidden during the dark ages, etc...

I got so caught up in this man's beliefs that I went to the local church of Christ in my hometown and learned that the Church of Christ believes most of what it teaches about Christ and the church based on their interpretation of Revelation 22:18-19 . The Church of Christ believes that you have to read the Bible literally, and that adding music to the New Testament would be a sin, because they were not mentioned in the New Testament.

What is really so bad is that WE REALLY ARE supposed to "TAKE" the Bible literally, for the most part, but it simply cannot be READ literally in all instances. Moreso, though, there is grave error in the Church of Christ's denial of reality. The Church of Christ bellieves that Revelation 22:18-19 is speaking about the Bible, when it is really speaking about the Book of Revelation, which at the time it was written, was a stand alone book. The hard line Church of Christ leaders deny that the Bible ever was even a collection of scrolls and letters that-at-one-time, were scattered across the globe in the early days of the church. These hard liners have thrown away their hope to any claim to a spot in the Lamb's Book of Life, and that-before they ever started reading their Bible. The very verse on which the Church of Christ sect was founded was taught wrong, so the entire denomination was originally founded on false teaching. There are ZILLIONS of books available that express the beliefs listed in this post.

Now, 27 years later, I find that there are many Church of Christ members who have overcome their denomination's errant teaching. Good for them! Amy Grant was Church of Christ, and she surely isn't that any more! I used to hang out with a bunch of Christians who all drove Mustangs, back when I was about 22. One of my friends, Carey Johnson, was Church of Christ, but that man is a fervant Christian who is not subjecting his salvation to the works of fools. We need more stand up people like that, because there are teachings in MOST mainstream doctrines that deviate from the truth in Revelation. NOW is the time to read something literally, and that means that we need to re-think that verse and apply it to our churches.... TODAY. I know NOT ONE denomination (or non-denomination) that accurately explains the events of the Revelation.

I dedicate this rant ... to Amy Grant!

[Challenger Grim]

Good article.
I'm worrying about whether after the transfiguration of the universe and deification of humanity if there will still be music.
I don't want my skillz to go to waste!

Of course there will MM. Don't you know the saying? "In Heaven, all that is not music, is silence."

[Challenger Grim]

I add that I do not find in scripture that singing with or without musical accompaniment is an offense of any kind. I admire the CoC's search for the New Testament preaching and practice, I simply do not find the kind of affirmative command or negative command in scripture upon which their theology of a cappella worship rests. It's important to distinguish descriptive passages from prescriptive passages. In regard to musical instruments, many of the CoCers fail to do that.

The key is: "silent where the Bible is silent." Or to put it another way: if the CoC are ever unsure, they err on the side of caution.

[Theotimos]

RE: NathanDavid's comments:

I got so caught up in this man's beliefs that I went to the local church of Christ in my hometown and learned that the Church of Christ believes most of what it teaches about Christ and the church based on their interpretation of Revelation 22:18-19. The Church of Christ believes that you have to read the Bible literally, and that adding music to the New Testament would be a sin, because they were not mentioned in the New Testament.

I would not want to discount or discard the notion of risk when one begins to add to or to delete what is spoken in the Bible. The question for me is whether in telling believers to "sing" the New Testament means to exclude the use of instruments. As I wrote earlier, if I suggest a bunch of us get together to sing tonight, have I given any indication that I meant either to sing only or to sing with instrumental accompaniment? If I pull out a harmonica or guitar to accompny our singing, who would say, "Hey, wait a minute! You just said 'sing'"? I suggest that if the New Testament writer had meant to specify a condition, either that he meant vocals only or that he meant vocals with instruments, he would have done so. Not only that, but New Testament writers (the instruments of the spirit) would have detailed the goodness or badness of worshiping in such a way - they do NOT.

I do not think the reference to Amy Grant has any significance other than to state your enjoyment of her music.

RE : Challenger Grim's comment:

The key is: "silent where the Bible is silent." Or to put it another way: if the CoC are ever unsure, they err on the side of caution.

I make two points in regard to that dictum: 1. the Bible is silent on whether worship song shall be only with vocals or vocals with instrumental accompaniment; 2. many in the CoC qualify that dictum with the notion of "logical inference." What can be logically inferred from a combination of what is in the Word and what the early church practiced is or can be doctrinal. I am not opposed to that qualification in an effort to understand and implement the scripture, but we must be careful about a dogmatism that breeds contempt and condemnation of those who have arrived at a different conclusion.

Once we enter the area of inference, we must make room for logical inferences different from our own. The moment we think ourselves correct and others in error, do we not become papal? Is the staunch insistence on correctness and a unity that conforms to our own point of view anything more than a violation of the command and exhortation to be humble? I realize I may be wrong and in need of correction on this or some other points. I must be open and careful to love my brothers and sisters rather than to insist they are holders of false doctrine. We are saved by grace, and I am most thankful for that. Left to my own devices, I am most certainly hellbound. All glory be to God and to His Messiah!

Love and Respect to All,
Theotimos

[martinezjosei]

"Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs."

#1. Psalms

#2. Hymns

#3. Spiritual Songs.

COC only reads # 3 Spritual Songs, they completedly disregard # 1. Psalms.

Psalm 33:2 "Praise the LORD with harp: sing unto him with the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings"

Psalm 61:1 "For the choir director; on a stringed instrument. A Psalm of David. Hear my cry, O God; Give heed to my prayer."

The bible DOES SPEAK on musical instruments. It says very loud: USE THEM for Praise.

COC do not ignore # 1. Psalms.

[martinezjosei]

"if the CoC are ever unsure, they err on the side of caution. "

If the COC is the true church (they are NOT) then how come the representative body of Christ in Earth full of knowledge from the Holy Spirit is so "UNSURE" about musical instruments?

Salvation is not a matter of being "UNSURE" , "ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION'.

The true church (NOT THE COC) KNOWS FOR SURE that using musical instruments is the PREFERED way that GOD wants worship.

If God is going to send to HELL all those who use pipes and tambours why did GOD HIMSELF created them?


Ezekiel 28:13 "GOD CREATED PIPES AND TAMBOURS FOR CELEBRATION"
"The workmanship of thy tambours and of thy pipes was in thee: in the day that thou wast created were they prepared.
"

[Challenger Grim]

"Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs."

#1. Psalms

#2. Hymns

#3. Spiritual Songs.

COC only reads # 3 Spritual Songs, they completedly disregard # 1. Psalms.

Psalm 33:2 "Praise the LORD with harp: sing unto him with the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings"

Psalm 61:1 "For the choir director; on a stringed instrument. A Psalm of David. Hear my cry, O God; Give heed to my prayer."

The bible DOES SPEAK on musical instruments. It says very loud: USE THEM for Praise.

COC do not ignore # 1. Psalms.

I said it before, I say it again: I don't consider this a damnable issue. And if you come across CoC's that want to blow it out of proportion, I'd advise reminding them about keeping everything in the proper perspective. And the same to you, if you're going to get hung up on this.
And actually 2 and 3 are recognized by CoC, and there are some that recognize 1 as well, but they sing the psalms in acapella style.

I will add, we also believe that singing/praising is something which everyone should participate (hence why choirs are also not used). Thus, there is some logic from this, as can you imagine a church that tries to be consistent and have everyone there play an instrument during worship? (not everyone can be MetalMark)

Nonetheless, I do sincerely hope there's room for all of us in heaven (even those stinkin' baptist :wink: - ha ha, just kidding, my oldest friend is a baptist preacher :teeth:)

[martinezjosei]

"I don't consider this a damnable issue"

You are correct. I is not a damnable issue. If it were the bible would loudly SPEAK about it.

Since the bible does not SPEAK and tell us to take shower nor brush our teeth, we can assume we do not have to do it.

or maybe, just maybe,

What is in the bible is ONLY what we need for salvation and therefore the use or not of musical instruments is NOT related to our salvation for good nor bad.

So where the bible is silent let's be silent and do not say that we CAN NOT use musical instruments at church.

God said:
"I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will." Acts 13:16-22 NKJV


1 Samuel 16, verse 23
And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.


Poor David, condemned to hell TODAY by the COC.


Musical instruments were part of the OLD law?

Where does the bible says that? Only the COC believes that.

A command by David? to CELEBRATE, I repeat to "CELEBRATE" the temple inaguration with musical instruments DOES NOT constitute the Law of Moses.

[MetalMark]

Of course there will MM. Don't you know the saying? "In Heaven, all that is not music, is silence."
yay

[NathanDavid]

Theotimos - The two verses refer to Revelation only, not the whole Bible. It is believed by many protestants that Paul wrote four letters to the Corinthians, and that the Bible should contain four books of Corinthians, not just the two. God does not judge us on whether we are missing a page out of our Bible. The entire basis for this denomination was to find a way to deny grace and judge thy brother. They were looking for an excuse to break away from their Anabaptist church.

You can get plenty of folks to heaven on just the Bible, without even using the Revelation at all, as did the early church. According to the Church of Christ's beliefs, most of the early church is going to be damned for eternity. They didn't teach from the whole Bible; nobody could be saved, because they all were missing books from their doctrines!

If I were to stand in a CoC church and sing Psalms and hymns on Sunday, I would be singing about doing things that I didn't even believe in. I would be singing about playing the flute, clapping my hands and all sorts of things that I would do unto God in church, and then I would be going and preaching that non of us could "actually do" any of what that we'd just been singing to God that we would do. I would first be a liar to God, and then I would be a false teacher. That sure is a grim outlook; I tell you... Somehow that just doesn't match Christ's words about living life "more abunantly" in Him. (But trust me, they have a line on the word "abundant"... trust me; their heart if foul from verse one, the hard liners...).

There are times, like in Titus 1, that sharp rebuke is appropriate. Most mainstream churches consider the Church of Christ to be a "sect," which means that they deviate from the mainstream so badly that careful consideration has to be affronted them if they are to be addressed at all. I'll not be anything less than bold when it comes to CoC., and after the way I was attacked on my faith as a young Christian, I'll rebuke as sharply as I need to, when correcting these misguided proclaimers of the Gospel.

I am just glad, though, that some people are above the narrow minded lies that the hard liners teach within the CoC denomination. The Church of Christ originated as a break away from Anabaptists (or maybe it was the Baptists), to begin with. I could say alot about most denominations, but this thread belongs to the CoC, (and I am not picking on them; it's their thread FROM VERSE ONE).

I WILL briefly illustrate one experience that I had in a Missionary Baptist Church about five years ago. I shared two free copies of my book (on CD's) with congregants in a small country church just up the road from my home. (Here's a link to my online book, please email me with errors you find; there are some...) http://freegroups.net/library/new/One-Cloudy-Day--2003-Nathan-E-David/ . The pastor of that Missionary Baptist Church approached one Sunday after the service; he politely and eloquently threatened to have me arrested for trespassing if I ever brought my literature into his church again. He said, "We don't believe that here. We are Missionary Baptists. We don't believe that the Red Cross has anything to do with the anti-Christ...". (It only took me three visits to see what my ex-pastor (an ex-county-cop) was about.... I wonder what Obama did for those twnty years under Jeremiah Wright?)... I was also disallowed to talk about my beliefs when in attendance in a CoC back in the mid 1990's. despite that our single's group appreciated my teaching so much that one of them invited me to replace their Sunday school teacher (who never showed up for class)). That was the Homewood Church of Christ, in Homewood, Alabama. Most CoC's even consider that one a "liberal," but they were hard liners.

Whatever happened to letting several go behind the pulpit, one at a time, and letting the congregation to try the spirits? The church (broad view) of today just has problems. From the earliest doctrines of the Roman Catholics, to the most recently tuned doctrines of the many new non-denominationalists, we have to continue in check with the Bible. I know of not one single church that is not incorporated. Church incorporation is purposed to protect the money of the big tithers, so as to draw them into church. I have been through the incorporation process with another local church here in Highland Lake, Alabama. They were another break away church, breaking away from the Southern Baptist, but they ran right back to that church and, basically, typecast themselves as a satellite church.

As for taking litely that some choose to omit from or add to the scriptures, I don't have to become a lost soul and teach the Revelation in an errant fashion in order to have that bit common sense. That being said, though, I think Joshua addressed this issue anyway. Of course, to the lost souls of the CoC's hard line doctrine, that would be using the Old Testament, which'll "send you to hell brother!"

Please do not advertise in your posts. Review our guidelines on advertising here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/faq.php?faq=campus_decorum#faq_campus_decorum_advertising).

[Theotimos]

Hi, NathanDavid, and all fellow Twebbers!

NathanDavid, I apologize for any lack of clarity in what I wrote, and I would like to clear that up now.

You wrote in your Sept. 16 post

Theotimos - The two verses refer to Revelation only, not the whole Bible. It is believed by many protestants that Paul wrote four letters to the Corinthians, and that the Bible should contain four books of Corinthians, not just the two. God does not judge us on whether we are missing a page out of our Bible. The entire basis for this denomination was to find a way to deny grace and judge thy brother. They were looking for an excuse to break away from their Anabaptist church.

I tried to write that it did not make a difference to me whether the verses in Revelation to which you referred applied to Revelation or to the whole Bible. Before I am accused of laxity, let me add the point I did try to make: as a Christian, I have the sense that one should not add or take away from what God has spoken through his scripture-writers. Whether the Bible mentions it or not, I think t is a great idea that Christians exercise extreme care in what they represent comes from God.

As someone who attends a church of Christ, I apology for anything done to you that was abusive or offensive and incompatible with God's word. Having failed many times in yielding the fruit of the spirit, I do not want to excoriate anyone who differs from my faith or practice.

The Restoration Movement sparked the development, or perhaps redevelopment, of the churches of Christ. The ideal of that movement was to restore the beliefs and practices of New Testament Christians. I have nothing but admiration for and concord with that ideal, even if I or someone else arrives at different conclusions. Those in the church of Christ believe and hope that such a restoration will have as its effect the unity of believers.

Members of the church of Christ possess different views on different subjects. For instance, some are predestinarians in a Calvinistic sense, some are not. Some, who fear God and who want to ensure their compliance for the worship He expects, take what might be called difficult or hard-line positions, as in the case of musical instruments. Many of those who believe in such a way, while they try to adhere strictly to what they believe, are loathe to condemn someone who does not believe and practice in the same way. They believe those decisions lie with the Lord.

I think in the basic theology of the Lord's church, little exists with which to disagree. The CoC emphasizes faith, baptism, repentance, and confession (not the confession of the Catholic Church). Most Christians believe those elements all have a place in the Christian life. Where people disagree is what exactly that place is or how those elements are practiced. The CoC remembers the Lord's Supper - so does nearly every other faith within the Christian community. Again, the main difference is how they interpret the spiritual significance of that event.

Personally, I believe in sola gratia. I thank the great Presbyterian minister, Dr. D. James Kennedy, for knowledge and understanding of that doctrine. No one better illuminated that lives are lived in thanks for what God and his Messiah have done for us. The spiritual struggle continues, but now we do not worry about conformity to the law. Instead, we live in repentance and thanksgiving to conform ever more to Jesus, the image of the Most High.

Love and Respect to All,

Theotimos

[NathanDavid]

Theotimos, very nicely done. I didn't mean to aim my entire rant in your direction on that last post. Of course, I misunderstood your post, and I had no inkling that you are CoC. The reason I mentioned Amy Grant was to prove my point, that many of the denomination's congregants have already overcome the errant teaching that must have evolved through dishonest in the pulpit. That is one thing that CoC does, or at least claims to do, that I like. Don't you all have several speakers each Sunday? That may very well be where those books denying world history came about. I just thank God that he got me through the trials with my friend John and with the singles group back in the 1990's.

Your other post sounded as if you are in favor of music in church, or that at least you do not condemn it. Isn't it odd that the man who first introducted me to the CoC was ill about having been denied the protection of his parachute after being trained as a paratrooper? That sort of, to me, was like falling back into being judged by the law rather than by grace, as his faith tended to do, despite all of that Bible teaching about grace...

[Theotimos]

Hello, NathanDavid!

Here's hoping you are well and blessed!

You posted these comments:


Theotimos, very nicely done. I didn't mean to aim my entire rant in your direction on that last post. Of course, I misunderstood your post, and I had no inkling that you are CoC. The reason I mentioned Amy Grant was to prove my point, that many of the denomination's congregants have already overcome the errant teaching that must have evolved through dishonest in the pulpit. That is one thing that CoC does, or at least claims to do, that I like. Don't you all have several speakers each Sunday? That may very well be where those books denying world history came about. I just thank God that he got me through the trials with my friend John and with the singles group back in the 1990's.

Your other post sounded as if you are in favor of music in church, or that at least you do not condemn it. Isn't it odd that the man who first introducted me to the CoC was ill about having been denied the protection of his parachute after being trained as a paratrooper? That sort of, to me, was like falling back into being judged by the law rather than by grace, as his faith tended to do, despite all of that Bible teaching about grace...

Yes, I attend a church of Christ. I do not condemn anyone who worships with musical instruments. At the same time, I respect what many members of the church I attend believe about worship without musical accompaniment. I do not believe salvation is at stake; on the other hand, the state of our hearts as we worship is vital. We do not realize how much we mess up when our worship is not serious and thankful and joyful and, of course, sincere.

The church of Christ emphasizes the four elements of the Lord's salvation: faith, the seed out of which grow the other three; repentance, a change of heart and mind; confession, of sin and need for God's provision, the Messiah, and of the truth and righteousness of that provision; and baptism, the immersion into waters in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. One receives grace and mercy, the forgiveness of sins, and the spirit.

Now he/she begins the journey to spiritual maturity, the living of a godly life in every aspect of life. Such is made possible only by God's grace. When he/she falls short, the Christian turns to that grace, humbly acknowledging his/her shortcomings and embarking on a firm purpose of amendment.

Is anything unscriptural in what I just wrote?

That is, I believe, the essence of what the church of Christ represents. Living the godly life can mean major changes or it can mean fine tuning. The Christian should not shrink back from either. Thankfully, we have grace to fall back on, so we never fall in and out of salvation. We can only be "disqualified," as Paul writes in 1 Cor. 9:27, when after a lifetime of grace we fail to conform to the Lord's discipline. It is a light yoke, though in this world we endure tribulations and trials and often persecutions.

Again, I am so sorry for anything abusive that happened to you in your experience of the church of Christ. Your life, and your life in Christ, is precious. It could have happened anywhere and by anyone. Good people inhabit the churches. Like every other area of life, bad people do, too. Keep your eyes on the Lord... and on the prize!

Love and Respect to All,
Timothy

[NathanDavid]

I agree with you, Theotimus, that in the basics of what today's CoC represents. That, however, is only because of the bad reputation that they have for dogging other churches for their use of music. Salvation is not at stake in how one chooses to worship our Lord, but salvation is at stake if one teaches the Revelation incorrectly. There are still hard liners around, in the CoC, who are lost to bad teachings in their upbringing. You might want to look at the last three or four verses of your Bible.

[Challenger Grim]

Salvation is not at stake in how one chooses to worship our Lord, but salvation is at stake if one teaches the Revelation incorrectly.

I must disagree. As I recall in the parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus doesn't condemn those for "failing to interpret" - only stuff like not taking care of the hungry, sick etc.

[martinezjosei]

I know of a church (I will not mention) that allows and welcome other's literature churches. They even study any literature against them and go over OPENLY in front of the congregation. They know where they stand and openly admit anyone from any other religions or church and talk lovingly to him or her. Nothing to hide, nothing to be afraid of, nothing will threatends them.

That is a true church, full of the power of the Holy Spirit, based on the truth and not comdemning anyone nor censuring any other publication. They know that the truth will melt away any false teachings like the false teachings of the Church of Christ and others.

The COC can not afford to have other christian churches literature in their mids for fear that people will find and discover the truth.

The truch that the COC wants to hide is this: They were founded by Alexander Campbell.

They want to rewrite history but history damnd them.


About the open truthful churh I mentione at the beginig, all I can say is that their members are Christian-Jewish.

The COC proudly claims that they are ignorants about the salvation status of the Christians prior to the founding of COC by Alexander Campbell.

If you ask a COC leader what happened to the masses of people prior to Alexander's Campbells divine inspiration they will say "We are not God so we do not know who will be saved or not". In other words, they play stupidity and ignorance.


The truth is that they are in darkness and they have no clue about salvation.

They claim that salvation is only thru water. Alexander Campbell, said that so they believe it. However, Alexander Campbell NEVER got Baptized by the COC. Alexander got babtized ONLY by the baptist church but he himself claims the Baptis Church to be a false church. So Alexander's baptism was done by a false church, based on what he said himself. So Alexander Campbell was never saved cause he never go baptized by the COC.


The true church knows what happened to those souls that lived before Alexander Campbell founding of the COC.

They will be saved or judged under the same gospel that saves and judge us TODAY.

There was no change of gospel after Alexander Campbell founded the COC. The gospel remains the same.


History: Alexander Campbell, is kicked out of the baptist church, his desire to become a new Martin Luther, gets him kick out of the baptist church. He founds hiw own chuch and claims that Christ's did not saved us. That Christ's death was not "enough". Only thru BAPTISM we can be saved. Not Christ but Baptism "SAVES".

Their wrong interpretation of 1 Peter 3:21 makes them believe that Christ's death was not enough.

They fail to understand that "the answer 'is' of a good conscience toward God"

Baptism is very, very, very important but is not our ticket for salvation.

Baptism is a command but getting your self immersed in water does not saves you, it only gets you wet.

It is the INTENTION of your baptism and the PUBLIC action/celebration of baptism that show publicly to God that you mean business and you do believe and want to GROW if faith.

That you ACCEPT Christ as your saviour and that you have a "GOOD conscience toward God".

Salvation is of the Spirit and the water, and not just of the water.

[Theotimos]

Greetings to my Brothers and Sisters in Christ, particularly NathanDavid and Challenger Grim:

NathanDavid wrote:

I agree with you, Theotimus, that in the basics of what today's CoC represents. That, however, is only because of the bad reputation that they have for dogging other churches for their use of music. Salvation is not at stake in how one chooses to worship our Lord, but salvation is at stake if one teaches the Revelation incorrectly. There are still hard liners around, in the CoC, who are lost to bad teachings in their upbringing. You might want to look at the last three or four verses of your Bible.

We are in agreement, then, except I would caution against the same kind of condemnation you feel certain members of the CoC have leveled against you. Humility compels us to accept that we may be wrong. Do unto others, then as we would want done to ourselves: If I am wrong in my understanding of scripture, or any part of it, I hope the Most High will forgive me in Christ and be merciful, for I am but ashes and dust. May his spirit reap fruit in me and all my brothers and sisters.

Challenger Grim quoted NathanDavid and wrote:

Salvation is not at stake in how one chooses to worship our Lord, but salvation is at stake if one teaches the Revelation incorrectly.

I must disagree. As I recall in the parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus doesn't condemn those for "failing to interpret" - only stuff like not taking care of the hungry, sick etc.

All I can say is, Thank God for grace!

Love and Respect to All,
Theotimos

[Gabby]

Come on, let's get back to beating the music horse! :deadhorse:

[Challenger Grim]

Come on, let's get back to beating the music horse! :deadhorse:

Ok, but you're only allowed to hum while beating it. No instruments allowed.




:lol::wink:

[QuantaFille]

Come on, let's get back to beating the music horse! :deadhorse:

Ok, but you're only allowed to hum while beating it. No instruments allowed.




:lol::wink:

This thread has been split. The new thread is here:
Discussion on Revelation (split from "Discussion: Music and the Church of Christ", in Tektonics forum) (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=119217)

Please keep this thread on topic, people!

[anewlife]

Since we are discussing music tastes, some of the best singing I have heard to date generates from sign language. Our Church has provisions for those that have lost hearing, or have limited hearing. Such expression of communication speaks volumes, and can also convey important messages. An open mind is paramount.

[Kain Anderson]

I have to take issue with the general consensus of this thread for a number of reasons detailed below.

First, to put the use of instrumental music in the historical church in context I think it's important to examine and agree on that history itself. I think we can all agree on the following points based on what little historical text we have available:

1) In the early writings of the apostolic fathers and Apologists we have several references to singing in the early "church" but no mention of instruments.
2) The Jews used instrumental music and the Greeks sang with the accompaniment of instruments in their idol worship.
3) Origen, Tertullian, and Justin all mention singing in the early church, and Eusebius quotes Irenaeus and Meliton about songs sung to God in Praise. No mention of instruments during worship.
4) Basil, Ambrose, and Chrysostom all state that Christians should praise God in song. Of the 3, Basil condemns instrumental music as ministering to the depraved nature of man. Chrysotom states, "It was the ancient custom, as it is still with us, for all to come together, and unitedly to join in singing. The young and the old, rich and poor, male and female, bond and free, all join in one song. . . .All worldly distinctions here cease, and the whole congregation form one general chorus."
5) Historical references lead us to believe that the 4th century was the turning point when service was becoming more formal (like today) with special singers being appointed as a distinct class of officers in the church which eventually led up to singing by a choir.
6) By the 5th century some instrumental music was being introduced. Organs were not used until the 8th century.
7) In the 13th century Thomas Aquinas wrote "Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal that she may not seem to Judaize." Therefore we know that as late as 1250 there were at least some Catholic churches not using musical instruments.
8) In 1545 the Council of Trent came close to abolishing the use of instruments because there was apparently enough within the Roman church protesting their use.
9) There is a laundry list of historical writers, scholars, and restoration writers that decried the use of instruments (even big names such as Martin Luther).

In conclusion, I think we can all agree that instrumental use in the Christian church has been the exception, not the norm, for the vast majority of the last 2000 years. Even though more and more denominations and non-denominations alike have embraced it's use over the recent history, there has never been a time when the dissenting party has never existed (i.e. this isn't something the CoC invented out of thin air and they have a pretty rich history of scholarly precedent from which to plead their case).

Now, if I understand JPH correctly, his dismissal of 2 millennia of precedent can be summed up as following:

1) The OT doesn’t condemn its use but rather affirms its use during the history of Judaism. The NT doesn’t outright condemn its use either though it doesn’t mention it. Regardless of this contrast, arguing from absence in the scriptures is pointless (i.e. hymnals, etc.).
2) Even though history backs up the non-use by the early church it’s probably because the members were poor, didn’t have access to instruments, and weren’t trained to use them. Oh, and that this condition existed for probably 1000 years or more.
3) Even when the Christians overcame #2, by then the stigma of instruments in pagan use prevented them being used.

Therefore, according to JPH, we know God is “OK” with instruments because they were used in the OT and because #2-3 doesn’t apply to our culture today.

OK. So I pretty much take issue with all 3 of those points, JPH (surprise…) and actually have to agree with Harrell in a couple places (though both of your behavior in the exchange was appalling).

I think #1 gives weight to the CoC argument opposed to yours. You have 2 cultural examples here, the Jews and the Pagans. In both cases the cultures were very accustomed to using instruments in a worship context. Don’t you find it odd that they just all of a sudden stopped when they converted to Christianity, especially in light of the fact that the apostles were constantly trying to keep the new converts from mixing their old religion with new (circumcision for example)? Apparently you found it odd enough that you had to appeal to the conjecture in your 2nd and 3rd argument.

#2 is a weak argument from start to finish. How can you appeal to the lack of availability of instruments? Maybe they weren’t fancy and elaborate, but didn’t shepherds not occasionally have a lyre or hand carved flute-like instrument? I’m pretty sure crude instruments were readily available with the more elaborate instruments being used in religious ceremony (those most likely were indeed more difficult to acquire). Plus we have to remember that we do have archaeological evidence that showed that many early Christians (at least as far back as 2nd century) were wealthy enough to have multi-room homes that their family, servants, and friends met in, some with homemade baptisteries. I seriously doubt instruments were as hard to come by as you make it sound considering how many instruments have been created by our human ancestors from something as simple as a reed, a sharp object, and a couple days of whittling. Can you provide us with a source to back up your argument, preferably a few quotes showing that both the Greeks and the Jews suffered from a shortage of ANY instruments outside of their temples?

Appealing to musical skill is also a weak conjecture. My wife learned to play “This is my Father’s World” in less than a couple hours on a flutelike instrument. Could she do a whole worship service? Of course not, but it doesn’t take much to mix in an instrument for a song or two. Think about it. If what you said was true wouldn’t we have some historical evidence of Christians longing for instruments because “everyone else had them” and they were just too poor or uneducated? Yes, I know arguing from lack of evidence is terrible, but considering at the time “everyone did it” when it came to music except for the Christians it’s pretty warranted in this case.

#3 is probably still an argument in the CoC’s favor from a form/function standpoint. The strength of the early Christian church was how personal, family like it was. Church back then was small groups meeting with each other, eating with each other, taking care of each other, etc. Contrast that with Pagan worships that were more a sensorial spectacle and it’s pretty easy to see why the stigma existed. I think it’s clear from historical evidence that the stigma of using instruments existed from day 1 and that the early Christian church had every intention of “being different.” I would say that the service we now use (including the CoC) is anathema to what the church founders intended. It has borrowed from pagan rituals and examples and throwing in instruments on top of it all is insult to injury. How you can say that the stigma is gone today and instruments are OK is beyond me unless you’re just accepting the fact that service nowadays is so influenced by paganism that the music just doesn’t matter anymore in which case shouldn’t we be arguing to restore the original function of the early church of which these accepted pagan forms really don’t cater to?

Now for my random rants.

I’ve broad brushed this as a CoC argument, but it’s kind of hard to pin down anything as a CoC doctrine. Unlike what has been posted in this thread, the CoC was NOT founded by Campbell. Yes, most churches follow so called reformation movement philosophy, but CoC churches are not tied together by any body or creed so the beliefs of one congregation varies from church to church except for a handful of key points. For the most part they do all agree on the non-use of instruments but it varies from “it’s flat our wrong” to “it’s unnecessarily dangerous” to “it’s simply unnecessary.” From a doctrinal standpoint as far as instruments are concerned I side on the “it’s unnecessarily dangerous” not solely because of its lack of "approval" in the bible, but because of the 2 millennia of general non-use contrasted with the Jewish/pagan worship of the time.

JPH’s hymnal argument is a straw man. Instruments are a different type of music, altogether. Hymnals, shape notes, a song leader, 4-part harmony etc., are simply tools to aid in singing. An instrument can not be considered a tool for singing because it creates a 2nd type of music. It can, however, be said that synergy can be obtained from the two types of music combined.

In general I’m opposed to instruments mainly because of the entertainment factor. The CoC has been trying to get a handle on its shrinking membership in recent articles in their Christian Chronicle which rightly points out that they attract large youth attendance but lose a number of those as they become young adults. This problem is not isolated to the CoC. Too often CoC church meetings devolve into “maybe we should add special singers to make the music better,” or “maybe we should add more contemporary songs,” or “maybe we need a choir,” to “maybe we need instruments” all in the name of “attracting” members back. This line of logic has no end as many of the non-denomination churches have found out. Pretty soon a “simple band” becomes a complex band, or the need for professional artists. Where does it end? Do we all need to have Grammy award winning bands to make church interesting? Young people are attracted by the social aspect of a youth group…what they do AFTER corporate worship if you will. The impersonal, passive corporate services we have nowadays does little to encourage that social aspect and it is why the youth leave when they outgrow the youth group. It is then that we devolve into a “how do we make it more entertaining” argument which is bogus. IMHO, if we went back to the close social formula of the early church then instrumental music becomes a moot point. I don’t care how dry, boring, or impersonal a “service” is or just the opposite, it’s the social connections that determine if a person will stay with a church or not. Think of it as a "youth group" for the non-youth that actually does stuff together outside church besides Sunday/Wednesday bible studies. I’m all for tossing the “pagan” aspects of our corporate worship services and mega-churches and returning to the simple social structures.

[jpholding]

I have to take issue with the general consensus of this thread for a number of reasons detailed below.

Ignorant people usually do. :ahem:

I think we can all agree on the following points based on what little historical text we have available:

All we can agree on is like the COC arguers, you think silence is an argument. I gave reasons for that silence....your replies, such as they are, are frankly idiotic and badly misinformed in terms of the social dynamics of the NT world:

I think #1 gives weight to the CoC argument opposed to yours. You have 2 cultural examples here, the Jews and the Pagans. In both cases the cultures were very accustomed to using instruments in a worship context. Don’t you find it odd that they just all of a sudden stopped when they converted to Christianity, especially in light of the fact that the apostles were constantly trying to keep the new converts from mixing their old religion with new (circumcision for example)?

No. :lol:

That's a very stupid idea, Kain. In the OT, instruments were able to be used by -- guess who? -- people who could AFFORD them. Priests and kings. There's nothing odd at all about Christians not having instruments; you're just too wedded to the security blanket of your argument to see the social differences as the reason, and invent in your own head some wacky idea that all of a sudden, in the NT period, God -- who had been mumbling under His breath all this time about the priests and kings of Israel using instruments, now decided with Jesus to FINALLY do something about it! :duh: Too bad the NT forgot to record that prohibition, as important as it is. :lolo:

#2 is a weak argument from start to finish. How can you appeal to the lack of availability of instruments?

Uh, because that's the truth of the matter, according to historians of music. :lolo: In other words, real experts....not you.


Maybe they weren’t fancy and elaborate, but didn’t shepherds not occasionally have a lyre or hand carved flute-like instrument?

Maybe in cartoons sometimes. :lol: You think THAT is evidence? Your ho-hum speculations? Sorry, little one. Not good enough. But let me add that a mere "hand-carved" instument wouldn't do the job anyway. In an agonistic society, showing up with such a crude piece (unless you actually were a shepherd, which the urban Christians would not be) would make you look incredibly stupid and get you nothing but laughs at worst and derision at best. It'd also be seen as insulting to the people you played for.


I’m pretty sure crude instruments were readily available with the more elaborate instruments being used in religious ceremony (those most likely were indeed more difficult to acquire).

Well, it's just too bad the real historians disagree with you on that! :lolo: Sorry, but not even the wealthiest Christians (who were from the artisan middle class) appear to have had what was needed to spare the change -- for the instruments AND someone trained to use them. Or did you forget about that second part? :whistle:

And actually, Kain, hiring someone to play music like that would have been seen as a way to show off and accrue honor for yourself -- not exactly a Christian priority! No -- the only way instruments would have made it into a service would have been if that special someone was wealthy enough to buy the instrument, AND the lessons -- meaning they also had the talent and leisure to pursue it seriously. Try again.

Can you provide us with a source to back up your argument, preferably a few quotes showing that both the Greeks and the Jews suffered from a shortage of ANY instruments outside of their temples?

I listed my sources in the article http://www.tektonics.org/af/cocmusic.html -- go find them and tell us how much more informed you are. :ahem:


Appealing to musical skill is also a weak conjecture. My wife learned to play “This is my Father’s World” in less than a couple hours on a flutelike instrument.

:lmbo: Lunatic fundy, are you paying attention? Music of this sort was the province of people in professional guilds; the amateur hobbyist was an unknown!


Think about it. If what you said was true wouldn’t we have some historical evidence of Christians longing for instruments because “everyone else had them” and they were just too poor or uneducated?

No. That's not how the dialectic worked in an honor and shame society. You ask me to think, and you've given exactly NO thought to your own criticisms, which show a complete ignorance of the social dynamics of the Biblical world. As in here:


#3 is probably still an argument in the CoC’s favor from a form/function standpoint. The strength of the early Christian church was how personal, family like it was.

:rofl:

NO! It was not "personal"; people in an agonistic society do NOT get to know each other "personally". And sorry to break your fantasy in pieces, but pagans, too, had small group meetings, fellowship meals, and mutual help -- in both religious and social settings.

I smell a rat -- do you fall for that idiotic crap by Frank Viola? This:

How you can say that the stigma is gone today and instruments are OK is beyond me unless you’re just accepting the fact that service nowadays is so influenced by paganism that the music just doesn’t matter anymore in which case shouldn’t we be arguing to restore the original function of the early church of which these accepted pagan forms really don’t cater to?

...sure has Viola's stench all over it. I imagine you'll find my thread thrashing him before long and whine yourself sick over there, too.

Now for my random rants.

What do you mean, "now"? :lol:


JPH’s hymnal argument is a straw man. Instruments are a different type of music, altogether.

Your misapprehending the argument. The point is that if silence is an argument, then hymnbooks too have to go, since they didn't have them or mention them.


In general I’m opposed to instruments mainly because of the entertainment factor.

Well, if you'd paid attention you'd know I have expressed reservations on that account too. Even so, none of your yaps about entertainment would have any bearing on a church were eg, they played Handel on harps. And news flash -- bad arguments are NOT the way to achieve reform.

Get some better ones. :thumb:

[Kain Anderson]

Ignorant people usually do. :ahem:

Wow...right out of the gate! So generally the way this is supposed to work is that when you disagree you give your counterpoint with a reference, or if someone questions your understanding of your scarcely referenced sources (which I am), you provide some pithy quotes and page references??? Resorting to namecalling and other grandstanding could be perceived as a "you got nuthin." Perhaps I would be better served taking this over to Glenn Miller's site since he tends to be far more thorough and better attuned to civil and intellectual discourse?:ahem:

All we can agree on is like the COC arguers, you think silence is an argument. I gave reasons for that silence....your replies, such as they are, are frankly idiotic and badly misinformed in terms of the social dynamics of the NT world:

That's a gross misrepresentation of my post. I wouldn't at all be interested in the silence of the NT had there not been 2000 years of example to go with it. Especially in contrast to the fact that musical instrument use was culturally a huge deal back then for Jews and Greeks alike. So are you saying you don't agree with any of my first 9 points? If so, then we have no basis for continuing this conversation unless you can provide some very good sources contradicting what is widely accepted as the truth about instrumental music use in the Church. None of those first nine points were exclusively CoC.

No. :lol:

That's a very stupid idea, Kain. In the OT, instruments were able to be used by -- guess who? -- people who could AFFORD them. Priests and kings. There's nothing odd at all about Christians not having instruments; you're just too wedded to the security blanket of your argument to see the social differences as the reason, and invent in your own head some wacky idea that all of a sudden, in the NT period, God -- who had been mumbling under His breath all this time about the priests and kings of Israel using instruments, now decided with Jesus to FINALLY do something about it! :duh: Too bad the NT forgot to record that prohibition, as important as it is. :lolo:

Wait...so I thought David played the "harp" before being made King. Does that mean his family was rich or that he was a priest (king part came later)? Doesn't Isaiah mention the "harp" as an instrument played by harlots? Obviously "harp" is not the same as what we think of, but still, that isn't exactly nobility there. Your ramblings about God deciding it time to remove instruments is a straw man. The point is that we have little to go on in the NT, psallo is debated all over the place, so looking to "history" for reference isn't far fetched.

Uh, because that's the truth of the matter, according to historians of music. :lolo: In other words, real experts....not you.



Maybe in cartoons sometimes. :lol: You think THAT is evidence? Your ho-hum speculations? Sorry, little one. Not good enough. But let me add that a mere "hand-carved" instument wouldn't do the job anyway. In an agonistic society, showing up with such a crude piece (unless you actually were a shepherd, which the urban Christians would not be) would make you look incredibly stupid and get you nothing but laughs at worst and derision at best. It'd also be seen as insulting to the people you played for.



Well, it's just too bad the real historians disagree with you on that! :lolo: Sorry, but not even the wealthiest Christians (who were from the artisan middle class) appear to have had what was needed to spare the change -- for the instruments AND someone trained to use them. Or did you forget about that second part? :whistle:

And actually, Kain, hiring someone to play music like that would have been seen as a way to show off and accrue honor for yourself -- not exactly a Christian priority! No -- the only way instruments would have made it into a service would have been if that special someone was wealthy enough to buy the instrument, AND the lessons -- meaning they also had the talent and leisure to pursue it seriously. Try again.



I listed my sources in the article http://www.tektonics.org/af/cocmusic.html -- go find them and tell us how much more informed you are. :ahem:

Ahhh...the crux of our disagreement. This is where quoting sources would be helpful JP. The website you gave doesn't give any weight to your argument but rather gives some generic information about how important music was to the Greeks (which we already knew). I don't have access to "The Concise Oxford History of Music," but being a survey I'm sure there's not more than 10-20 pages referencing this topic so some quotes for us would be nice. I do have access to "Music in Western Civilization" by Long. Unless I'm missing something, he seems to be taking the opposite viewpoint as you. In fact he says this:

"In the field of arts and letters we do not distinguish between a Christian and a pagan Greece, since we know that the former absorbed the latter's cultural wealth. Such a conception is not unjustified, for centuries-old practices of everyday life do not immediately change with the advent of a new philosophy of life. Ancient Greek Christendom used the same music which was practiced by their earlier pagan brethren. A papyrus discovered in Oxyrhynchus in 1922 affords an excellent illustration of this point. It contans a Christian hymn of the third century, but its musical notation, meter, and melody follow strictly classical pre-Christian precepts."

Also wikipedia (not exactly the pinnacle of accuracy but hey...) states that music was so important to the Greeks that boys were taught music starting at age six. As most of the professional musicians received their training in school and/or private tutoring, I doubt finding Christians who could play was really a problem. In fact, from what I've read of music in ancient Greece, only the slave class was deprived of such.

:lmbo: Lunatic fundy, are you paying attention? Music of this sort was the province of people in professional guilds; the amateur hobbyist was an unknown!

Sources???? Even if true, are you saying that the cross-section of society that converted to Christianity didn't include these individuals??? Can you give me some sources for that??? Oh, and please don't say go read some 1000 page tome. Quote something concise.

As for Frank Viola, no I'm not a follower.

[Anon]

JP -

Any word on the similar opinion from the direct opposite side of the theological pond, i.e. the Calvinist's "Regulative Principle of Worship" take on no-instruments-in-church? My understanding is next to nil on that, so if it relates to CoC (or if there is a response to this particular case separately buried in this thread) let me know.

[{Tim}]

In general I’m opposed to instruments mainly because of the entertainment factor.IMO 'entertainment factor' is a poor argument, simply because any church that is relying on 'entertainment' to attract people has much more wrong with it that just an over-focus on musical instruments. (AND anyone attending a church to be "entertained" is going for the wrong reasons.) IOW, too much focus on professional music (etc) in a church is more a symptom of a problem, than the problem itself.

[jpholding]

Wow...right out of the gate! So generally the way this is supposed to work is that when you disagree you give your counterpoint with a reference,

No, it's the way it works when the opposition shows that the most detailed source they consult for their arguments comes with a pack of crayons. :lol: If you're too lazy to do your own reading, as I have -- too bad. I'm not here to serve you breakfast in bed. Anyone who roots around in Wikipedia already shows they're not up to the task of serious scholarship.

Resorting to namecalling and other grandstanding could be perceived as a "you got nuthin.

Especially by those who are new to the arena. :wink: And know no better.

Perhaps I would be better served taking this over to Glenn Miller's site since he tends to be far more thorough and better attuned to civil and intellectual discourse?:ahem:

Good luck. He has a 10 year backlog. :whistle: We'll just enterain ourselves watching you self-implode, then, shall we?

That's a gross misrepresentation of my post.

No, it's an accurate representation of your position and you're embarrassed because you know it is indefensible. Silence is your argument, and it is just plain dumb. It's also the same argument used by Earl Doherty to say that Paul and the epistles regard Jesus as a spiritual being who was crucified and resurrected in a sublunar realm, not on earth. You want to argue for the Christ myth next, maybe? Or will it suffice for you to be logically inconsistent because you can't surrender your agenda?

Especially in contrast to the fact that musical instrument use was culturally a huge deal back then for Jews and Greeks alike.

:lol: How delightfully vague. A Mercedes is also culturally a "huge deal" today, but does that mean everyone has one? Not hardly. Do yourself a favor...take your medication before your thinking disorder creeps up any further. A thing which is a "big deal" is often that because it is a symbol of status...duh ah....

If so, then we have no basis for continuing this conversation unless you can provide some very good sources contradicting what is widely accepted as the truth about instrumental music use in the Church.

Duhhhh...listen, Pain..that the church was widely instrumental isn't the issue here; the issue is WHY they were...and silence isn't an argument. Get over it and get over yourself. :thumb:

Wait...so I thought David played the "harp" before being made King.

Um, and who was he working for when he did that?

King Saul?

Oh. :rasberry: No, I guess the king of the Jews wouldn't have a royal treasury needed to buy the harp and train the guy, eh? Even before he was with Saul, though, David was clearly part of a wealthy and highly honored family that could afford the diversion. So, sorry, no -- another useless example on your part.

Doesn't Isaiah mention the "harp" as an instrument played by harlots?

For a nut who demands sources, you sure hate to quote or offer references. Maybe you mean Is. 23:16? "Take an harp, go about the city, thou harlot that hast been forgotten; make sweet melody, sing many songs, that thou mayest be remembered." You seem to forget that the "harlot" here is a metaphor for Tyre -- a very wealthy city, as it happens. :lol:

Want some more bullets for that foot?

Your ramblings about God deciding it time to remove instruments is a straw man.

No, it's a big deficiency in your argument that you can't account for, which is why you arbitrarily and falsely label it a "straw man" as a way to try to weasel out of answering.

Ahhh...the crux of our disagreement. This is where quoting sources would be helpful JP.

So says Mr. No-Cite. :lol: Too bad. I don't owe you a re-reading; go out on your own lazy butt and read for yourself. I've spent years at this work and don't owe a lazy pissant like you anything of the sort.

Unless I'm missing something, he seems to be taking the opposite viewpoint as you.

Yes, you are indeed stupid that way. The quote you offer says absolutely nothing concerning the issue at hand, or about any argument I have offered. Do yourself a favor...get a course in critical thinking so that you can understand how to APPLY things to arguments properly....

So let's sum up:

* You have not overcome the problem of expense and availability; all your examples come from people who were wealthy.
* You have done nothing to rebut the pagan association issue.
* You have ignored the honor-shame aspect (which I have learned about since I wrote that article...get the hint?)
* And you've consulted and used Wikipedia -- the Abomination that Causes Minsinformation -- which, even if right in what it says, shows you to be thoroughly unable/unwilling to conduct serious research. You've also asked for summaries. SUMMARIES! --as opposed to serious data.

Read this -- it applies to you: http://www.tektonics.org/googlestoopid.html

Also wikipedia (not exactly the pinnacle of accuracy but hey...) states that music was so important to the Greeks that boys were taught music starting at age six.

Um, stupid?

Education on ancient Greece tended to be limited to those who could AFFORD it -- i.e., the WEALTHY.

In fact, from what I've read of music in ancient Greece, only the slave class was deprived of such.

And can you guess, boys and girls, what percent of the population at the time of the NT was slaves? :whistle:

Even if true, are you saying that the cross-section of society that converted to Christianity didn't include these individuals??? Can you give me some sources for that??? Oh, and please don't say go read some 1000 page tome. Quote something concise.

No, lazy. I read those sources; you do the same, or get off the pot.

Put it this way, goofy....we have letters to less than a dozen churches....in those, very few references to music at all....there would have been hundreds of other churches over decades with NO letters for us...and you're dumb enough to think it an anomaly that we have no mention of musical instruments?

As for Frank Viola, no I'm not a follower.

Well, you do hate musical instruments, and a Viola is one of them! :lmbo: I guess you follow him under the name "Frank Salad" then.

Do yourself a favor...learn to read and to think. You're making a fool of yourself.

[jpholding]

JP -

Any word on the similar opinion from the direct opposite side of the theological pond, i.e. the Calvinist's "Regulative Principle of Worship" take on no-instruments-in-church? My understanding is next to nil on that, so if it relates to CoC (or if there is a response to this particular case separately buried in this thread) let me know.

Never seen anyone argue from that view.,

[Kain Anderson]

No, it's the way it works when the opposition shows that the most detailed source they consult for their arguments comes with a pack of crayons. :lol: If you're too lazy to do your own reading, as I have -- too bad. I'm not here to serve you breakfast in bed. Anyone who roots around in Wikipedia already shows they're not up to the task of serious scholarship.

That's really funny JP...especially coming from someone who's main post quoted a website and two survey books (which is a step above using an encyclopedia) as sources at least 2 of which don't support your argument.

So if I were to say that most freemen in Athens attended school at which learning to play the lyre was REQUIRED I assume you'd disagree? I suppose you'd also disagree that many house slaves were also educated on their owner's dime?

[jpholding]

That's really funny JP...especially coming from someone who's main post quoted a website and two survey books (which is a step above using an encyclopedia) as sources at least 2 of which don't support your argument.


:lol: COUGH....no, chump, sorry. You're not a research specialist; I am. I'm far, far above encyclopedias here....and you're obviously frustrated because you can't answer the arguments I made, which ARE supported by those sources....and I quote them to such effect, and you can't answer it.

So if I were to say that most freemen in Athens attended school at which learning to play the lyre was REQUIRED I assume you'd disagree? I suppose you'd also disagree that many house slaves were also educated on their owner's dime?

Um, stupid....

1) Athens was only ONE city, and a very unusual one at that. An exception to what TENDED to be.
2) We don't have a letter from Paul or anyone else to the church at Athens.
3) People with house slaves tended to be, er, WEALTHY.

Don't you get tired of running around like a bug trying to evade your mistakes?

[Mountain Man]

Our Church has provisions for those that have lost hearing, or have limited hearing.
The correct terms are "deaf" and "hard of hearing". Seriously. Trying to make those terms "politically correct" can be very offensive to the Deaf community, but kudos to you for not using the term "hearing imparied".
Such expression of communication speaks volumes, and can also convey important messages. An open mind is paramount.
Yes, sign language can be very expressive.

[Daniel Keeran]

Instrumental music was not common in any denomination until the 19th century. This is true because it was associated with worldliness whereas vocal music was associated with sacred worship.

Today the high impact band and worship are in style.

[Theotimos]

Dear brothers and sisters in Messiah:

Don't know if this will get posted or not. Replied last night and don't see it. So here I go again!

The tone of many of the posts is regrettable. The idea should not be to win an argument, and certainly not to put anyone down, but to discover what the will of the Lord is.

While many of us will consider the historical and cultural context in which the Christian church grew, ultimately our best bet is to rely on scripture and on the practice of the early church. As a member of the Lord's body, I say the early church because most of us believe the early church later became corrupted and the gospel ignored or perverted for insidious ends..

In that regard, many in the Lord's church do not see a scriptural directive to worship with musical instruments. While it may be plausible to consider that Christians rejected the use of instruments because of an association with pagan practices, it may be that such an association only further buttressed what Christians already believed and practiced.

It's much the same with baptism. I hear so many excuses for not being baptized, from it's not necessary to it can be done in whatever form, the etymology of the word notwithstanding. So many examples of baptism exist in the scripture - all the way back to our Lord emerging from the waters - and the word is linked - over and over again - to salvation and to the remission of sins and the receipt of the Holy Spirit, Despite that, whole churches continue to resist the plain truth.

One of the persistent arguments we hear is that we have to love, because love is the greatest of the three virtues Paul defines: faith, hope, and love. We should remember a few things. First, love is not alone, but it works with the other virtues. Second, Paul made that case to people who already had heard the gospel and believed, repented, confessed, and been baptized. Third, it was a fruit of the spirit. Fourth, it is better translated charity or even goodwill, the kind of goodwill that is based on a thankfulness to God for what he has done for us.

I would suggest that if we love the Lord and our fellow Christians, we are going to pay close attention to His word. As we grow in the knowledge and understanding of it, we are going to worship the Most High the way He wants. If He wants no musical instruments in worship, we should be content to oblige Him. That would be loving Him - to give Him His way.

Whatever we conclude from the scripture, we should really avoid the kind of derogation and prideful oneupmanship that has often marked these posts. That cannot please our Master. And if I have written anything to offend anyone or that seemed to elevate my often pitiful understanding (or lack thereof) of scripture, please forgive me!

In Christian caritas,
Theotimos

[jpholding]

The tone of many of the posts is regrettable. The idea should not be to win an argument, and certainly not to put anyone down, but to discover what the will of the Lord is.

:bawl: Go read Matthew 23 and get back to us, Mr. Self-Righteous.

While it may be plausible to consider that Christians rejected the use of instruments because of an association with pagan practices, it may be that such an association only further buttressed what Christians already believed and practiced.

:ahem:

It may also be that aliens from the planet Grong showed up with a bunch of musical instruments which they used in perverse sexual rites, thereby putting Christians off of them for eternity.

Sorry -- "may be" is just another way of saying, "I have no evidence to support my argument, so here's a wild speculation."

If He wants no musical instruments in worship, we should be content to oblige Him. That would be loving Him - to give Him His way.

And if some self-righteous prig tries to use passive-aggressive rants and speculations to piously declare what he says God "wants" we should immediately watch for him to start dispensing Kool-Aid.

Whatever we conclude from the scripture, we should really avoid the kind of derogation and prideful oneupmanship that has often marked these posts. That cannot please our Master. And if I have written anything to offend anyone or that seemed to elevate my often pitiful understanding (or lack thereof) of scripture, please forgive me!

:ahem: It's always a "pride" thing with whiners like you. Too bad Jesus didn't have your advice when he confronted his own ideological opponents. Maybe when you elevate yourself to godhood next week you can go straighten him out! :hehe:

I don't forgive you because you didn't offend me. But you sure did provide some decent comic relief!

[Mountain Man]

And if I have written anything to offend anyone or that seemed to elevate my often pitiful understanding (or lack thereof) of scripture, please forgive me!
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
-Abraham Lincoln

[Meta Knight]

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
-Abraham Lincoln
I thought that was Mark Twain...and Proverbs...

[jpholding]

I thought that was Mark Twain...and Proverbs...

You're both wrong!


It was Pope Leo X who said that! :rasberry:

[Mountain Man]

Eh, a Google search attributed it to Honest Abe.

Last time I'll ever trust that website... :rant:

[Andius]

This oughta get good. :popcorn:

Considering music is one of the biggest issues in my little corner of the world.

[Theotimos]

Dear angry, acerbic JPHolding,

You said a variety of things which are here repeated for those who may be reading for the first time:

Originally posted by Theotimos

The tone of many of the posts is regrettable. The idea should not be to win an argument, and certainly not to put anyone down, but to discover what the will of the Lord is.

Go read Matthew 23 and get back to us, Mr. Self-Righteous.

While it may be plausible to consider that Christians rejected the use of instruments because of an association with pagan practices, it may be that such an association only further buttressed what Christians already believed and practiced.

It may also be that aliens from the planet Grong showed up with a bunch of musical instruments which they used in perverse sexual rites, thereby putting Christians off of them for eternity.

Sorry -- "may be" is just another way of saying, "I have no evidence to support my argument, so here's a wild speculation."

If He wants no musical instruments in worship, we should be content to oblige Him. That would be loving Him - to give Him His way.

And if some self-righteous prig tries to use passive-aggressive rants and speculations to piously declare what he says God "wants" we should immediately watch for him to start dispensing Kool-Aid.

Whatever we conclude from the scripture, we should really avoid the kind of derogation and prideful oneupmanship that has often marked these posts. That cannot please our Master. And if I have written anything to offend anyone or that seemed to elevate my often pitiful understanding (or lack thereof) of scripture, please forgive me!

It's always a "pride" thing with whiners like you. Too bad Jesus didn't have your advice when he confronted his own ideological opponents. Maybe when you elevate yourself to godhood next week you can go straighten him out!

I don't forgive you because you didn't offend me. But you sure did provide some decent comic relief!

I am not trying to win an argument against you. Let each man be convinced in his own mind in regard to the use or disuse of musical instruments in the worship service. If it helps those who read your posts and who might be weak-minded, I will offer this:

1. Your ad hominem attacks offer no confirmation or disconfirmation of your belief or anyone else's. They only indicate that you are unable to tolerate disagreement.

2. Plausibility is not certitude. You have not refuted the reasoning of those folks who believe musical instruments are disallowed in worship. You have simply offered an alternate explanation for why the church did not use musical instruments in its worship - for centuries.

3. Various Christian denominations have struggled with the use of musical instruments in worship, not just the Church of Christ. The famous Baptist preacher of the 1800s, Charles Spurgeon, lamented the use of musical instruments in worship, though he did not believe them to be unlawful. He was clear that he thought in the New Dispensation that it was the human voice, prompted by the heart and the spirit, that could - alone - praise the Most High, not any mechanical device. He allowed only a cappella singing at his Metropolitan Tabernacle.

4, Your reference to Matthew 23 does not apply. In 23, Jesus spoke about the Pharisees and the scribes. A. You are not Jesus. B. The Pharisees and scribes were, for the most part, fundamentally and unalterably opposed to Jesus and his gospel, and were manipulated by their "father, the Devil."

In this forum, you are often addressing fellow Christians - people who acknowledge their sinfulness and who confess that Jesus is their Lord, Savior, and Messiah. I want to assume that you address the issues you do because you want to edify your brothers and sisters in Christ. Disparagement is hardly going to serve that purpose.

Blessings and goodwill to all in the name of Jesus,
Theotimos

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Erm, Theotimos, the issue regarding Matthew 23 is, Jesus disparaged the Pharisees - also I would cite Paul in the book of Acts where he called people down too....Paul wasn't Jesus.

The issue then is not whether one is Jesus, but whether it is in certain circumstances acceptable to call another down if they are in the wrong. Please explain why this is not applicable in a Christian setting?

[jpholding]

Dear angry, acerbic JPHolding,

:lol: I told ya I wasn't angry, you turkey. And I'm not "acerbic" either. Quit making stuff up.

You said a variety of things which are here repeated for those who may be reading for the first time:

Like who? Or did you just need to fluff your post some? How about you ANSWER the points I made?

Oh wait...I see why:

I am not trying to win an argument against you

Good idea...no sense trying when a loss is inevitable. :hehe:

If it helps those who read your posts and who might be weak-minded, I will offer this:

Oh dear. :ahem: The same old canards again.

1. Your ad hominem attacks offer no confirmation or disconfirmation of your belief or anyone else's. They only indicate that you are unable to tolerate disagreement.

Wrong. It indicates that I don't tolerate braying jackasses like present company (guess who?) mangling the truth for the sake of their own msinformed agendas. :thumb:

2. Plausibility is not certitude.

It's more than "plausibility," Mr. Donkey....it's "reality."

You have not refuted the reasoning of those folks who believe musical instruments are disallowed in worship.

:rofl: Of course I have. They have exactly NO "reasoning" to speak of -- just wild speculation. And you, who says "plausibility is not certitude," apparently thinks that "speculativity" IS. :lolo:

The immediate historical contexts offer the ONLY viable reason for the non-mention of instruments, and the ONLY one that is supported by evidence. That makes it the de facto winner until you or some other nut overturns it with better evidence.

Got any?

No?

Then go stick yourself in the wide end of a tuba and blow from the other side. :thumbd:

You have simply offered an alternate explanation for why the church did not use musical instruments in its worship - for centuries.

Alternate, HECK! It's your speculative wah wah that's the "alternate"; mine, with the evidence, is the primary!

3. Various Christian denominations have struggled with the use of musical instruments in worship, not just the Church of Christ.

Isn't that just too bad. So Spurgeon's personal problems add to the argument regarding the first century how? Spurgeon may have been a great preacher, but he was no more educated than most modern popular preachers like Stanley, MacArthur, etc. and wouldn't know how to apply the agonistic dialectic to the text if someone painted Malina and Neyrey's work on his inner eyelids. IOW don't throw his ignorant opinion at me about some "New Dispensation" he just made up out of his head to get back at those annoying kazoo-players in the choir.

Why people continue to think someone like Spurgeon is a worthwhile authority for Biblical exegesis is beyond me. It must be the beard. Why don't you try Wikipedia instead? It's much more reliable. :lmbo:

4, Your reference to Matthew 23 does not apply. In 23, Jesus spoke about the Pharisees and the scribes. A. You are not Jesus. B. The Pharisees and scribes were, for the most part, fundamentally and unalterably opposed to Jesus and his gospel, and were manipulated by their "father, the Devil."

:lmbo: Oh dear. Stale canard #342 again. Please explain why:

1) Jesus is able to be such a hypocrite and insult people while we can't. See also LP's response above.
2) Why insult is restricted to those who are "manipulated by the Devil." Also prove to us that your crusade against instruments is not a case of YOU being manipulated by the devil to help destroy a helpful element in worship, such that YOU in fact are opposed to Jesus and his gospel.

I'll give you a hint: You won't get an answer by drinking Kool-Aid. :whistle:

I want to assume that you address the issues you do because you want to edify your brothers and sisters in Christ. Disparagement is hardly going to serve that purpose.

Frankly, Jack....those like you who turn the Body of Christ into a disgrace, and foment uncritical thinking and emotional experiences, and remake God in your own image for your own comfort, and then try to force your narrow, sectarian biases on everyone else in your vain self-righteousness, where you focus endlessly on meaningless peripherals rather than addressing touching on the heart of the problems....don't need to be "edified." :ahem: You need to go serve Christ in a soup kitchen and leave the intellectual stuff to those of us who know what we're doing.

Talk about pride -- you've got enough of it to overflow the Superdome. :hehe:

[Andius]

If it helps those who read your posts and who might be weak-minded, I will offer this:


Good job at insulting the intelligence of the readership here Theo. Way to be "non-insulting". :hmph:

[lilpixieofterror]

Dear angry, acerbic JPHolding,

Do you have any any evidence to present that JPH is angry or is the fact, "Waa! He called me stupid!" all you can produce? I will await for you to back this up before I can move on any further.

[Theotimos]

Dear LilPunkish of Terror and JPHolding,

I thought I was clear in my response, but I'll try one more time. Re: LilPunkishofTerror's thought that people can be called out in the manner of JPHolding, i.e., ridiculed and disparaged, no, that is not what Christ did in Matthew 23 nor Paul. Do you really think that a belief that singing in the church should be done without musical accompaniment is somehow comparable to the hypocrisy and rejection of Christ by the scribes and Pharisees, etc.?

JPHolding is not, in my humble opinion, calling out anyone. He simply slams posters that he does not agree with when they refuse to look through the lens that he demands they look through. The scripture is clear on how we are to behave toward one another: demonstrating the fruits of the spirit, such as patience and gentleness; employing words that edify and which do not tear down; resisting the temptation to quarrel with that great evil, the human tongue, to satisfy the fleshly pursuit of winning an argument. Without love, the scripture makes plain that we are noisy gongs, even if we happen to know a great deal.

Re: JPHolding and your demand that I "answer" your arguments. I thought I was clear. My primary references for belief are the Lord's word and the practice of the early Christians - not outside historical sources, though they can be useful.

The scripture of the New Testament declares affirmatively that we sing, and that we make music from the heart. Do you know of a New Testament scripture that contradicts that? Does not the practice of the early Christians conform to the affirmative declarations of the NT?

It is interesting that pagans used instruments and that Christians may have - further - had an adverse reaction to their use in their own worship because of that, but it does not negate the affirmative declaration of scripture. In fact, it could be said to bolster it. As to only the wealthy being able to afford musical instruments, well, Acts mentions prominent people who became believers. One can only imagine that some of the converts from Judaism or pagan Greek religion, etc., had money. But we just do not find any mention of musical instruments used in Christian worship.

Now, you do not have to agree with me or the church of Christ understanding of scripture and early Christian practice, and I am not going to call you any names. The Lord has given you your conscience and you are accountable only to Him. I can respect that you disagree without holding your opinion in any particular reverence, however. For me, and I suspect for many others, your name-calling and related ridicule only detract from and diminish whatever merit your points may have.

I wish you well.

In Christ,
Theotimos

[jpholding]

I thought I was clear in my response, but I'll try one more time.

You were very clear. The problem is that you answer stank.

Do you really think that a belief that singing in the church should be done without musical accompaniment is somehow comparable to the hypocrisy and rejection of Christ by the scribes and Pharisees, etc.?

It's more than that, little man -- it's the fact that you despicably contrive your own epistemology in order to advance your self-righteous agenda against musical instruments. In other words, you despise truth, you despise reason, and for no other purpose than to advance your personal agenda at the expense of others.

What's wrong? Did someone beat you up with a tuba when you were 3? :lmbo:

JPHolding is not, in my humble opinion, calling out anyone.

The one whose own ox is gored seldom has anything but "humble opinion" to offer. They certainly don't have truth or fact.

He simply slams posters that he does not agree with when they refuse to look through the lens that he demands they look through.

:rofl: PLEASE! It's far more than "not looking through the lens," it is ignoring and explaining away brute fact and putting unsupported contrivances in its place, simply because of your personal problems. Get over yourself. You're far, far from being any sort of serious student of the Bible or its defining contexts.

The scripture is clear on how we are to behave toward one another

Yes, it's quite clear how we're to treat a wayward brother who won't accept correction: He is to be treated as a heathen and handed over to Satan. :thumb: You have ignored the correction that this article gives, inventing childish excuses to maintain an indefensible position for your own selfish purposes. Therefore, to Heathen Country you go!

Re: JPHolding and your demand that I "answer" your arguments. I thought I was clear.

You were clear: You had no answers.

My primary references for belief are the Lord's word

WHAT Lord's word? Now you're inventing sayings of Jesus! What cult are you part of, the Mormons?

and the practice of the early Christians - not outside historical sources, though they can be useful.

This is an absolutely moronic attitude to take towards exegesis. The practice is interpretable only BY what we know from outside sources; apart from that, no other defining context is possible -- unless you invent one out of your head, which is exactly what YOU have done. for the sake of your own self-centered self-righteousness.

The scripture of the New Testament declares affirmatively that we sing, and that we make music from the heart. Do you know of a New Testament scripture that contradicts that? Does not the practice of the early Christians conform to the affirmative declarations of the NT?

False dilemma, turkey. You're not arguing merely on affirmative declaration; you're adding riders on to those declarations so that they also exhaustively define practice under all circumstances. Your skills at logic and critical thinking are obviously badly damaged from that psychologically abusive encounter you had with a clarinet at age 6. :lolo:

As to only the wealthy being able to afford musical instruments, well, Acts mentions prominent people who became believers.

Raised and answered already, goofball. I pointed out that most NT lit doesn't even have reason to mention instruments, and that we barely have texts from a handful of the churches that must have existed; but as usual, you universalize the silence based on non-evidence. As it is, some of Paul's epistles don't even mention singing. Does that mean the only churches that could sing were the ones he mentioned it to in his letters?

Acts has no reason to mention instruments. You attempt to turn non-declarations on the subject into authoritative doctrine is appalling and disgusting. Are you this stupid? Don't you realize that the same kind of argument is used by atheists to say that Paul doesn't think Jesus lived on earth as a human being, but lived in a spiritual, sublunar realm? Is your agenda so important to you that you're willing to surrender ground to atheists just because someone whacked you with a flute when you were a teenager?

For me, and I suspect for many others, your name-calling and related ridicule only detract from and diminish whatever merit your points may have.

Hey, when your arguments are as bad as yours, Mr. Pharisee -- take whatever excuse you can! :thumb:

[Daniel Keeran]

Do we all agree that music instrument s were not used in worship in the church or synagogue (except for the temple before 70AD) of the first centuries? If yes, then we need to search for the reasons why this is true.

a. I asked an Orthodox teacher in Rome who said it has been so since the Babylonian captivity.
b. The local church was modeled after the synagogue in organization and worship.
c. We do not find any reference to music instruments in worship in the New Testament.
d. This remained generally true in all denominations until the 19th century.

[jpholding]

Social conditions that applied to the NT church would apply just as readily to the Jewish synagogue, and as I note, even up until much later in history.

However, more than an anecdotal comment from an Orthodox teacher is necessary to support that first point.

[Theotimos]

Greetings, brothers and sisters in the Lord!

Re: Daniel Keeran's post:

Yes, I agree that by and large the Christian church did not employ musical instruments in its worship for centuries.

I would go further to say I agree that scripture affirms that we are to "make melody" in our hearts, although the precise grammatical construction, and thus the meaning, of the Ephesian and Colossian exhortations may be subject to debate.

While I accept the exhortation to a capella worship, I do not know that a failure to worship this way constitutes a condition of perdition. However, each Christian must weigh the significance of one's worship, or failure to worship, the Lord in a way that is pleasing and acceptable to Him, not merely in the matter of musical instruments, but in any facet of worship.

For critical thinkers, I submit the following:

If I give my son $20 and tell him to buy a loaf of bread, a tub of butter, bring them back, and to bring back the change; and my son buys a loaf of bread, a tub of butter, 10 packs of bubble gum for himself, brings back the stuff, and brings back the change, has he obeyed me?

Though I did not explicitly prohibit the purchase of bubble gum, most of us would agree that my son acted presumptuously when he purchased additional items for himself, even though he fulfilled the positive directions.

Now let's take it a step further. I am a business owner or government agency supervisor who authorizes a subordinate to buy a camera and storage media for it. He may spend up to $400 on those combined items. The subordinate goes to the store and buys a camera, storage media, and an iPod so he and his co-workers can take turns listening to music during their work. The total comes to $397 with tax. Has the employee obeyed me? Technically, he bought a camera and storage media as I instructed and kept the amount within the limits I set.

But did he obey me? Or did he violate my private trust and, in the government scenario, violate the public trust? We can see that the seriousness of the enterprise has become elevated in these last two scenarios. So I ask: What is more serious, authorization within private/public trust or authorization within God's commands?

Just something to consider.

In Christ,
Timothy

[jpholding]

For critical thinkers, I submit the following:

Neither "critical" nor "thinker" applies to you in any sense. This asinine analogy of yours is typical fundamentalist hogwash. To wit:


If I give my son $20 and tell him to buy a loaf of bread, a tub of butter, bring them back, and to bring back the change; and my son buys a loaf of bread, a tub of butter, 10 packs of bubble gum for himself, brings back the stuff, and brings back the change, has he obeyed me?

Look, stupid..... :ahem:

That's not what the deal is here. What the deal is would be THIS:

You give our son $20 and tell him to buy a loaf of bread, a tub of butter, and the store you send him to has nothing in it but a loaf of bread and a tub of butter to buy. A remarkably stupid excuse for a store, sure, but that is only because your analogy is remarkably stupid to begin with.

10 years later, a new store finally opens that has other items, but we have nothing from you that says anything about whether your son was ever sent to purchase anything from there. But we do know that 10 years earlier, the other store was all you had available to shop at.

Your argument is like using this situation to declare that there was a moratorium or limit on buying anything but butter and bread, when the obvious issue is availability. I have pounded this into your head countless times now, and yet you still keep returning to the same idiotic idea that this has something to do with a moral avoidance of instruments. It doesn't, and there is zero evidence that it ever did. Get that through that brick you call a skull! :lol:

This insane fundy crapola you keep pushing needs to be stopped. You're making Christianity look like a religion of fools. You really need to just shut up, because it is people like you who are turning Western Christianity into the despicable, spiritually bankrupt mess that it is.


Just something to consider.

I have something for you to consider -- how about you apply for residency here? Maybe you can persuade some of these people that your arguments have merit:

http://www.danvers-state-ia.com/

[Theotimos]

Dear JPHolding,

The reason your "correction" and "teaching" are not getting through to me is because they are in error.

BTW, are you an elder at your church who "corrects?"

Not about moral avoidance? May I suggest you read, or perhaps re-read, the letter to the Ephesians in its entirety. It is wall to wall moral instruction founded on Paul's unique theological perspective. Your statement suggests a failure to understand Ephesians that evinces a dire estrangement from scripture. Though you hold yourself in high regard, I do not look to you to gain a better understanding of the Word.

I wish you well.

Theotimos

[Daniel Keeran]

Does anyone police the level of respectful content on TheologyWeb?

[Mountain Man]

Does anyone police the level of respectful content on TheologyWeb?
I can tell you from personal experience that we have no shortage of self-righteous jerks who have taken it upon themselves to do exactly that. :sigh:

[jpholding]

The reason your "correction" and "teaching" are not getting through to me is because they are in error. 1

It's too bad you're so much better at saying so than showing so, little one. :lol: But that's all you've got, really, is a loud mouth and no arguments.


BTW, are you an elder at your church who "corrects?"

No, I rank a LOT higher than that in the hierarchy. I know a heck of a lot more than a church elder. :rasberry:

Not about moral avoidance? May I suggest you read, or perhaps re-read, the letter to the Ephesians in its entirety

I know the content quite well, better than you ever will. There's nothing in there about any moral problem with musical instruments. Maybe you have one of those special editions of Ephesians from Nag Hammadi? :lmbo:

It is wall to wall moral instruction founded on Paul's unique theological perspective.

And not one bit of it applied to musical instruments. You're not fooling anyone with your shell game, Goofy.

I wish you well.

Your arguments smell. :brood:

[jpholding]

I can tell you from personal experience that we have no shortage of self-righteous jerks who have taken it upon themselves to do exactly that. :sigh:

Maybe he wants membership papers. :lol:

[Daniel Keeran]

I have found it to be the case more often than not, that those who favour the use of instruments in worship, engage in name-calling and put-down's of those who favour only vocal music in worship. If there is no TWeb to assist, I do not wish to subject myself to this.

[jpholding]

I have found it to be the case more often than not, that those who favour the use of instruments in worship, engage in name-calling and put-down's of those who favour only vocal music in worship.

Maybe that's because those who argue against instruments actually ARE stupid. :ahem: Why don't you show otherwise with an intelligent argument?

If there is no TWeb to assist, I do not wish to subject myself to this.

Where do you usually go to subject yourself to it?


You might want to read the stickies concerning this section of TWeb, Dan. Self-righteous police aren't given the red carpet here.

[Darth Executor]

I have found it to be the case more often than not, that those who favour the use of instruments in worship, engage in name-calling and put-down's of those who favour only vocal music in worship. If there is no TWeb to assist, I do not wish to subject myself to this.

I favor* only vocals and I engage in gratuitous name-calling all the time.


*favor =/= put down the flute and the bell, or i'll send you straight to hell

[Theotimos]

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Let's examine the claim that Ephesians 5:15-21 is a passage that does not deal with the moral avoidance of musical instruments. To our knowledge, Ephesians is Paul's letter to Jewish and Greek converts in the Greek city of Ephesus.

Verse 15 exhorts us to walk circumspectly.
Verse 16 cautions us to redeem the time because the days are evil.
Verse 17 follows with the exhortation to understand what the will of the Lord is.
Verse 18a then warns NOT to be drunk with wine. Why? Because drunkenness is listed among the catalog of sins. For instance, in Romans 13:13 it is one of the "works of darkness. In Galatians 5:21, it is cataloged as one of the "works of the flesh" which prevent inheritance of the kingdom of God.

So, are we to avoid drunkenness. Are we to do something in place of getting drunk? The scripture says, Yes.
Verse 18b "but be filled with the spirit."
Galatians details the fruits of the spirit. What specific properties of the fruits of the spirit are detailed following verse 18? What specific effects bloom from the filling of the spirit?
Verse 19 "speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord,"

But isn't a psalm a song with musical accompaniment? Yes, it is. That's why the scripture follows with an enjoinder to be "making melody in your heart to the Lord." "Psalm" and psallo (translated "making melody" in the NKJV) come from the same root. The instrumental melody is now to be made in the heart, much as we now assemble on the first day of the week instead of the last, much as we now place our trust in the final evening sacrifice of Yeshua instead of on annual or other sacrifices of bulls and goats, etc. We live in a new dispensation. The essence of the plan remains the same - God saves. But some of the particulars have been changed for His good pleasure and for our benefit.

The contradistinction of spirit and flesh, light and darkness, etc. runs throughout the Testament of Jesus and his apostles and disciples, as do the effects of those.

The message of Ephesians is clear. And it is no coincidence, my brothers and sisters, that the early Christians practiced a capella worship for centuries.

Some have maintained that the historical milieu and culture affected how the Christians practiced their worship. If culture and milieu have affected Christian belief and practice, I would suggest to you, my brothers and sisters, that it is OUR culture that has done so, that has led us to think that, despite the actual practice of the Christians who went before us, it is acceptable and even desirable to use instruments in worship.

If the Christians had had a positive command from the Lord to use musical instruments in worship, do you think anything the pagans did would have deterred them from obedience? Were they not stoned and beheaded and impaled and doused with flammables and set on fire and crucified upside down for the depth and steadfastness of their beliefs?

Scripture offers no prescription (command or authorization) for the use of musical instruments in worship.

Scripture offers no description of musical instruments used in Christian worship.

For centuries, Christians did not practice their worship with musical instruments.

From a rhetorical standpoint, the burden of proof is on those who want to introduce musical instruments into worship; but the scripture, the practice, and the history of the church are clear on this question.

God's blessings to all,
Theotimos

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

I'd like to ask, if one genuinely worships the Lord with instruments does this affect his salvation?

[lilpixieofterror]

I have found it to be the case more often than not, that those who favour the use of instruments in worship, engage in name-calling and put-down's of those who favour only vocal music in worship. If there is no TWeb to assist, I do not wish to subject myself to this.

I guess I'm close to the gates of hell since not only do I enjoy the use of instruments, but I also enjoy the CCM style of music.

[lilpixieofterror]

I'd like to ask, if one genuinely worships the Lord with instruments does this affect his salvation?

I sure hope it doesn't since I must be close to going to hell since I enjoy Casting Crowns, Jeremy Camp, and Mercy Me (to name a few).

Edited to add:

Speaking of hell bound, here (http://www.therockandworshiproadshow.com/) is a really cool evil show I want to go see protest in the spring (when it visits me). What are these evil Satan Worshipers that dare to use instruments in their singing doing this for? Let us look:

With a $10 admission price, the “Rock & Worship Road Show” aims to be an event for fans of all ages, especially families. In addition to bringing a night of exciting performances, the tour is also dedicated to a bigger purpose: helping kids with juvenile diabetes via “Imagine A Cure,” a non profit organization to support research that will lead to a cure. and those with medical needs around the world through Compassion International. For more information on “Imagine A Cure,” go to: www.imagineacureonline.com. For more information on Compassion International go to www.compassion.com
http://www.therockandworshiproadshow.com/about/index.php

Wow! What evil they are promoting! Fair priced Contemporary Christian Music and the support of a good cause, we must stand up as Christians and put a stop to this right away!

[Meta Knight]

I guess I'm close to the gates of hell since...I also enjoy the CCM style of music.
Yeah, that's about the size of it.

Heretic.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yeah, that's about the size of it.

Heretic.

Don't worry, we can burn together.

:ale:

I'll save a spot for you because videogames are also of the devil because they use music that doesn't use just vocals.

[jpholding]

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Let's examine the claim that Ephesians 5:15-21 is a passage that does not deal with the moral avoidance of musical instruments.

:ahem: OH BOY. This ought to be good.

Verse 15 exhorts us to walk circumspectly.
Verse 16 cautions us to redeem the time because the days are evil.
Verse 17 follows with the exhortation to understand what the will of the Lord is.
Verse 18a then warns NOT to be drunk with wine. Why? Because drunkenness is listed among the catalog of sins. For instance, in Romans 13:13 it is one of the "works of darkness. In Galatians 5:21, it is cataloged as one of the "works of the flesh" which prevent inheritance of the kingdom of God.

So, are we to avoid drunkenness. Are we to do something in place of getting drunk? The scripture says, Yes.

And verse 19 says we are to avoid musical instruments. Right?

No? You mean they haven't even been mentioned yet and you've been wasting our time? :lmbo:


Verse 18b "but be filled with the spirit."
Galatians details the fruits of the spirit. What specific properties of the fruits of the spirit are detailed following verse 18? What specific effects bloom from the filling of the spirit?
Verse 19 "speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord,"

Still no mention of instruments, but there's a nice commendation to sing instead of doing REALLY bad stuff like drinking. Funny, if instruments were all so-fired wicked, this'd be a great place for Paul to say it, wouldn't it?

But he don't. :ahem:

"speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, but without instruments, as those are the tools of perdition."

Fact is, Paul's words make sense if, as I say, instruments just weren't that widely available to everybody, etc. and so the church simply didn't have any yet.

They make no sense if there's a moral prohibition on instruments, since Paul was making an issue of immoral practices.


But isn't a psalm a song with musical accompaniment? Yes, it is. That's why the scripture follows with an enjoinder to be "making melody in your heart to the Lord." "Psalm" and psallo (translated "making melody" in the NKJV) come from the same root. The instrumental melody is now to be made in the heart, much as we now assemble on the first day of the week instead of the last, much as we now place our trust in the final evening sacrifice of Yeshua instead of on annual or other sacrifices of bulls and goats, etc. We live in a new dispensation. The essence of the plan remains the same - God saves. But some of the particulars have been changed for His good pleasure and for our benefit.

OH PLEASE. :rofl: This is just so Pee Wee Herman. Try this: The reason you make it "in your heart" is because -- ready? -- instruments are EXPENSIVE, etc. and the church doesn't have any yet! Socially, THAT is in line will ALL the evidence we have.

In contrast. Hebrews -- the book de jour when it comes to explaining how the new covenant succeeds the old -- has plenty to say about sacrifices and observances being obsolete, but uh....nothing about instruments.

Isn't it time you shut up and stopped making excuses for your asinine agenda?


The message of Ephesians is clear. And it is no coincidence, my brothers and sisters, that the early Christians practiced a capella worship for centuries.

In logic, that is called a "non sequitur." Maybe you've heard of it? :lmbo:

, I would suggest to you, my brothers and sisters, that it is OUR culture that has done so, that has led us to think that, despite the actual practice of the Christians who went before us, it is acceptable and even desirable to use instruments in worship.

I would suggest that you're nothing but a shallow, self-righteous pig who sucks lemons for a living. It's a shame that someone like you who destroys the church from within by your hypocrisy and legalism isn't being properly disciplined by your own fellowship.

You want to appeal to practice, do you?

How about the "holy kiss"? When was the last time you went up to your pastor, or his wife, and planted a big smoochy one on them, hmmm?

I can hardly wait to hear this one. :lol:

If the Christians had had a positive command from the Lord to use musical instruments in worship, do you think anything the pagans did would have deterred them from obedience?

Look, stupid....expecting a "positive command" for something so pedantic is itself pedantic. We also don't have positive commands to greet each other with handshakes, or stop abortion, or to minister to migrant workers. So when do you plan to go out and slap down the Christians doing those things? There's a bus leaving now. Get on it.

From a rhetorical standpoint, the burden of proof is on those who want to introduce musical instruments into worship; but the scripture, the practice, and the history of the church are clear on this question.

From a rhetorical standpoint...your argument is a total "non sequitur". You have also found NO moral injunction against instruments in Ephesians, save by use of this non sequitur, which is the basis for EVERY argument you have made since Day 1 here.

Once again, for that thick skull of yours: The data shows that there is ample, practical reason why instruments are not ever mentioned as used in worship in the NT:

* They, and the lessons to use them, were expensive, hardly ever available, and often used for questionable purposes of receiving honor. IOW the moral issue was not with the instruments themselves, but their use. This means that when Christianity got the social upper hand, these instruments could be sanctified for use by the church if so desired -- just as various forms of art were.
* We have only a tiny number of letters and documents indicating church practice -- less than a dozen churches, out of what would have been thousands across the Empire.

This is all validated by the social and historical data, and you have presented ZERO to negate it. Not one scholarly source. Not one historian. Nada. Just a strained, fundamentalist reading of the text, using non sequitur as a hermeneutic and self-righteouness as a motive power.

I'd like for you to answer Punkish's question. If you refuse a simple yes or no, you'll just prove yourself a hypocrite.

[Meta Knight]

Don't worry, we can burn together.

:ale:

I'll save a spot for you because videogames are also of the devil because they use music that doesn't use just vocals.
I'm a little young to be drinking.

[lilpixieofterror]

I'm a little young to be drinking.

Well, hopefully you'll be over 21 too when we're in hell burning together because we listened to music that used instruments, if not, I have plenty of Soda.

[Meta Knight]

Well, hopefully you'll be over 21 too when we're in hell burning together because we listened to music that used instruments, if not, I have plenty of Soda.
Yeah, I'll try to make it before I end up in hell. Darn me for enjoying the musical stylings of John Phillip Sousa.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yeah, I'll try to make it before I end up in hell. Darn me for enjoying the musical stylings of John Phillip Sousa.

Don't worry, I have an entire CD collection of CCM along with my iTunes library, I'm pretty much hell bound. You might be able to escape though.

[Meta Knight]

Don't worry, I have an entire CD collection of CCM along with my iTunes library, I'm pretty much hell bound. You might be able to escape though.
I doubt it. I play Fallout. If that won't send me right to hell, my affinity for Weird Al Yankovic sure won't do anything.

[lilpixieofterror]

I doubt it. I play Fallout. If that won't send me right to hell, my affinity for Weird Al Yankovic sure won't do anything.

:bawl:

That's so sad, but at least plenty of us will be there together.

[Meta Knight]

:bawl:

That's so sad, but at least plenty of us will be there together.
Yep.

[Mountain Man]

I sure hope it doesn't since I must be close to going to hell since I enjoy Casting Crowns, Jeremy Camp, and Mercy Me (to name a few).
I'm from the Petra, Whiteheart, Stryper, Rez Band Steve Taylor, etc. school of music myself. You know, the old school. :hehe:

By the way, I think JP would love Steve Taylor, or at least Steve Taylor's lyrics. The man is a satirist with a razor sharp wit. To give an example, he wrote a song titled "Smug" about pride in the church:

All you smug-starved millions in the thick of the search
Welcome to our church
Whatcha wanna solve?
We can help you evolve from merely self-righteous
To perfectly smug

Strike the proud pose of our country club brethren
Friendly as a tomb
Fragrant as the bottom of a locker-room broom
Now what's the matter?
Hey...get off your knees...that part don't come 'til later...
God will not be pleased...

http://www.hotlyrics.net/lyrics/S/Steve_Taylor/Smug.html
The cool thing about the song is that Mr. Taylor was inspired to write it one morning while looking at himself in the mirror. :thumb:

[martinezjosei]

Theotimo said "From a rhetorical standpoint, the burden of proof is on those who want to introduce musical instruments into worship; but the scripture, the practice, and the history of the church are clear on this question."

Yes, you are right. In bible history the use of musical instrumens WAS NOT CHANGED AT ALL.

Yes, no changes was ever introduced into the use of musical instruments.

It was allowed at the Temple. Jesus made reference to musical instruments in his paraboles.

Jesus NEVER, EVER objected to the CONTINUES use of musical instruments for worshiping.

God was pleased with David's use of musical instruments. GOD DOES NOT CHANGE.

Revelation made reference to the use of Harps in the new world.

Yes, the burden of proof is on those who want to change the Divined allowed and accepted "STATUS QUO".

[Theotimos]

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

No amount of ad hominem attacks make a belief correct. And the mention of going to hell is coming out of left field. I've made no reference to that.

If the suggestion that scripture exhorts an abstinence from the use of musical instruments in worship upsets someone's apple cart, then so be it. Let every man be convinced in his own mind. But for those of us who accept that teaching, ridicule and specious reasoning is hardly going to persuade us otherwise, much less prove the ill considered conclusions proffered in some of the posts to this forum.

We know that rich people came to believe that Yeshua was the messiah both before and during the early church. We have Zaccheus, we have the most excellent Theophilus to whom Luke writes, we have Lydia, a seller of purple, the prominent women of Thessalonica and the prominent women of Berea. In fact, the presence of the rich in the church created a problem because some believers gave them special or favorable treatment over those of lesser economic and social standing (see the letter of James).

Little or no basis exists for the notion that congregations sung a capella for centuries because they could not afford musical instruments; on the other hand the likelihood that not every congregation had someone skilled in the use of a musical instrument is strong. However, that would not explain why those congregations in the early church who did still did not use musical instruments in their worship.

There is evidence that Christians considered instruments devilish and thus inappropriate for worship. However, it is just as likely that this attitude reflected the early church's understanding of scripture as that it represented an association with a pagan context. Indeed, one could say the pagan context provides both a counterpoint and a better understanding of the scriptural exhortation to "make melody in your heart."

It is hypocritical to condemn the argument from silence that the Lord's church uses when those who support musical instruments in worship use the very same argument - that there is a silence on prohibition of their use.

On a different note, I would observe that at least some of those churches which employ musical accompaniment make big productions out of the electronic bands and singing groups or huge pipe organs and paid orchestras and choirs. The members can barely be heard, if at all, if they are even trying to sing. Is that worship to the Most High? Is Sunday morning concert time?

It's not about our musical preferences. There are many beautiful songs in which musical accompaniment plays a role: Bach's Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring, Handel's Messiah, Crhis Rice's Deep Enough to Dream, The Anointed's Send Out A Prayer, and so on. Should we sing them with instrumental accompaniment in our worship or in our worship service or simply enjoy them as public counterpoints to the profane music of the secular world?

As one who came out of a Roman Catholic and then a Presbyterian tradition, I found the emphasis the church of Christ placed on the scriptures and the early church practice and their significance refreshing. It has taken some time to throw off the fetters of man-made theology and philosophy to embrace the pure milk and meat of The Word. I'm still working at it. For that reason, while I do not agree with every idea that has been tendered to me, I take seriously every thing that the church teaches.

And for that reason, the notion that an acceptance of a capella worship somehow makes Christianity look silly or spiritually bankrupt is just so much prideful hot air. I am not anti-electricity or anti-contemporary clothing, but I would never, EVER, condemn the Amish or make fun of them. Nor have I condemned anyone who believes it is lawful to use musical instruments in worship.

Blessings to all,
Theotimos

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

No amount of ad hominem attacks make a belief correct. And the mention of going to hell is coming out of left field. I've made no reference to that.

No one argues for ad homs showing a belief correct. Where do you get this? My raising the question of salvation is natural given your sounding the moral alarm, if it is sin then it follows that one either repents or one doesn't make it - is not this the biblical exhortion? Your calling the use of instruments 'devilish' merely reinforces my need to ask the question - can I have a straight answer, please?

you wrote, (combining parts of the post)

If the suggestion that scripture exhorts an abstinence from the use of musical instruments in worship upsets someone's apple cart, then so be it.

It is hypocritical to condemn the argument from silence that the Lord's church uses when those who support musical instruments in worship use the very same argument - that there is a silence on prohibition of their use.I see a problem here. How can you say that there is a suggestion for exhortation for abstinence (over use of instruments) and then admit there is silence on the issue?

Let every man be convinced in his own mind. But for those of us who accept that teaching, ridicule and specious reasoning is hardly going to persuade us otherwise, much less prove the ill considered conclusions proffered in some of the posts to this forum.Do you really think that appeal to the social issues of the 1st century is 'specious reasoning'?

We know that rich people came to believe that Yeshua was the messiah both before and during the early church. We have Zaccheus, we have the most excellent Theophilus to whom Luke writes, we have Lydia, a seller of purple, the prominent women of Thessalonica and the prominent women of Berea. In fact, the presence of the rich in the church created a problem because some believers gave them special or favorable treatment over those of lesser economic and social standing (see the letter of James).
Does James say anything about instruments? A handful of rich people in the church...none of whom are specifically said to have connection to e.g. musical guilds. Hmm.

There is evidence that Christians considered instruments devilish and thus inappropriate for worship.Please present said evidence.

However, it is just as likely that this attitude reflected the early church's understanding of scripture as that it represented an association with a pagan context. Are you going to change the names given to days of the week? (e.g. Wednesday = Woden's day)


On a different note, I would observe that at least some of those churches which employ musical accompaniment make big productions Our church used a small organ. The congregation could easily be heard and therefore this is hardly an argument.


It's not about our musical preferences. There are many beautiful songs in which musical accompaniment plays a role: Bach's Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring, Handel's Messiah, Crhis Rice's Deep Enough to Dream, The Anointed's Send Out A Prayer, and so on. Should we sing them with instrumental accompaniment in our worship or in our worship service or simply enjoy them as public counterpoints to the profane music of the secular world?You are aware, I hope - that Bach wrote his chorales for use in churches?

As one who came out of a Roman Catholic and then a Presbyterian tradition, I found the emphasis the church of Christ placed on the scriptures and the early church practice and their significance refreshing. It has taken some time to throw off the fetters of man-made theology and philosophyHear that, folks? Presbyterian and Roman Catholic traditions are merely man-made theology! Is Alexander Campbell God? :lol:

And for that reason, the notion that an acceptance of a capella worship somehow makes Christianity look silly or spiritually bankrupt Personally I wouldn't argue that it is 'spiritually bankrupt' to use a capella. It is something beautiful. What I have problems with is when someone claims it is immoral to worship otherwise. Oh, and regarding my use of Matthew 23, I was pointing out an inconsistency between what you claimed and what scripture says about calling people down, it wasn't about instruments.

[jpholding]

No amount of ad hominem attacks make a belief correct.

Nor will any amount of whining, crying, and non sequitur.

And the mention of going to hell is coming out of left field. I've made no reference to that.

No, you've just left it in the air without specifying punishment for use of musical instruments, knowing how foolish you'll look if you DO suggest one. :ahem:

But for those of us who accept that teaching, ridicule and specious reasoning is hardly going to persuade us otherwise,

What makes you think anyone figured you were convincable or that was the purpose? You're obviously brainwashed by your own pride and self-righteousness; there's no point in trying to "convince" you that you're wrong about ANYTHING.


We know that rich people came to believe that Yeshua was the messiah both before and during the early church.

Oh yes. And how many of those people are mentioned to have been SINGING?

NONE?

Then it is stupid of you to bring them up as though it were somehow significant that they are not mentioned as having instruments, either! :doh:

Little or no basis exists for the notion that congregations sung a capella for centuries because they could not afford musical instruments;

No, only reams of social data that shows that to be the case. :doh: And you're ignoring the other factors in play I mentioned, too, which is no surprise, since you can't answer those either.


There is evidence that Christians considered instruments devilish and thus inappropriate for worship

No, there is NO evidence that insturments per se were regarded as devilish ANYWHERE. You're mistaking abuses of items for the items themselves, which is a standard error of simple minds like yours whose uncontrollable legalism is a substitute for critical thinking and self-control.

It is hypocritical to condemn the argument from silence that the Lord's church uses when those who support musical instruments in worship use the very same argument - that there is a silence on prohibition of their use.

Good thing no one here did that!

On a different note, I would observe that at least some of those churches which employ musical accompaniment make big productions out of the electronic bands and singing groups or huge pipe organs and paid orchestras and choirs.

Same moronic error of confusing use and abuse.

It has taken some time to throw off the fetters of man-made theology and philosophy to embrace the pure milk and meat of The Word. I'm still working at it.

You sure are! Your theology is 100% Velda Farms right now, to say nothing of your logical skills and research aptitude being that of a 5 year old.

And for that reason, the notion that an acceptance of a capella worship somehow makes Christianity look silly or spiritually bankrupt is just so much prideful hot air.

It is ever the curse of the sick to imagine their disease in others! :lol: Sorry, chump -- people like you DO make Christians look stupid and foolish, with your pednatic emphases on minor issues and your self-righteous pontificating against issues governed by Christian liberty, not by law.

I am not anti-electricity or anti-contemporary clothing, but I would never, EVER, condemn the Amish or make fun of them.

The Amish also wouldn't be on here trying to condemn people for not using electricity either. If you'd kept your mouth shut, you wouldn't be corrected.

Nor have I condemned anyone who believes it is lawful to use musical instruments in worship.

So tell us: What DOES happen to someone who blows a tuba in church, then? How about you answer the question straight for us?

And I really want to know when the last time was you gave someone a holy kiss, hypocrite!

[Daniel Keeran]

Theotimo said "From a rhetorical standpoint, the burden of proof is on those who want to introduce musical instruments into worship; but the scripture, the practice, and the history of the church are clear on this question."

Yes, you are right. In bible history the use of musical instrumens WAS NOT CHANGED AT ALL.

Yes, no changes was ever introduced into the use of musical instruments.

It was allowed at the Temple. Jesus made reference to musical instruments in his paraboles.

Jesus NEVER, EVER objected to the CONTINUES use of musical instruments for worshiping.

God was pleased with David's use of musical instruments. GOD DOES NOT CHANGE.

Revelation made reference to the use of Harps in the new world.

Yes, the burden of proof is on those who want to change the Divined allowed and accepted "STATUS QUO".

Certainly I agree that there should still be instrumental music in the temple in Jerusalem.

[Theotimos]

Hi, MartinezJosei!

I respectfully disagree with you. God has changed a number of items from what we call the Old Testament times to the new. The inauguration of a New Covenant had been promised and went into effect with the resurrection and ascension of Jesus and the pouring out of the holy spirit upon the apostles. Although many similarities remain, differences exist, too. The sacrifice of bulls and goats was allowed in OT times. No longer do the people of God perform such things. The Lord himself is our sacrifice.

Jesus also offered a new standard of behavior: righteousness beyond the outward adherence to law was replaced by an inward obedience generated by thankfulness. Thus, adultery is no longer merely sexual union between one or more married persons; it is in the heart when one longs to satisfy oneself sexually with another.

I could go on: baptism takes on a new, prevailing spiritual significance it never had before, the form and substance of it being the avenue by which one's sins are remitted and one receives the gift of the holy spirit. We are to confess publicly that Jesus is the Messiah and our salvation or else our faith is incomplete. We are governed by an eldership over each church instead of broken down into tribes. No longer is there a Levitical priesthood - Jesus is the high priest and we a royal priesthood - but there are teachers and evangelists and prophets and ministers, etc.

The details have changed, though the basic message - the one God saves - remains the same.

Indeed, if there was no change from the testament of Moses to the testament of Jesus Christ and the apostles, we would be Jews, would we not?

God bless you,
Theotimos

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

um, when the Lord says "I do not change" e.g. Malachi 3:6 he is not referring to his covenants, but to Himself, his own nature.

[lilpixieofterror]

No amount of ad hominem attacks make a belief correct. And the mention of going to hell is coming out of left field. I've made no reference to that.

And no matter how much you slam your fist on the ground, nothing will change either. The fact is, there is nothing to condemn instruments in music found in the Bible and in fact, we know instruments were used throughout the Bible and latter in Christianity (although not in its early years).

If the suggestion that scripture exhorts an abstinence from the use of musical instruments in worship upsets someone's apple cart, then so be it. Let every man be convinced in his own mind. But for those of us who accept that teaching, ridicule and specious reasoning is hardly going to persuade us otherwise, much less prove the ill considered conclusions proffered in some of the posts to this forum.

My goal is not to persuade you because I doubt you'd change your mind even if you were downright wrong about it.

We know that rich people came to believe that Yeshua was the messiah both before and during the early church. We have Zaccheus, we have the most excellent Theophilus to whom Luke writes, we have Lydia, a seller of purple, the prominent women of Thessalonica and the prominent women of Berea. In fact, the presence of the rich in the church created a problem because some believers gave them special or favorable treatment over those of lesser economic and social standing (see the letter of James).

But where they common place in the early church and just as JPH said, what would using an instrument in worship do?

Little or no basis exists for the notion that congregations sung a capella for centuries because they could not afford musical instruments; on the other hand the likelihood that not every congregation had someone skilled in the use of a musical instrument is strong. However, that would not explain why those congregations in the early church who did still did not use musical instruments in their worship.


Argument from silence is not a valid argument at all because we do not who was using musical instruments and who was not. Got any data that shows otherwise?

There is evidence that Christians considered instruments devilish and thus inappropriate for worship. However, it is just as likely that this attitude reflected the early church's understanding of scripture as that it represented an association with a pagan context. Indeed, one could say the pagan context provides both a counterpoint and a better understanding of the scriptural exhortation to "make melody in your heart."


Really? Where at? I sure can't find it, perhaps you'll have better luck finding it.

It is hypocritical to condemn the argument from silence that the Lord's church uses when those who support musical instruments in worship use the very same argument - that there is a silence on prohibition of their use.

So therefore, you're right? :lol: I love how this game works, now present some evidence that Christians did view instruments as devilish because I have a feeling that if they did, it was their uses, and not the instruments themselves, that they thought of as 'devilish'.

On a different note, I would observe that at least some of those churches which employ musical accompaniment make big productions out of the electronic bands and singing groups or huge pipe organs and paid orchestras and choirs. The members can barely be heard, if at all, if they are even trying to sing. Is that worship to the Most High? Is Sunday morning concert time?


What is wrong with that if they do? I remember going to one of those when I was in tech school, but it wasn't at all about rock n roll, but we had a serious message in there that was so quiet, you could hear a pin drop, but during the music, it was a great time that was filled with excitement and joy. If that is what people enjoy and that is what they feel is their way of worship, what is the big deal?

It's not about our musical preferences. There are many beautiful songs in which musical accompaniment plays a role: Bach's Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring, Handel's Messiah, Crhis Rice's Deep Enough to Dream, The Anointed's Send Out A Prayer, and so on. Should we sing them with instrumental accompaniment in our worship or in our worship service or simply enjoy them as public counterpoints to the profane music of the secular world?

Why not both? I've been to services that the band is not that loud and you can hear the singing quite well and I've been to others that are loud, but who cares? I care about the message going on and the music can make every bit of difference in the total message that is going on. In fact, do you even listen to modern CCM? I will assure you that their is not a single song in all of Jeremy Camp's lyrics that uses any 'profanity' or any kind of messages such as that. I should know because I have heard all of his songs.

As one who came out of a Roman Catholic and then a Presbyterian tradition, I found the emphasis the church of Christ placed on the scriptures and the early church practice and their significance refreshing. It has taken some time to throw off the fetters of man-made theology and philosophy to embrace the pure milk and meat of The Word. I'm still working at it. For that reason, while I do not agree with every idea that has been tendered to me, I take seriously every thing that the church teaches.

CoC, that makes sense, they are pretty fundy in their outlook and make up some of the asinine interpretations I have ever read, one of these being music in the church.

And for that reason, the notion that an acceptance of a capella worship somehow makes Christianity look silly or spiritually bankrupt is just so much prideful hot air. I am not anti-electricity or anti-contemporary clothing, but I would never, EVER, condemn the Amish or make fun of them. Nor have I condemned anyone who believes it is lawful to use musical instruments in worship.

Nope, instead you just make passive aggressive rants, like this is just a passive aggressive rant. :ahem:

[Theotimos]

Dear LilPunkishofTerror,

I had submitted a post which apparently did not make it onto the forum, so I'll try this one and make an effort to sort out some of the things you said.

Let's start with your last point in reference to JPHolding's reference to Matthew 23 as a justification for his namecalling and ridicule. That chapter gives him no warrant for his behavior toward anyone. Why? Because Matthew 23 is about the Son of God revealing the wickedness of those who REJECT Him - i.e., the scribes and Pharisees, viz. "ye hypocrites," "ye fools and blind," etc.

Are Christians entitled to speak to other Christians that way to make a point? The scripture is clear: No. The references are many, i.e. "speak the truth in love," "let no corrupt communication..." "the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity" etc. There is no excuse for it, nor any justification.

Furthermore, JPHolding has indicated he is not an elder at any church though, if memory serves correctly, he claimed to be better or better informed or some such thing which granted him a greater advantage to act as an elder even though he wasn't one and does not shoulder the burdens of one. That's a grand self-entitlement, one that people would be wise to ignore.

And I never said Matthew 23 had anything to do with the singing/playing musical instruments issue. Please read the posts carefully.

Here is what I believe is one of the principal challenges for most Christians in regard to their faith: what is the authority and basis for the faith we have, including its individual articles? Is it biblical? Is it extra-biblical?

The scripture explicitly says to sing and to make melody in the heart. It does not say to sing and to play music. It could have. The Greek word for music is different than the word for sing. But the scripture doesn't use it. Why? Why doesn't God plainly say it's okay to play musical instruments if He says it is okay to sing?

What about the practice of the church? Does the scripture ever describe the use of musical instruments in worship, even just once? The answer is, No. Nowhere in the Acts or in the letters of the apostles does the scripture mention the play of musical instruments in worship. What is the significance of that? Are we to ignore that reality? Why would we?

What about the post-biblical history of the early church? Even there, the church avoids the use of musical instruments. Why do we want to believe that the church was guided by anything else but the holy spirit at this time, this closer-in-time-to-Pentecost church? Who do people insist on ascribing it to other causes outside of the church's spiritual life? Is it because they do not want to admit that the addition of musical instruments was part and parcel of the corruption that occurred within the church as it became an ecclesiastical polity modeled after human and pagan practice rather than a body of believers?

Cut the nonsense about "passive-aggressive rants" and the mindless labeling of "fundies" etc. They are crippled rhetorical devices, impotent and unconvincing. If you do not accept a biblical hermeneutic of specific, positive affirmations, and prefer to add things that the bible is silent on, then just say so. We can agree to disagree.

And BTW, the scripture nowhere says there were only a few rich men in the church, not in James and not anywhere else. As Christianity spread, more and more people from all walks of life became believers. We don't know what the proportion was, so we cannot say one way or another.

God bless,
Theotimos

[lilpixieofterror]

What about the practice of the church? Does the scripture ever describe the use of musical instruments in worship, even just once? The answer is, No. Nowhere in the Acts or in the letters of the apostles does the scripture mention the play of musical instruments in worship. What is the significance of that? Are we to ignore that reality? Why would we?

You've already been answered on this, it is because they were expensive and few could afford to own them and not because they were 'devilish'. Do keep repeating yourself even when answered, but I think I'll stick to my Christian Rock Music since you seem so unable to prove your argument.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

blah blah blah


Dear God's Honourable Gift,
I had asked you some plain and clear questions, and I am disappointed you ignored answering them. Bluster is not a valid response. Let's try again:

Does using instruments in genuine worship affect a Christian's salvation?

You claimed "Christians considered instruments devilish and thus inappropriate for worship" and I asked you to present this evidence?

Do you really think that appeal to the social issues of the 1st century is 'specious reasoning'?

Now to your latest post:


That chapter gives him no warrant for his behavior toward anyone. Why? Because Matthew 23 is about the Son of God revealing the wickedness of those who REJECT Him -It is mainly about Jesus rejecting their hypocrisy. This in turn leads them to reject him yes, but this isn't the whole picture. Are you aware of the challenge-riposte paradigm in use in that part of the world at the time? The Pharisees were challenging Jesus' authority and this is his reply.

It can't just be restrictive to Jesus because Paul uses the same paradigm in Acts against the magician ("you son of the devil" etc) - okay, so that's against a non-believer. So how about the book of Galatians? That's riposte against a Christian church. "You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you?" Strong language, yes? And you say that Christians should not do this? It is clearly and plainly in scripture that such was done. Speak the truth in love - yes. Did Paul write Galatians in love? yes! why then are you being inconsistent here?
"the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity" etc. There is no excuse for it, nor any justification. Do explain/justify Alexander Campbell and the other early Church of Christ leaders denouncing others over issues such as baptism.

That's a grand self-entitlement, one that people would be wise to ignore.Until you deal with my questions, serious as they are, I would actually advise people to be wise enough to ignore your bluster. :eek:

And I never said Matthew 23 had anything to do with the singing/playing musical instruments issue. Please read the posts carefully.
Your post (#147 in this thread) asks the question "Do you really think that a belief that singing in the church should be done without musical accompaniment is somehow comparable to the hypocrisy and rejection of Christ by the scribes and Pharisees, etc.?" - so yes you did make such a comparison. (I was talking about being consistent in one's exegesis)

Let's say I insist one shouldn't use hymn books in church for worship because they aren't mentioned in the New Testament. How are you going to argue against this?

Here is what I believe is one of the principal challengesFirst of all, who are you to challenge others when you won't meet my challenge to you?

what is the authority and basis for the faith we have, including its individual articles? Is it biblical? Is it extra-biblical?
Is your methodology for interpreting scripture biblical or extra-biblical? All this stuff about 'plain reading' is unknown in the ancient world, since someone back then would apply an unwritten context to whatever he read - something you seem to be ignoring.

The scripture explicitly says to sing and to make melody in the heart. It does not say to sing and to play music. It could have.The scripture says explicitly to greet folk in the church with a holy kiss! well? is this something you practice? :lol:

The Greek word for music is different than the word for sing. But the scripture doesn't use it. Why? Why doesn't God plainly say it's okay to play musical instruments if He says it is okay to sing? Because it isn't a salvational issue, is it? Paul writes explicitly on e.g. being sane in one's worship (not to go over-the-top as the Corinthians apparently were doing) which was problematic. If someone brought an instrument into the church and sang song to God with music in their heart along with that instrument, is it a problem?


What about the practice of the church? Does the scripture ever describe the use of musical instruments in worship, even just once? The answer is, No. And this is true. However we are interpreting this differently :smile:


addition of musical instruments was part and parcel of the corruption that occurred within the church as it became an ecclesiastical polity modeled after human and pagan practice May I ask why it took over 1000 years for God to sort out this horrible issue? I mean, wow, pagan practice in the church for centuries and God didn't act? why not?

Cut the nonsense about "passive-aggressive rants" and the mindless labeling of "fundies" etc. I think you're confusing me with someone else :ahem:

They are crippled rhetorical devices, impotent and unconvincing.If you do not deal with my questions ("does the use of instruments in genuine worship affect salvation?") then your post is um, rhetorical, impotent and unconvincing. :wink:

If you do not accept a biblical hermeneutic of specific, positive affirmations, and prefer to add things that the bible is silent on, then just say so. We can agree to disagree. Did the early church believe in this hermeneutic?

And BTW, the scripture nowhere says there were only a few rich men in the church, not in James and not anywhere else. Er..."Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth." - 1 Corinthians 1:26b - does this answer your assertion?
I was pointing out (again) problems with your exegesis, and you missed it. (again)

I do hope God provides you with a better gift of honour in your next post :smile:

[jpholding]

Furthermore, JPHolding has indicated he is not an elder at any church though, if memory serves correctly, he claimed to be better or better informed or some such thing which granted him a greater advantage to act as an elder even though he wasn't one and does not shoulder the burdens of one. That's a grand self-entitlement, one that people would be wise to ignore.

And BTW, the scripture nowhere says there were only a few rich men in the church, not in James and not anywhere else. As Christianity spread, more and more people from all walks of life became believers. We don't know what the proportion was, so we cannot say one way or another.


Wrong, stupid. Try Wayne Meeks' The First Urban Christians as well as a number of books by sociological scholars like Rodney Stark. We know the demographics of the ancient world very well, enough to know that there could only be a few rich people in the church -- mainly because they were so few rich people AT ALL in the Roman Empire!

You rap about giving myself a "grand self-entitlement" and at the same time entitle your own bad self to contradict serious scholarship! Phew! The scent of hypocrisy overwhelms!

I leave the rest to Punkish's masterful commentary. You're done to a turn.

[Mountain Man]

It can't just be restrictive to Jesus because Paul uses the same paradigm in Acts against the magician ("you son of the devil" etc) - okay, so that's against a non-believer. So how about the book of Galatians? That's riposte against a Christian church. "You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you?" Strong language, yes? And you say that Christians should not do this? It is clearly and plainly in scripture that such was done. Speak the truth in love - yes. Did Paul write Galatians in love? yes! why then are you being inconsistent here?
Then there's Stephen verbally roasting the Sanhedrin at his trial (Acts 7:51-53). He really let them have it, yet scripture quite explicitly portrays his actions as righteous and honorable.

[Theotimos]

Greetings to All:

Lilpixieofterror posted thusly:

Originally posted by Theotimos
What about the practice of the church? Does the scripture ever describe the use of musical instruments in worship, even just once? The answer is, No. Nowhere in the Acts or in the letters of the apostles does the scripture mention the play of musical instruments in worship. What is the significance of that? Are we to ignore that reality? Why would we?

You've already been answered on this, it is because they were expensive and few could afford to own them and not because they were 'devilish'. Do keep repeating yourself even when answered, but I think I'll stick to my Christian Rock Music since you seem so unable to prove your argument.


Perhaps you feel that a satisfactory answer has been supplied. As I have indicated already, I do not subscribe to JPHolding's unproved takes on why early Christians eschewed musical instruments. I have shown that scripture mentions in several instances that well-to-do people with money joined the church from the earliest days, thereby negating the "lack of money" hypothesis. You or one of the JPHolding adherents then had to fall back on the suggestion that no one skilled enough to play the musical instruments had joined the church yet, which might have been true in the very infancy of the church but certainly not in the centuries that followed. If you have studied theology at all, you know from your church history classes that the church fathers argued against instruments, etc.

So if I keep repeating myself it's because some of you keep repeating the same things ad nauseam, as if you are mimicking the pope and speaking ex cathedra, and what is my problem that I don't accept your dogma.. The fact that the debate over instruments goes back a long way and has continued for centuries, nay, millenia, should tell you something about the position you cling to that seems so clear to you.

Again, because you keep falling back on it, your use of what I would call incomplete or still developing "social customs" research is not the lens through which I interpret biblical counsel. Most theologians, I suspect, would consider it, but they would be careful to understand the unique Christian experience, begun as it was by a powerful outpouring of the holy spirit - something that does not happen every day - from the scriptural context in which it appears. Thus, they look to the scripture to present and explain the Lord's will to his church.

Then again, maybe you don't accept the scripture to begin with. After all, there is very little outside the scripture - oblique references at most - to confirm the existence of Jesus.

If you do accept the scripture as God's word, then even if you do not agree with my conclusion, you should have a good idea of why I believe what I believe.

This is what I think the bottom line is, despite all the "historical" and "theological" tirades and fact parroting: people want to do what they want to do, and they've grown accustomed to music. They like it, so they don't want to give it up, no matter what. It's the same with baptism. The scripture is clear on that, too, but people will be sprinkled or won't even touch water because they can just "pray Jesus into their hearts." Don't let it get in the way that the scripture NEVER mentions praying Jesus into your heart. Guess what? People were immersed in water for centuries, even infants, but the Roman Catholic Church decided to change that, too, so that's why so many of the Protestant Churches did the same. You have a tiny thread that says instruments cost a lot, so maybe no one could afford them. Well, the Roman church has a whole web of historical and theological justification for what it is and what it does and what it believes. Some of it has turned out to be fraudulent, such as the donation of Constantine, but even what isn't does not justify the Roman church's 180 degree turn from scripture, which, by the way, was foretold in scripture.

And, once again, I am not trying to prove anything. I believe that burden is on those who want to add to the scripture, which is quite specific: make melody in your heart! If you want that melody made, not in the heart, or not only in the heart, but ALSO on a mechanical instrument, then the burden is on you to prove why the specification should be ignored. Your claim that musical instruments were too expensive is a non sequitur. It makes no difference whether they were expensive or cheap or free. The command is to make melody in your heart.

I know there was another post - I don't have time to answer every post or detail, sorry, but hopefully I have covered some of the points other posters might have made.

God bless you and everyone else,

Theotimos

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Yeah, right. You've not got the time to answer me but you clearly have time to construct verbiage to pixie, whom you know will chew you out for that. You could have spent your time more wisely and presented half a reply to her and half a reply to me. You would have gained some respect from me had you TRIED.

[lilpixieofterror]

Perhaps you feel that a satisfactory answer has been supplied. As I have indicated already, I do not subscribe to JPHolding's unproved takes on why early Christians eschewed musical instruments.

Translation: "DARN! He answered all of my arguments, so let me just repeat myself again and again, while ignoring all counter answers to my arguments because I can't answer them and know it."

So much more accurate than pretending that you were not answered, honey we both know that JPH provided an answer to your arguments here and at this point, you're just repeating yourself yet again because you don't have a real answer and know it.

I have shown that scripture mentions in several instances that well-to-do people with money joined the church from the earliest days, thereby negating the "lack of money" hypothesis.

:lmbo:

Oh my and you ignored JPH's answer to this argument of yours too! Did you just ignore where JPH said that the reason they didn't bring them in is because such an expensive piece would bring the owner glory and not God and thus the reason they didn't use them. Did you read that answer or did you ignore it because you didn't like what it said? The fact is honey, you don't have answers so you're just repeating your standard canards and hoping that I don't read these threads. I do and I know for a fact JPH answered you on this one. Resorting to dishonestly now?

You or one of the JPHolding adherents then had to fall back on the suggestion that no one skilled enough to play the musical instruments had joined the church yet, which might have been true in the very infancy of the church but certainly not in the centuries that followed.


JPH said nothing of the sort honey, he said that those who might of had the skills and the money to own such expensive pieces (after all, even to this day a good flute can cost thousands of dollars and years and years of practice to match) where kind of rare and if they did happen to join the church, an instrument would just serve to bring the owner glory instead of God and thus the reason the early church didn't use them.

If you have studied theology at all, you know from your church history classes that the church fathers argued against instruments, etc.

Funny, I've been reading Augustine's writing and I have also read the writings of Polycarp and Justin Martyr and sorry, no where do they condemn the use of instruments at all. So please dig up these quotes so I can read them for myself because I have a feeling that your either making it up or just believe whatever you're told without question. I'll be waiting.

So if I keep repeating myself it's because some of you keep repeating the same things ad nauseam, as if you are mimicking the pope and speaking ex cathedra, and what is my problem that I don't accept your dogma..

:lmbo: I have quoted the pope where at? Honey, I'm a protestant and thus I don't adhere to the Pope, so yet again... your 'arguments' are flushed down the tubes. Do you even read profiles before you open your fat mouth and let stupidity flow forth?

The fact that the debate over instruments goes back a long way and has continued for centuries, nay, millenia, should tell you something about the position you cling to that seems so clear to you.

Just an assertion you've made without evidence. Not once have I read Augustine even once condemning the use on instruments in Confessions (which is what I'm currently reading). I also didn't read that in my readings of Justin Martyr or Polycarp either. Please, name this church father so I can read it for myself because I think you're just making it up.

Again, because you keep falling back on it, your use of what I would call incomplete or still developing "social customs" research is not the lens through which I interpret biblical counsel. Most theologians, I suspect, would consider it, but they would be careful to understand the unique Christian experience, begun as it was by a powerful outpouring of the holy spirit - something that does not happen every day - from the scriptural context in which it appears. Thus, they look to the scripture to present and explain the Lord's will to his church.

:shrug: What this has to do with a word I said, I don't know, perhaps you're just ranting for the fun of it? I still see no quotes or names presented, just ambiguous "The church fathers said..." Going to tell us what ones and where they said this someday? I sure haven't read Augustine's condemning instruments yet, perhaps somebody with your superior 'intelligence' can do it?

Then again, maybe you don't accept the scripture to begin with. After all, there is very little outside the scripture - oblique references at most - to confirm the existence of Jesus.

:rofl: Wow, that's a screwball statement! There is just as much outside of scripture to confirm a man named Jesus existed as would be for any man of his popularity of his time frame. Your fundy views seem to be shining though yet again, drop the fundy Bible classes and try some real reading, ok?

If you do accept the scripture as God's word, then even if you do not agree with my conclusion, you should have a good idea of why I believe what I believe.

Too bad what you believe is wrong and you can't back it up and thus your need to pretend as if JPH didn't answer you (when we both know he did), your reliability on the 'argument from silence' to make your claims, and your vague 'the church fathers argued this' claims. Your fundy views are hard at work ignoring what you don't want to hear by hand waving it away.

This is what I think the bottom line is, despite all the "historical" and "theological" tirades and fact parroting: people want to do what they want to do, and they've grown accustomed to music.

And until you can back up your views (which you failed to do in all of your rants) I'll continue to listen to my CCM while I get ready for work or while I watch others rip you apart.

They like it, so they don't want to give it up, no matter what. It's the same with baptism. The scripture is clear on that, too, but people will be sprinkled or won't even touch water because they can just "pray Jesus into their hearts." Don't let it get in the way that the scripture NEVER mentions praying Jesus into your heart. Guess what? People were immersed in water for centuries, even infants, but the Roman Catholic Church decided to change that, too, so that's why so many of the Protestant Churches did the same.

Last I checked, the RCC practices infant baptism to this very day. I guess there was a radical change in Catholic doctrine in the past couple of years, unless of course, you're going to argue that there is a radical difference between sprinkling and full immersion and if you are... you are more fundy than I thought and a waste of time even bothering with.

You have a tiny thread that says instruments cost a lot, so maybe no one could afford them.

:rofl: I guess those music scholars that JPH quoted that said just that was ignored by you. Yet another reason why extreme fundy beliefs rot the brain.

Well, the Roman church has a whole web of historical and theological justification for what it is and what it does and what it believes. Some of it has turned out to be fraudulent, such as the donation of Constantine, but even what isn't does not justify the Roman church's 180 degree turn from scripture, which, by the way, was foretold in scripture.

I see your fundy beliefs are shining though again, did you get this crap from the same source

And, once again, I am not trying to prove anything. I believe that burden is on those who want to add to the scripture, which is quite specific: make melody in your heart! If you want that melody made, not in the heart, or not only in the heart, but ALSO on a mechanical instrument, then the burden is on you to prove why the specification should be ignored. Your claim that musical instruments were too expensive is a non sequitur. It makes no difference whether they were expensive or cheap or free. The command is to make melody in your heart.

So, have you given people a holy kiss yet because that is what scripture clearly says? :lol: The absurdity of fundism. Honey, are you really stupid enough to think that it is impossible to make a melody in your heart while using an instrument? I will assure you that every singer and song writer I've talked to does indeed have a 'melody in their heart' and thus... you're argument falls apart. Try again...

I know there was another post - I don't have time to answer every post or detail, sorry, but hopefully I have covered some of the points other posters might have made.

Done ranting eh! Come back to rant again and maybe next time, you'll produce actual quotes and evidence instead of just vague appeals!

[Mountain Man]

If you have studied theology at all, you know from your church history classes that the church fathers argued against instruments, etc.
Isn't it funny that you chastise JP for arriving at his position by studying history and sociology, suggesting that his answers should come from scripture alone, yet you appeal to anonymous "church fathers" to prop up your argument (never mind the fact that your claim is suspect).

Looks like your friends Hyp and Ocrite have paid you a visit. :hehe:

[jpholding]

I've determined that Hypocritos is Too Stupid To Reply To....I'm guessing that'd receive a unanimous vote? :lol:

* He repeats himself constantly
* He ignores 90% of countering arguments posed to him
* He is inconsistent in his use of source material
* He is exceptionally self-righteous


He'd make a good fundy atheist. If he doesn't wake up, he might find himself turning into one someday when his cognitive dissonance catches up with him.

[Theotimos]

Dear LIlPunkishOfTerror,

So sue me.

God bless,
Theotimos

[Theotimos]

Dear LilPixieOfTerror,

So easily bent out of shape are you?

As far as the early church fathers go, try a read of Clement. He wrote rather extensively in conformance to the command to "make melody in your heart."

As far as the "answers" you claim from JPHolding, they tend to confirm rather than to disconfirm what I have written, do they not? The sense that the use of musical instruments was wrong, although Christians may have perceived other reasons to deepen the significance of the command, do not negate the command. How would your reliance on JPHolding's assertion deter obedience to the command? How would his assertion negate it? It would simply add more meat to it rather than to head in the opposite direction, which would be to justify it.

Unfortunately, you and several of the arguers cannot seem to understand what the starting point is for this discussion. It is not, "Shall we or shall we not use musical instruments in worship, or does it make any difference?"

The question is, "How does the Lord want us to worship Him? Does He specify anthing? The answer is, yes. "Sing, and make melody in our hearts." He even gives us the context of the counterpoint of drunkenness and being filled with the spirit. If the spirit is the "writer" of scripture, then he chose his words carefully. Never does he say to make music. Never does he say to blow a horn or pluck an instrument. He does say to sing, and to make melody in your heart. That is the directive. Scripture knows of no other.

God bless,
Theotimos

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Dear LIlPunkishOfTerror,

So sue me.

God bless,
Theotimos

Coward. :ahem:

[jpholding]

Does Theo remind us of anything, the way he constantly repeats himself, ignores contrary arguments, and hates music?

Oh yeah....

[Mountain Man]

Never does he say to make music. Never does he say to blow a horn or pluck an instrument.
Oh, doesn't he?

1 Praise the LORD.
Praise God in his sanctuary;
praise him in his mighty heavens.

2 Praise him for his acts of power;
praise him for his surpassing greatness.

3 Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet,
praise him with the harp and lyre,

4 praise him with tambourine and dancing,
praise him with the strings and flute,

5 praise him with the clash of cymbals,
praise him with resounding cymbals.

6 Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.
Praise the LORD.
Now unless you want to argue that the God of the Jews isn't the God of the Christians, you've got a theological problem.

:whistle:

[jpholding]

Now unless you want to argue that the God of the Jews isn't the God of the Christians, you've got a theological problem.

:whistle:

NO PROBLEM!

Just use your patented Ronco Dispensation-o-matic(TM) to explain away that difference! :woohoo:

[lilpixieofterror]

So easily bent out of shape are you?

So easily capable of reading your emotions of frustration into others eh?

As far as the early church fathers go, try a read of Clement. He wrote rather extensively in conformance to the command to "make melody in your heart."

Please show that it is impossible to make a melody in your heart while using an instrument.

As far as the "answers" you claim from JPHolding, they tend to confirm rather than to disconfirm what I have written, do they not?

No they don't, you're just too stupid to understand his answers and you keep showing it with each and every post. I've already asked you once to prove that "make melody in your heart" equals "no instruments allowed" an assertion you have yet to prove. You've been reduced to quote mining, now will you actually show your assertion please or do you think screaming sound bites at the top of your lungs makes you sound intelligent?

The sense that the use of musical instruments was wrong, although Christians may have perceived other reasons to deepen the significance of the command, do not negate the command. How would your reliance on JPHolding's assertion deter obedience to the command? How would his assertion negate it? It would simply add more meat to it rather than to head in the opposite direction, which would be to justify it.

:lmbo:

There is no commandment moron and all you're doing is just reading it into your views and ignoring any counter arguments to your claims. You have a truly amazing ability to ignore information in which you don't want to hear, did CoC teach you that or have you always been that way?

Unfortunately, you and several of the arguers cannot seem to understand what the starting point is for this discussion. It is not, "Shall we or shall we not use musical instruments in worship, or does it make any difference?"

You have failed to show why we shouldn't. The best you can do is scream soundbites at the top of your lungs and pretend it's an argument. Please show that "make a melody with your heart" must mean that no instruments are allowed. I wasn't not aware that there were special properties that instruments have that make it impossible to do both, perhaps you can share these special properties with us?

The question is, "How does the Lord want us to worship Him? Does He specify anthing? The answer is, yes. "Sing, and make melody in our hearts."

So that therefore means, "but don't use any instruments or else!"

:rofl: Wow, what a fundy you are, sorry honey but please show that it is impossible to sing, make a melody in your heart, and use an instrument. Me thinks that you can't so you think repeating yourself again and again without actually answering my question in the hopes that it might make my question go away. Please answer, I'm waiting.

He even gives us the context of the counterpoint of drunkenness and being filled with the spirit. If the spirit is the "writer" of scripture, then he chose his words carefully. Never does he say to make music. Never does he say to blow a horn or pluck an instrument. He does say to sing, and to make melody in your heart. That is the directive. Scripture knows of no other.

:doh: Singing is most of what music is about dope. Do you even know what music is? Give you a hint, every worship song is all about singing and using instruments to enhance the voice. Keep looking silly because you're sure doing a great job about it. Now please show already that you can't sing, making a melody in your heart, and using an instrument at the same time. You've failed again and again to actually answer this question, perhaps you'll actually have an answer this time?

[DoomRater]

You know... the weird thing here is I thought vocal cords WERE an instrument all their own, and since anyone who can talk has em...

[Mountain Man]

That and the whole misreading of "make music in your heart" would also seem to rule out singing.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

You know... the weird thing here is I thought vocal cords WERE an instrument all their own, and since anyone who can talk has em...

Actually the CoC doctrine excludes mechanical instruments, if I recall. Edit: come to think of it, it was the Catholic church that introduced organs to worship, so it may well be a rebellion against Catholicism...

[Kain Anderson]

Sorry Theo, but your arguments are going to fall on deaf ears here.

JP argues that Christians were too stupid to play instruments even though it was very common for rich Romans to have their slaves trained to play music (same slaves that eventually became Christians) and even though everyone knows that a classic Greek education involved extensive music training (which again included Greek slaves and freemen alike some of which became Christians).

Then JP argues that Christians were just too darn poor to own instruments even though a lyre in Greek society was about as common as a guitar in our society (and he of course misrepresents his sources on that one, too.).

Just Google JP and you'll find that namecalling and grandstanding is his M.O. and that misusing sources and grandstanding when called on it seems to be what his Masters in Research taught him.

[DoomRater]

So what's your excuse for ignoring the honor part, hmm?

[Cheshire Cat]

I was born and raised in a Church of Christ so I'm a little familiar with the "reasoning" of folks like Theo. Pardon me if the following as already been brought up, but the thing is, it can all be refuted a couple of ways with just a little logic via reductio ad absurdum:

CoC contention: What the Bible (primarily NT) is silent on is prohibited.

However if we take this to its logical conclusion, two facts rear their heads:

(1) The Bible is silent wrt. the proposition that musical instruments are wrong; therefore the proposition "musical instruments are wrong" must be prohibited also!

(2) The Bible is silent on the fact that silence is prohibitive; therefore this "silence hermeneutic" is self-refuting. For if it is true it is false, and if it is false then it is still false!

I've never seen any of my Church of Christ friends answer these inconvenient facts. Perhaps a proponent of their reasoning would care to do so?

[jpholding]

JP argues that Christians were too stupid to play instruments even though it was very common for rich Romans to have their slaves trained to play music (same slaves that eventually became Christians)

No, stupid. Get the arguments right.

Playing instruments required SPECIAL TRAINING.

Those slaves had WEALTHY MASTERS who paid for it.

Few people had the WEALTH to spare for such training -- for themselves or slaves.

So few that to demand that they be mentioned in a tiny handful of occassional letters, none of which had a thing to do with music, is extremely stupid.

You're like the windup cymbal-crashing monkey who repeats the same refuted premises over and over again, oblivious to what the argument really is and how to counter it -- which you can't.

and even though everyone knows that a classic Greek education involved extensive music training

Already brought up by Theopotamus and refuted. Still a tiny minority, still an irrational demand to see it highlighted in letters written for other purposes.


Then JP argues that Christians were just too darn poor to own instruments even though a lyre in Greek society was about as common as a guitar in our society (and he of course misrepresents his sources on that one, too.).

Sure I do, No-Brain. :lol: That's why you provided a source for this. Of course, I DO see guitars all over the place when I walk through downtown Orlando. Why just the other day, they had to close a major restaurant because they couldn't fit all the people and their guitars in there. :lolo:


Just Google JP and you'll find that namecalling and grandstanding is his M.O. and that misusing sources and grandstanding when called on it seems to be what his Masters in Research taught him.

Yes indeed. You'll find a few pages by frustrated losers like No-Brain here....who resort to temper tantrums when arguments fail them. :thumb: Doesn't it speak for itself that he uncritically sides with atheists and god-haters?

[jpholding]

I've never seen any of my Church of Christ friends answer these inconvenient facts. Perhaps a proponent of their reasoning would care to do so?

An excellent point. Using the "argument from silence" also "proves" that Paul didn't believe Jesus ever walked the earth, but was crucified and resurrected in a sublunar spiritual realm. That's what the atheists have done; the CoC anti-instrument fanatics just don't have any clue how serious their fallacies are.

[Mountain Man]

Looks like Theotimos has flown the coop. Pity. I was looking forward to his rationalization of Psalm 150 as it would have no doubt been entertaining.

Hmmm... maybe Kain "No Brain" Anderson would like to try. :whistle:

[Kain Anderson]

Looks like Theotimos has flown the coop. Pity. I was looking forward to his rationalization of Psalm 150 as it would have no doubt been entertaining.

Hmmm... maybe Kain "No Brain" Anderson would like to try. :whistle:

What rationalization are you looking for? Look, as I said before, the so-called Restoration Movement leaders considered this an argument AGAINST instrumental music use in the church because, to paraphrase Lipscomb:

a) the Jews used instruments in praise to God (temple and otherwise)
b) the Romans used instruments in their pagan worship
c) instruments were integral to Greek life and worship
d) all 3 groups immediately stopped using instruments in worship when they became Christians

So quoting OT verses all day long showing that the Jews loved their instruments and so did their God is not helpful when that behavior doesn't seem to have transferred to the early Christians. That's what JP was trying to address in his original post by offering a reason "why" other than what Lipscomb asserts (that they believed it to be wrong).

Maybe if you had half a brain yourself you might have already picked up on that??? :whistle:

[DoomRater]

So quoting OT verses all day long showing that the Jews loved their instruments and so did their God is not helpful when that behavior doesn't seem to have transferred to the early Christians.

Wait wait wait WHAT?! Are you tying to say the God of the Jews != the God of the Christians? :doh:

[Kain Anderson]

Wait wait wait WHAT?! Are you tying to say the God of the Jews != the God of the Christians? :doh:

Are you serious? Do you still believe we all need to be circumcized? Do you worship on the Sabbath? Do you make animal sacrifices to God? Do you keep the passover? There are a number of things Christians did differently (for various reasons). No, I am NOT saying that the God of the Jews <> the God of the Christians. I am saying that early Christians did not hold over their love for instrumental music use for worship that they had before and only JP has attempted to address WHY.

[Mountain Man]

What rationalization are you looking for? Look, as I said before, the so-called Restoration Movement leaders considered this an argument AGAINST instrumental music use in the church because, to paraphrase Lipscomb:

a) the Jews used instruments in praise to God (temple and otherwise)
b) the Romans used instruments in their pagan worship
c) instruments were integral to Greek life and worship
d) all 3 groups immediately stopped using instruments in worship when they became Christians

So quoting OT verses all day long showing that the Jews loved their instruments and so did their God is not helpful when that behavior doesn't seem to have transferred to the early Christians. That's what JP was trying to address in his original post by offering a reason "why" other than what Lipscomb asserts (that they believed it to be wrong).

Maybe if you had half a brain yourself you might have already picked up on that??? :whistle:
:lmbo: I was right, that was entertaining. And I just love the smart-alecky comeback at the end, as if you really answered the argument.

So it's your contention, then, that the God of the Jews is not the God of the Christians? That won't get you very far seeing as Jesus was the Jewish messiah. Or perhaps God changed his mind about instrumental worship at some point after Jesus' death and resurrection? Where's your Biblical support for this? If it's an argument from silence you're going for then I will point out that the Bible never says anything about using the internet, either, yet here you are. :wink:

I'd also like to see your sources for point "d" above. Perhaps you have some examples of musicians who immediately gave up their craft upon becoming Christians? Nothing like that exists in the Bible, so you must be appealing to extra-Biblical sources (assuming you have any).

I'll also note that Lipscomb's argument, at least as you present it, is nothing but a big fat genetic fallacy (look it up), so you fail on that point, too.

Thanks for living up to your nickname, No Brain. :thumb:

[lilpixieofterror]

JP argues that Christians were too stupid to play instruments even though it was very common for rich Romans to have their slaves trained to play music (same slaves that eventually became Christians) and even though everyone knows that a classic Greek education involved extensive music training (which again included Greek slaves and freemen alike some of which became Christians).

That isn't his argument at all, did you even read it?

[Mountain Man]

Are you serious? Do you still believe we all need to be circumcized? Do you worship on the Sabbath? Do you make animal sacrifices to God? Do you keep the passover? There are a number of things Christians did differently (for various reasons).
For various reasons? :doh:

It's not for "various reasons", dummy, it's for one reason: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17)

We don't do those things commanded by Jewish law because Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was the ultimate fulfillment of the law. And by the way, instrumental worship isn't a point of Jewish law, so your argument fails there as well. :lol:

[jpholding]

argument AGAINST instrumental music use in the church because, to paraphrase Lipscomb:

Who's he? Another moron? Obviously so:

a) the Jews used instruments in praise to God (temple and otherwise)
b) the Romans used instruments in their pagan worship
c) instruments were integral to Greek life and worship

Let me give you a little clue, No-Brain....

All three of these had the power and wealth of the STATE behind them. Worship was a state-sponsored activity in Israel and the Roman Empire.

The Christians didn't have that....not until c. 300 AD.



Maybe if you had half a brain yourself you might have already picked up on that???

As it is, you apparently don't even have that half! :doh:

[Kain Anderson]

:lmbo: I was right, that was entertaining. And I just love the smart-alecky comeback at the end, as if you really answered the argument.

So it's your contention, then, that the God of the Jews is not the God of the Christians? That won't get you very far seeing as Jesus was the Jewish messiah. Or perhaps God changed his mind about instrumental worship at some point after Jesus' death and resurrection? Where's your Biblical support for this? If it's an argument from silence you're going for then I will point out that the Bible never says anything about using the internet, either, yet here you are. :wink:

I'd also like to see your sources for point "d" above. Perhaps you have some examples of musicians who immediately gave up their craft upon becoming Christians? Nothing like that exists in the Bible, so you must be appealing to extra-Biblical sources (assuming you have any).

I'll also note that Lipscomb's argument, at least as you present it, is nothing but a big fat genetic fallacy (look it up), so you fail on that point, too.

Thanks for living up to your nickname, No Brain. :thumb:

You ARE just plain stupid. No I'm not saying the God of the Jews and Christians are different. Yes, I already HAVE listed several extra-Biblical sources that shows that Christians did NOT use instrumental music in worship for CENTURIES. I said nothing about "giving up their craft," I said IN WORSHIP you idiot. Besides, JP already stated that there WERE no Christians that had music as their craft. I don't have to appeal to an argument from silence because extra-biblical historical references show a) early Christians didn't use instruments for worship, b) several early Church fathers argue against their use...I already listed several sources.

[lilpixieofterror]

You ARE just plain stupid. No I'm not saying the God of the Jews and Christians are different. Yes, I already HAVE listed several extra-Biblical sources that shows that Christians did NOT use instrumental music in worship for CENTURIES.

Source please... because you better hurry up and convince me because I'm listening to that evil CCM right now and therefore, on the path to hell. Please save me from going to hell oh great one! :bow:

[Kain Anderson]

Who's he? Another moron? Obviously so:



Let me give you a little clue, No-Brain....

All three of these had the power and wealth of the STATE behind them. Worship was a state-sponsored activity in Israel and the Roman Empire.

The Christians didn't have that....not until c. 300 AD.




As it is, you apparently don't even have that half! :doh:

You're apparently a no brain as well to not recognize David Lipscomb, one of the Restoration movement who argued on the very topic we're talking about. So much for being a great researcher (*scoff*).

[lilpixieofterror]

AWWW! I'm listening to Casting Crowns right now, save me from hell Kain!

:rofl:

[Mountain Man]

You ARE just plain stupid. No I'm not saying the God of the Jews and Christians are different. Yes, I already HAVE listed several extra-Biblical sources that shows that Christians did NOT use instrumental music in worship for CENTURIES. I said nothing about "giving up their craft," I said IN WORSHIP you idiot. Besides, JP already stated that there WERE no Christians that had music as their craft. I don't have to appeal to an argument from silence because extra-biblical historical references show a) early Christians didn't use instruments for worship, b) several early Church fathers argue against their use...I already listed several sources.
:lol: I don't care if the "Church fathers" argued that we should run around with underwear on our heads. If you can't show me where it says so in the Bible then your "argument" dies before it even starts.

(By the way, where did you list your sources for your Church fathers argument? I've been looking back through the thread but I can't find it.)

[jpholding]

Besides, JP already stated that there WERE no Christians that had music as their craft.

NO, STUPID. :doh:

What I have said was:

1) To make music your craft required wealth and skill. (There were honor issues as well.)
2) Only a tiny number of people had that to begin with.
3) Christians were a distinct minority in the first century, so that proportionately, you're cutting the number of potential musicians down to an infinitesimal number.
4) The NT affords glimpses of only about a dozen churches, cutting down even more the window we have.
5) Not one of those NT documents had any reason to raise the subject of instruments.

This means that your argument "early Christians didn't use instruments for worship" is based on an sorrowfully inadequate data pool. It's like saying that "barbeque restaurants must be illegal in Hazzard County" based on a satellite survey of one square inch of Hazzard County -- in a cattle pasture -- in which you find no BBQ restaurants! :doh:

Did you ever take any coursework in the use of statistics? Or do you prefer to keep using them as toothpicks? :lolo:

[jpholding]

You're apparently a no brain as well to not recognize David Lipscomb, one of the Restoration movement who argued on the very topic we're talking about. So much for being a great researcher (*scoff*).

In other words, he's a nobody.

[jpholding]

:lol: I don't care if the "Church fathers" argued that we should run around with underwear on our heads.

Aw, gee, MM, that was one of Tertullian's big issues, didn't you know???

[Kain Anderson]

:lol: I don't care if the "Church fathers" argued that we should run around with underwear on our heads. If you can't show me where it says so in the Bible then your "argument" dies before it even starts.

(By the way, where did you list your sources for your Church fathers argument? I've been looking back through the thread but I can't find it.)

Page 8. I DO care about example of the day and what the early Church writers thought so the WHY matters to me (which is why JP's argument intrigued me in the first place because it attempts to answer the WHY). If you view the Bible as a strict do/don't do book w/ no regard for historical examples then the WHY is of no importance to you and your "If you can't show me where it says so in the Bible" argument is fair and I respect that POV.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Mr Anderson,
Can you answer my question I posed to Theotimos, if you use musical instruments in worship, does it affect your salvation?
thanks.

[Kain Anderson]

NO, STUPID. :doh:

What I have said was:

1) To make music your craft required wealth and skill. (There were honor issues as well.)
2) Only a tiny number of people had that to begin with.
3) Christians were a distinct minority in the first century, so that proportionately, you're cutting the number of potential musicians down to an infinitesimal number.
4) The NT affords glimpses of only about a dozen churches, cutting down even more the window we have.
5) Not one of those NT documents had any reason to raise the subject of instruments.

This means that your argument "early Christians didn't use instruments for worship" is based on an sorrowfully inadequate data pool. It's like saying that "barbeque restaurants must be illegal in Hazzard County" based on a satellite survey of one square inch of Hazzard County -- in a cattle pasture -- in which you find no BBQ restaurants! :doh:

Did you ever take any coursework in the use of statistics? Or do you prefer to keep using them as toothpicks? :lolo:

But you're arguing against amateurism. I've already pointed out that musical amateurism was alive and well in ancient Greece and instruments were widely available to them. I've already pointed out that the Romans absorbed much of the Greek culture. The honor system comes into play for a Roman because the Xenophilia of not being able to play an instrument as well as the conquered Greek, but doesn't apply to the Greeks many of whom were Christians. You're providing a statistical example that just doesn't reflect the reality of the time.

[Kain Anderson]

Mr Anderson,
Can you answer my question I posed to Theotimos, if you use musical instruments in worship, does it affect your salvation?
thanks.

Depends what viewpoint you take on this 2000 year argument. Those against say that the Bible implies singing w/o instruments and appeals to extra-biblical references to show that's how the early Christians understood it. Those on JP's side offer that the early Christians did not refrain from using instruments because it was wrong, but for cultural reasons instead. I don't buy his availability, amateurism, honor/shame arguments. I do think, however, an aversion to instrumental music by early Christians because of it's prevelance in Greek culture (and pagan worship) is a good alternative explanation and serves pretty much the same purpose as JP's argument in which case instrumental music is no more important to salvation than a woman wearing braids in her hair (both cultural issues).

[Mountain Man]

Page 8.
I assume you mean this:
3) Origen, Tertullian, and Justin all mention singing in the early church, and Eusebius quotes Irenaeus and Meliton about songs sung to God in Praise. No mention of instruments during worship.
4) Basil, Ambrose, and Chrysostom all state that Christians should praise God in song. Of the 3, Basil condemns instrumental music as ministering to the depraved nature of man. Chrysotom states, "It was the ancient custom, as it is still with us, for all to come together, and unitedly to join in singing. The young and the old, rich and poor, male and female, bond and free, all join in one song. . . .All worldly distinctions here cease, and the whole congregation form one general chorus."
#3 is just another fallacious appeal to silence. #4, again, if Basil didn't offer Biblical support for his position then I could care less what he has to say. The writings of the Church fathers are subservient to the Bible, not the other way around.
If you view the Bible as a strict do/don't do book w/ no regard for historical examples then the WHY is of no importance to you and your "If you can't show me where it says so in the Bible" argument is fair and I respect that POV.
:doh: Maybe if you actually took the time to understand the position you're arguing against then you wouldn't look like an idiot.

No, I do not "view the Bible as a strict do/don't do book w/ no regard for historical examples", nor have I even implied this. That's nothing but a straw man, and a downright flimsy one at that. However, for someone to make the argument that a particular action (or lack of action) is profane or immoral, meaning that it is contrary to God's revealed will, then they darn well better be able to show where God revealed it, and I'm sorry, but the arguments of Church fathers aren't good enough, especially in light of passages like Psalm 150 where God explicitly says that we should worship him with instruments.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

It's a yes/no answer, Mr Anderson. I didn't ask you to tell me what positions are being held on each side.

[jpholding]

But you're arguing against amateurism.

No, I'm not doing that either, No-Brain. :lolo:

You STILL have the problem of affordability.

You STILL need practice in an instrument to become even an amateur; and that requires LEISURE TIME which only the wealthy had.

And with amateurism, it just gets worse for you because THAT is when the "honor issue" comes into play. It would be an insult to the honor of those around you (and to God) to show up plonking away on your lyre with a bunch of malformed tunes. An "amateur" wouldn't have the nerve to show up playing his instruments. No one would until they had serious professional-level competence. GO EDUCATE YOURSELF ABOUT THE SOCIAL WORLD OF THE NT!


The honor system comes into play for a Roman because the Xenophilia of not being able to play an instrument as well as the conquered Greek, but doesn't apply to the Greeks many of whom were Christians.

:twitch:

NO, STUPID. The Greeks too were agonistic. So were the early Christians. Obviously you have no idea what the heck I'm talking about.

You're providing a statistical example that just doesn't reflect the reality of the time.

You ignored most of the delimiters -- and based on the above, your knowledge of the "reality of the time" evidently comes off of the back of this:

[Mountain Man]

It would be an insult to the honor of those around you (and to God) to show up plonking away on your lyre with a bunch of malformed tunes. An "amateur" wouldn't have the nerve to show up playing his instruments.
And considering some of the musical performances I've heard in the church, I sometimes wish that stigma existed in the Western world. But we're all about "Oh, but he's doing it for God, so we should pat him on the back for his effort." I've always thought that if they're doing it for God then perhaps they should perform just for him in the privacy of their own homes rather than inflicting their "joyful noise" on the rest of us.

[Kain Anderson]

[B]You STILL need practice in an instrument to become even an amateur; and that requires LEISURE TIME which only the wealthy had.

We're dancing in circles here. NOOOOO. Most Greeks were AMATEUR musicians because they were TRAINED TO BE SUCH AS CHILDREN IN SCHOOL.

[lilpixieofterror]

We're dancing in circles here. NOOOOO. Most Greeks were AMATEUR musicians because they were TRAINED TO BE SUCH AS CHILDREN IN SCHOOL.

And most people didn't go to school in that time moron, try again...

[jpholding]

We're dancing in circles here. NOOOOO. Most Greeks were AMATEUR musicians because they were TRAINED TO BE SUCH AS CHILDREN IN SCHOOL.

As the Pixie said, No-Brain. You're reading our blessing of compulsory, universal education into a world where it didn't exist. TRY AGAIN.

I guess you must have missed that blessing too. :lolo:

[Kain Anderson]

As the Pixie said, No-Brain. You're reading our blessing of compulsory, universal education into a world where it didn't exist. TRY AGAIN.

I guess you must have missed that blessing too. :lolo:

If you were talking about 500BCE, then yes you'd be right...it was only available to the rich, but you need to move forward a few hundred years to Greece under Roman rule. Granted it was NOT compulsory unless you were a slave and forced to go by your owner, but yes by this time widely available.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Am I being ignored? Is this a salvation issue, yes or no?

[jpholding]

If you were talking about 500BCE, then yes you'd be right...it was only available to the rich, but you need to move forward a few hundred years to Greece under Roman rule.

WHAT! PLEASE!!!! :lmbo:

You haven't even touched a twentieth of the subject I have. There's no meaningful difference from 500 BC to the period in question. NONE. Literacy was hardly any better and never reached more than 10% in the Empire as a whole, and was much lower in places like Palestine (3%).

Don't even TRY that with me. I read over a dozen books on ancient education in the last year for my most recent book, and you're piddling into the wind with that one.

[Kain Anderson]

WHAT! PLEASE!!!! :lmbo:

You haven't even touched a twentieth of the subject I have. There's no meaningful difference from 500 BC to the period in question. NONE. Literacy was hardly any better and never reached more than 10% in the Empire as a whole, and was much lower in places like Palestine (3%).

Don't even TRY that with me. I read over a dozen books on ancient education in the last year for my most recent book, and you're piddling into the wind with that one.

You're comparing apples and oranges. In 500BC education in Athens for example was for the rich only, but by the heyday was available for freemen alike. Athens was 75% slaves. Subtract women and you have about 12.5% of the population eligible for school. Assuming just 1/2 that actually could actually afford education for themselves (or their slaves) gets you to 6% who could play a lyre. We know music was common during feasting which included passing a lyre around so everyone could play (those who couldn't were considered uneducated). That's a lot of musicians wandering around. I can see the shame/honor system playing a part in the Roman mind because, like I said, the xenophilia in regards to how musically inclined the Greeks were, but it's a stretch to say an educated Athenian would be embarrassed to play an instrument at a Christian meal when their culture assumed music = education and they were accustomed to playing at meals. Obviously all bets are off on the slave class, but even at 200:1, 500:1 or 1000:1 slave to freeman ratio, that's still a lot of lyre players in Greece. The rules obviously change in the less advanced areas of the Roman empire as education, even when available, was nothing like that of Greece. I was not implying education was universally available across the entire Roman empire, especially not to the slave classes.

[Mountain Man]

:doh:

[lilpixieofterror]

You're comparing apples and oranges. In 500BC education in Athens for example was for the rich only, but by the heyday was available for freemen alike. Athens was 75% slaves.

Even if we assume that your example is correct, you are aware that Athens was an odd ball in the ancient world, right?

[Andius]

Am I being ignored? Is this a salvation issue, yes or no?

Money sez he will keep dodging your question for 5 more posts.

But just so you won't feel too ignored, here: :hug:

[Kain Anderson]

Even if we assume that your example is correct, you are aware that Athens was an odd ball in the ancient world, right?

Doesn't matter. JP's original speculation was that 1st century Christians didn't have instrumental music because they had no Christian musicians nor Christians who had access to instruments. I've just given one example of a city that would not fit that criteria. Even assuming the entire NT region fits JP's speculation you would at best had a schism in instrument use by region. If JP wants to amend his OP to say that non-instrument use was due to honor/shame and pagan stigma then fine, but the "they ain't got none" argument is BS.

[jpholding]

You're comparing apples and oranges.

No, stupid, you're trying to make a silk purse out of a pig's ear. As the Pixie said, Athens WAS an oddball, and that's just ONE city out of the entire Roman Empire (which is what *I* am talking about) -- and to top it all off -- um, where's Paul's epistle to the church at Athens??? Oh. There was none, not preserved anyway. Duh ah.... :doh: Once again you work not with data, but without it.

Your whine that it "doesn't matter" is bovine excrement. You misrepresented my argument AGAIN (I did not say "NO" Christian musicians nor Christians who had access to instruments; I referred to an inadequate data pool to be supposing there was a churchwide ban -- I realize the argument is far, far too complex for your tiny mind to handle, but after you have been corrected repeatedly, at the very least move on to something else! :lol:

I repeat: Stop mischaracterizing my argument. And while you're at it, answer Punkish's question about salvation with a clear YES or NO. And then stop dripping grease on your keyboard!

I can see the shame/honor system playing a part in the Roman mind because, like I said, the xenophilia in regards to how musically inclined the Greeks were, but it's a stretch to say an educated Athenian would be embarrassed to play an instrument at a Christian meal when their culture assumed music = education and they were accustomed to playing at meals.

All I can say is that simply proves your abject stupidity and absolute ignorance in this regard. Educated or not, the ancient Athenians WERE agonistic. If anything, the educated would be far MORE sensitive to the dictates of honor and LESS apt to make a public disgrace of themselves yowling away on a lyre they had received sub-professional experience in handling.

Obviously all bets are off on the slave class, but even at 200:1, 500:1 or 1000:1 slave to freeman ratio, that's still a lot of lyre players in Greece.

Uh uh. You just ililicity expanded the field from "Athens" to "Greece". You won't get away with that sleight of hand here, No-Brain.

I was not implying education was universally available across the entire Roman empire, especially not to the slave classes.

Well, it sure ain't universal in your house! :lolo:

[Kain Anderson]

No, stupid, you're trying to make a silk purse out of a pig's ear...and everything else JP vomited

No churchwide ban?

We know that instruments performed an important function in the Hebrew temple service and in the ceremonies of the Greeks. At this point, however, a break was made with all previous practice, and although the lyre and flute were sometimes employed by the Greek converts, as a general rule the use of instruments in worship was condemned. Many of the fathers, speaking of religious song, make no mention of instruments; others, like Clement of Alexandra and St Chrysostom, refer to them only to denounce them. Clement says: "Only one instrument do we use, viz., the wor of peace wherewith we honor God, no longer the old psaltery, trumpet, drum, and flute." Chrysostom exclaims: "David formerly sang in psalms, also we sing today with him; he had a lyre with lifeless strings, the Church has a lyre with living strings. Our tongues are the strings of the lyre, with a different tone, indeed, but with a more accordant piety." St. Ambrose expresses his scorn for those who would play the lyre and psaltery instead of singing hymns and psalms; and St. Augustine adjures believers not to turn their hearts to theatrical instruments. The religious guides of the early Christians felt that there would be an incongruity, and even profanity, in the use of the sensuous nerve-exciting effects of instrumental sound in their mystical, spiritual worship. Their high religious and moral enthusiasm needed no aid from external stimulus; the pure vocal utterance was the more proper expression of their faith. This prejudice against instrumental music, which was drawn from the very nature of its aesthetic impression, was fortified by the associations of instruments with superstitious pagan rites, and especially with the corrupting scenes habitually represented in the degenerate theatre and circus. "A Chrstian maiden," says St. Jerome, "ought not even to know what a lyre or a flute is, or what it is used for." (Dickinson, Edward. Music in the History of the Western Church, 54-55)

Leave the pipe to the shepherd, the flute to the men who are in fear of gods and intent on their idol worshipping. Such musical instruments must be excluded from our wingless feasts, for they arc more suited for beasts and for the class of men that is least capable of reason than for men. The Spirit, to purify the divine liturgy from any such unrestrained revelry chants: 'Praise Him with sound of trumpet," for, in fact, at the sound of the trumpet the dead will rise again; praise Him with harp,' for the tongue is a harp of the Lord; 'and with the lute. praise Him.' understanding the mouth as a lute moved by the Spirit as the lute is by the plectrum; 'praise Him with timbal and choir,' that is, the Church awaiting the resurrection of the body in the flesh which is its echo; 'praise Him with strings and organ,' calling our bodies an organ and its sinews strings, for front them the body derives its Coordinated movement, and when touched by the Spirit, gives forth human sounds; 'praise Him on high-sounding cymbals,' which mean the tongue of the mouth which with the movement of the lips, produces words. Then to all mankind He calls out, 'Let every spirit praise the Lord,' because He rules over every spirit He has made. In reality, man is an instrument arc for peace, but these other things, if anyone concerns himself overmuch with them, become instruments of conflict, for inflame the passions. The Etruscans, for example, use the trumpet for war; the Arcadians, the horn; the Sicels, the flute; the Cretans, the lyre; the Lacedemonians, the pipe; the Thracians, the bugle; the Egyptians, the drum; and the Arabs, the cymbal. But as for us, we make use of one instrument alone: only the Word of peace by whom we a homage to God, no longer with ancient harp or trumpet or drum or flute which those trained for war employ. (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Fathers of the Church, 30)

Simply singing is not agreeable to children, but singing with lifeless instruments and with dancing and clapping; on which account the use of this kind of instruments and of others agreeable to children is removed from the songs in the churches, and there is left remaining simply singing. (Justin Martyr, Justin's Questions and Answers to the Orthodox, Ques. 107)

So pretty much what I have been saying all along. The early Church almost exclusively didn't use instruments because of the pagan association and the availability WAS there. For the record Clement was from Athens, was highly educated, and from a wealthy family.

Do I think using instruments is wrong? Yes. Specifically because, unlike JP, I still think the pagan association is still in effect. It's amazing how arrogant we modern day people are to think this music thing is so easily solved if everyone would just embrace instruments when the arguments being used are the SAME freaking ones being used by the children of Justin Martyr's time. In Dan Lucanrini's book "Why I left the Contemporary Christian Music Movement: Confessions of a Former Worship Leader" he states:

At the church where I was a former member, CC music reigned. On one Sunday before Christmas, the "praise team" presented several rock renditions of traditional Christmas carols during a worship service. As the drums crashed, as the beat pounded, and as the electric guitars screeched, some of the teenage girls standing in the pews were swaying their hips and gyrating to the rhythm, as if they were in a secular rock concert, as if they were "coming on" to the performer and "gettin' down."

At that same service, a man came on stage and presented a solo rendition of "What Child Is This?" on the electric guitar. The performance began in traditional fashion, then suddenly he let loose with the wildest rock/jazz arrangement while prancing, jumping back and forth, and waving his instrument around in the air. The crowd went crazy with thunderous applause and jumped to their feet in a standing ovation. Was the crowd's response indicative of worshiping God or the performer?


Pagan???

[jpholding]

No churchwide ban?


:doh: In the FIRST CENTURY, you dip!

In case you FORGOT, I'm not talking about the time of Clement, or Jerome, or ANYONE after 70 AD....and none of your quotes refers to or documents a "ban" on instruments in the time I'm concerned with!

All this time and you STILL can't get my arguments right!


Do I think using instruments is wrong? Yes. Specifically because, unlike JP, I still think the pagan association is still in effect.

Well, sorry you're such an idiot. I sure do recall, though, how Alice Cooper was riffing the death metal on his clarinet the other day. :lolo:

It's amazing how arrogant we modern day people are

That's you all right!

In Dan Lucanrini's book "Why I left the Contemporary Christian Music Movement: Confessions of a Former Worship Leader" he states:

IOW another loser with no self-control wants to force everyone else into his narrow moral code. Isn't that sweet. :lol: FYI, there's a lot of us out here who can appreciate music without turning it into an orgy -- especially when it involves more classical instruments and tunes. But as bad as your self-control is, I guess you must get titillated by a performance of Handel's Messiah, eh? :lmbo:

Poor guy! Better not read any medical textbooks; you might find yourself losing control when you read the parts on female reproduction!

Keep your self-righteousness --- to yourSELF.

[Kain Anderson]

:doh: In the FIRST CENTURY, you dip!

In case you FORGOT, I'm not talking about the time of Clement, or Jerome, or ANYONE after 70 AD....and none of your quotes refers to or documents a "ban" on instruments in the time I'm concerned with!

Oh for crying out loud you ARE an arrogant self-righteous nimrod. Well then have fun in 70AD friend because you of all people know how many survining documents we have describing that time period considering you took quite pains to defend early dates on all the gospels.

[jpholding]

Oh for crying out loud you ARE an arrogant self-righteous nimrod. Well then have fun in 70AD friend because you of all people know how many survining documents we have describing that time period considering you took quite pains to defend early dates on all the gospels.

Translation:

"Duh.....you're right, I can't back up my case with evidence. Duh ah."

You just conceded one of my main points, Droopy! Congratulations!

Now answer Punkish's question -- are we going to hell if we play a clarinet in church, or not?

[Mountain Man]

Do I think using instruments is wrong? Yes. Specifically because, unlike JP, I still think the pagan association is still in effect.
You do realize that guilt by association is effectively a logical fallacy, right? God explicitly says that we should use instruments when we worship him (Psalm 150), and he never retracted that exhortation. Whatever reservations the Church fathers may have had* about instrumental worship, it wasn't grounded in scripture, and while I can appreciate their point of view from a cultural perspective, we do no disservice to God by rejecting their arguments on this issue.

As for your slagging off Christian rock concerts, I have been to rock concerts that were more reverent and worshipful than some church services I've attended.

__________

* Given the argument from silence you use to support this point, I'm not convinced that they actually did disapprove of instrumental worship.

[welder_one]

Ephesians 5:19 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

19 speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs,

singing and making music to the Lord in your heart...

Etymology

The word psalms is derived from the Greek ψαλμοί (psalmoi), originally meaning "songs sung to a harp", from psallein "play on a stringed instrument". <---- from wikipedia... but you can use any dictionary...


Psalms are included in worship (eph 5:19) and the definition of Psalms?

So........ according to the scriptures, shouldnt instrumental music be used??? or is this one of those "inference" times?