Musical Instruments in Christ's church

I'm just thinking out loud.

Old Testament: David urged the people to praise with psaltery, harp and other instruments, as well as their voices. The Hebrews had specific instructions about it. Obviously sanctioned by God himself.

New Testament: God changes his mind. No instruments in worship.

Revelation 5 John's vision--The elders have harps and sing. God changes his mind again.

OT: Okay
NT Not Okay
Heaven; Okay.

Malachi 3:6 "I am the Lord; I change not...."

Hmmmm.

 

Oops, I probably should not have quoted Malachi 3:6 in my previous post. It's from the OT, therefore not binding today, I gather.

So, instead I need to quote James 1:17:

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, in whom there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."

 

Don't forget: Scripture doesn't "command" us to have instruments, therefore we are "commanded" to not have instruments.

 

This logic is faulty is so many ways.

Are you talking about the Muslim Scripture?

 

So you are now dropping the "it is not commanded" angle and turning to a individual choice?? Where is your scripture for this angle?

Your have lost the debate on the "it's not commanded" position so now you hope to find another way out.

Now you say an individual cannot choose music or reject music in their singing?? Does the bible command me to gather with believers who sing with music and therefore I have no choice? Can I not find some believers who do not use music to sing with? Am I commanded to sing with other Christians to begin with? Can I not sing to the Lord by myself?

The argument has no legs, it cannot even get outa the gate.

You said no music because there is no command. That means no bowing your head and no closing your eyes because there is no command. Your doctrine fails by your own practices and standards. Practice what you preach and maybe someone will at least consider your ways consistent, however strange.

:thumbsup:

 

Musical instruments do not affect anyone if i am playing them by myself while singing unto the Lord. Do you believe it is ok to use music in singing worship songs as long as I am not affecting anyone else?

Your answer would be "NO, because scripture does not command it". And thus, NO bowing your head and closing your eyes because scripture does not command it.

Practice what you preach....

Mat 7:2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

:jesus:

 

Are you serious! You need to type in the word "pray" on your bible search and learn just how many instructions there are for praying. ( And you won't find bowing your head or closing your eyes anywhere)

"On the other hand" ?? Really? The NT does not tell us what to pray nor how to pray?

Craziness!

 

We have a grand piano, organ, keyboard, and a guitar. If I could find a harp and a harper I would drag them up there as well!

If used in good taste I like drums. I do not like contemporary music nor "christian rock."

Now, me goeth in peace.:saint:

 

(you do know I'm summarizing DOTF's argument, right?)

 

We both agree that the NT was written in Koine Greek.

No, his definition is in harmony with classical lexicons such as Liddell's and Scott's - which you said yourself, use classical greek.

Again, see page 675 of Joseph Henry Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament published by Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1962. You'll then see that he does "attest to such" by omitting all earlier definitions when it comes to the New Testament.

Again, you have not thoroughly understood what I have said (or your just denying the obvious).
Thayer cites authorities in confirmation of the meanings (the meanings with instruments), it is very significant that he, with the other lexicographers (like Liddell and Scott), has to go back to the same periods of the language prior to New Testament times to get the definitions that have instruments in them.
But again, both Strongs (Blue Letter Bible) [link] and Thayer all say - and I quote:
"in the New Testament to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song"
All the meanings before (about instruments) were taken from sources BEFORE the New Testament and then they both (Strongs and Thayer) omit the before meanings specifically pointing out that in the New Testament is simply meant to "sing a hymn, to celebrate the praise of God in song"

You said Sophocles was "Perhaps studying classical Greek instead of Koine Greek" and also you said he was "examining Classical or Koine Greek? Probably Classical, and thus the failure in his work." - but I've shown you that he was obviously studying Koine greek (not classical) so when he studied the writings of near 600 authors and declared that there is not a single example of psallo (ψαλλω) throughout this long period (B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100) involving or implying the use of an instrument, but he says that it meant always and everywhere "to chant, sing religious hymns."

Ah, thanks for pointing that out! [link]
If you go down to Thayer's definition and click on "Click Here for the Rest of the Entry" you will see Thayer's complete definition and again - see that he supports my argument.
You will see near the bottom of Thayer's definition that he says "in the N.T. to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song"
Like I've told you many times - when coming to the definition of the word psallo in the New Testament they omit all previous meanings concerning instruments and simply say it means to sing.

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

In interesting how you don't mind to bold the part of the verse that supports your argument (make music) but you won't recognize that it then tells us what to make music with - your heart (no musical instrument required).

 

Jesus never named the five books and called them "the Law" - he simply said "the Law of Moses" (Luke 24:44)

So you say the use of this word "law" means the entire Old Testament (Psalms included)!?
But the law was done away with by the death of Christ
Romans 7:4
"Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God."

So now that you say that the use of the word "law" can mean the entire Old Testament (including Psalms) then the use of the word "law" in Romans 7:4 means the entire Old Testament (including Psalms) therefore we have "died to the Old Testament/Covenant through the body of Christ".

And now we can conclude that yes, the Psalms were done away with at the cross.

See my response to steaver about song leaders -

There are two types of music spoken of in the Bible - Instrumental and Vocal. Vocal has been authorized in the NT but instrumental has not.

 

No musical instrument banned either.

 

Once again, assuming what the burden of proof is on you to substantiate.

I do not see where Scripture makes a distinction of music into these two types.

Scripture repeatedly shows God's approval of instrumental music in worship of Him -- in both Testaments. There is also no evidence in Scripture that what Scripture said about the subject is no longer true.

 

Really? Who concluded that? Because its still quite clear that is it NOT commanded - and no one has been able to argue otherwise.

An individual has the personal choice of whether to close their eyes in prayer or to leave them open - this isn't necessarily so with music in church.

Actually...yes you are. Colossians 3:16 says 'admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs'
The one another is referring to other Christians!

When you pray with your eyes open you are still praying. You are saying the exact same words and concentrating on what? The words (and meanings) of that prayer and who you are praying to (God).
When you pray with your eyes closed you are still praying. You are saying the exact same words and concentrating on what? The word (and meanings) of that prayer and who you are praying to (God).

When you sing and just sing you are still just singing. You are singing the same exact words and concentrating on the words and meanings and you're singing to eachother and singing praises to God.
When you sing and play musical instruments you are singing and playing. You may sing the exact words - but you are no longer just singing. You have combined two different types of music (even if you personally dont play) and you are no longer just singing.

Praying - eyes open/closed = still just praying.
Singing - with musical instruments = no longer just singing.

Also, see my posts about specific and generic commands -

 

Its quite clear - there are examples of people using musical instruments to worship God (OT) and then there are examples of people just singing to worship God (NT).
Its common sense - there is the type of worship that has instruments and then there is the type of worship that doesn't have instruments.

I have seen this posted repeatedly but not once has someone been able to show me an example of Gods approval of instrumental music in worship in the New Testament.

 

Assumption. You have not been able to show that every single instance a congregation sung, or a Christian sang, no musical instruments were used. You will not be able to do so either. You are assuming more than what is in the texts. You are once again assuming what the burden of proof is against you to substantiate.

In Scripture, music is music.

Revelation 5 -- which you have refused have accept.

 

Yeah; opinions by you. I doubt very many people are impressed.

Praying - eyes open/closed = praying with eyes being held open/closed.
Singing - still singing.

My opinion is just as good as your opinion. Of course, post #271 addressed the difference between these two in terms of Scripture content. Scripture content is more solid than opinion.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

What did Paul mean when he said "in the name of the Lord Jesus"?
Luke corroborated Paul’s statement by providing the answer. Shortly after the establishment of the church (Acts 2), the Jewish authorities were upset that Peter and John were spreading the gospel so they hauled Peter and John into their assembly and demanded to know, “By what power or by what name have you done this?” (Acts 4:7). The word “power” (dunamei) bears a cvery lose correlation to and relationship with the concept of authority (as Wesley Perschbacher noted in his book The New Analytical Greek Lexicon), and this word is closely aligned with exousia—the usual word for authority (as used in Luke 4:36; Revelation 17:12-13).
W.E. Vine listed both terms under “power” (in his book An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words). “Authority” (exousia) refers to power, rule, authority, or jurisdiction (as Otto Betz noted in his book The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology).
This word means “the power of authority, the right to exercise power” and “the right to act” (again from W.E. Vine's book). It includes the ideas of “absolute power” and “warrant” (as Arndt and Gingrich wrote in their book A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature), as well as “the ‘claim,’ or ‘right,’ or ‘control,’ one has over anything” (as Moulton and Milligan wrote in their book Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources).
The Jewish leaders were demanding from Peter and John to know by what authority the apostles were acting. Who was giving them the right to teach what they were teaching? What authoritative source approved or sanctioned their particular actions? Peter’s answer was “by the name of Jesus Christ” (vs. 10).

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

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

 

Actually, that has been proved as many many historians and scholars have shown.
DHK accepts such also.

Revelation -- which you have refused to understand.

The fact is that the book of Revelation uses extensive figurative language. Revelation is also a book of apocalyptic literature. Apocalyptic literature uses signs and symbols to veil its message to outside readers.
As Ray Summers put it: "The personal safety of both writer and reader was endangered if the persecutors understood the true meaning of the book. For this reason the message of the apocalypse [Revelation and other books] was written so as to conceal and to reveal—to conceal the message from the outsider but to reveal its message to the initiated”
Dr. Ray Summers, recognized Greek scholar, professor of New Testament and Greek classes at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, professor of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Baylor University, where he was Chairman of the Religion Department. He is the author of Essentials of New Testament Greek and also author of Worthy is the Lamb which interprets Revelation in alliance with the historical circumstances Christians encountered in the late first century (this book is of which I quoted from).

It is clear from simply reading Revelation that it is a book of symbolic and figurative language and Professor Ray Summers Ph.D writes that it was a written "to conceal the message from the outsider but to reveal its message to the initiated"
The use of harps symbolizes something and cannot be taken a actual literal harps.

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