Musical Instruments in Christ's church

Defender,

Sorry. I'll try to be better.

:)

 

Hmmm....... Do not wear a foot covering beyond sandles as shoes are not mentioned in scripture.

We do not want to add to scripture.:rolleyes:

 

Ah - wonderful! We've finally brought up the word psallo!

I implore you to read this entire post if you are truly and honestly seeking the truth.

My friend, after failing to discover a biblical command, a binding example, or a necessary inference for the use of mechanical instruments in Christian worship, those who advocate the use of such music (as most of the members on this board) often - as a last resort - allege that the term psallo includes the use of instrumental music. Psallo is the Greek verb translated “making melody” in Ephesians 5:19, and “I will sing” in 1 Corinthians 14:15. The noun form of this term, psalmos, appears in such passages as 1 Corinthians 14:26, Ephesians 5:19, and Colossians 3:16. If one looks up psallo in a Greek lexicon (as Alive in Christ did) , you will find the following definitions: to touch, pull, or pluck; to twitch the strings on a carpenter’s line; to pluck or strike the cords on a musical instrument; to sing praises.
Upon reviewing these definitions, some claim that Paul’s use of psallo and psalmos implies the use of a stringed instrument in worship. But then they must further assert that these words always convey the idea of instrumental accompaniment to singing, even if the instrument is not mentioned. Are they correct? If not, why not?

When one studies the etymology of this word, he will find that it is incorrect to say that every time psallo was used in antiquity, it meant to play an instrument. By studying reliable Greek lexicons (dictionaries) and various historical documents, one soon comes to understand that the term psallo has had a variety of meanings in different periods of its history. In fact, the evidence indicates that even before Christ came to Earth, psallo no longer meant to play instruments of music. Numerous scholarly sources could be cited to prove this point.
First, Walter Bauer’s highly respected lexicon, revised by Frederick Danker in 2000, indicates that even in the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Old Testament that appeared about 250 years before Christ was born), it is nearly always the case that psallo is translated as only “to sing” (2000, p. 1096).
In Henry Thayer’s often-quoted Greek lexicon, he noted that by the time the events recorded in the New Testament took place, psallo meant “to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song” (1962, p. 675).
And finally, Sophocles, a native Greek and for thirty-eight years a professor of the Greek language at Harvard University, declared (after examining a plethora of secular and religious historical documents) that there was not a single example psallo ever used in the time of Christ that involved or implied the use of an instrument; rather, it always meant to chant or sing religious hymns (see Kurfees, 1999, p. 47).

When one wishes to know the definition of a word from times past, he must inquire as to how the word was used at any particular time in history. For example, when one reads the word “prevent” in the King James Version (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:15), he must understand that this word does not mean the same thing it did when this version was first produced in 1611. Then, it meant “to go before; to precede.” Today, it means “to keep from happening; to impede.” The word “idiot” was used in the seventeenth century in reference to one “in a private station, as distinguished from one holding public office.” Today, it is used to speak of “an unlearned, or ignorant person.” Just as these English words once had meanings that now are entirely obsolete, the Greek word psallo once meant “to pluck or strike the chords of a musical instrument.” But, before the beginning of the New Testament period, it had lost this meaning. In his well-researched book, Instrumental Music in the Worship, M.C. Kurfees noted that the word psallo never is used in the New Testament or in contemporaneous literature to mean anything other than to sing (1999, p. 45). The other meanings had entirely disappeared by the time the New Testament was written.

The fact is, however, even if this word had retained all of its original meanings (and the evidence shows that it clearly had not), the letters Paul penned to the Christians in Ephesus and Colossae specifically name the “plucked” instrument—the heart. Thus, a harp, piano, banjo, or any other kind of musical instrument is no more an integral part of psallo than the plucking of chicken feathers. The deceptive and misleading argument which suggests that in the New Testament psallo means “to strike the cords on a musical instrument,” is false to the core. It can be refuted simply by taking an honest look at all of the evidence available. [This Article was used with permission.]

 

The error in this statement is that the shoes we wear has NOTHING to do with worship - but the use of musical instruments does have to do with worship.

 

Again, you have failed to prove that musical instruments were a precept of the Law.

Asserting that it is over and over again does not change that. Had worship with musical instruments appeared only in the passages that gave the Old Law, I might agree with you.

Actually, you ban the musical instruments without His authority.

Throughout the Scriptures in both Testaments, God shows His approval of musical instruments in worship of Him. There is no teaching in the New Testament where God changed His mind.

Again, you fail to realize that the burden of proof is against you. You are a poster who insists on adding a ban against a practice God shows approval of throughout Scripture.

 

No; his point is entirely valid.

If a person walks into assembly with shoes instead of sandals or bare feet, using your reasoning, s/he could possibly be sinning.

Only in your OPINION is there is a difference between playing a musical instrument during assembly and wearing the `innovation' of shoes during assembly.

Of course, neither is a sin. If you did not have an `Our group can do no wrong' devotion to your group, you would not believe either was a sin either.

 

You bring up the Psalms and how they were not a part of the Old Law...

Here's some of what Alan Highers said on the subject of psalms.

"You also raised the question about the Psalms - psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. First of all, that does not necessarily mean that it has to be an Old Testament Psalm. But even if it includes those Psalms, it does not justify everything mentioned in the Psalms because Psalm 66 aslo commands animal sacrifice. The Psalms were written under the old law and embraced many principles of the law. If Christians sometimes sang praises to God from the Psalms, it did not mean they endorsed animal sacrifices, instrumental music, or toher shadows of the law tht are abolished in the New Testament (Col 2:14)."

Notwithstanding the eternal truths that are in the psalms (and other parts of the OT), we have to understand that they were written by men living under the Mosaic Law, and will contain references to and instructions for people living under that Law.

This doesn't make sense.
We do not have the authority to have them.
We do not have the authority not to have them. (by what your saying)
You see what I mean? This reasoning doesn't work.

You say both Testaments, but you fail to provide scripture.

My opinion? Its logic and common sense.
Musical instruments invade the acts of worship (singing), shoes do not invade any act of worship at all!

 

Defender,

Not only do you have no authorization from the scriptures to wear shoes (as opposed to sandals) in a worship service, but you have no authorization from the scriptures to us electricity to heat, cool, or light the worship area.

In the scriptures they used candles or direct sunlight.

You are in violation regarding full shoes vs sandles as well as being in violation regarding heating, air conditionaing, and electric lights vs candles.

Again...this all involves WORSHIP.

And you are in violation.


:godisgood:

 

Again, I repeat myself.
shoes, electricity, heat, air conditioning, lights, ect - do not partake in worship. They do not affect or invade the acts of worship.
Musical instruments very much affect and invade an act of worship - singing.

 

By the logic everyone here is using concerning shoes, electricity, church buildings, ect, ect you would have to go tell the NT christians that they have no authority to have trees in that area of the field they happen to be worshipping in (because they don't have a church building), ect.
Do you see how rediculous this is?

 

I agree with you that sarcasm and ridicule are out of line. I am glad that Alive in Christ apologized to you and wants to do better.

I have tried to avoid being anything but polite. However, you make it very hard for me, and evidently for others.

I realize that when you and your fellow congregation members get together, you share your most creative arguments against musical instruments in worship. You then `Amen' each other and admire what you have all come up with. It supports the party line, affirms the group's `rightness,' so it is something `great.'

You are in a different world here. Most of us are not predisposed to believing that musical instruments is forbidden by Scripture.

I might be the person most sympathetic to your view, as I would prefer vocal-only singing over a lot of worship music I have beheld. I wish the Bible did say something against a lot of worship music I do not like -- but it does not. To get rid of that disliked worship music, I would be happy to get rid of all musical instruments and go to vocal-only worship music. Again, my wishes aside, Scripture does not prescribe that.

Even with my sentiments, I am not going to go with just any argument against musical instruments. It has to have validity. The notion that Scripture prohibits musical instruments has no validity.

Now, even with my sentiments, if I am not willing to accept just any argument against musical instruments, I can assure you that most people here are less open than I am. If you posit an argument that no person not predisposed to your views would accept, it will not be accepted here.

In your group, when you are together, I suspect that even your most baseless arguments against musical instruments get admired. Here, they are going to be seen as foolish. The more persistent you are with them, the harder it is going to be for even polite people to not treat you like an idiot.

Lest I be misunderstood, I do not think you are an idiot. I think under most circumstances, you would not accept the very arguments you are proposing.

 

Because I already have. You just evidently did not bother to consider it.

Any person can go back through this thread and see that you do not know what you are talking about with that assertion.

 

Only to you in your perception, that is, opinion.

It is your dislike of musical instruments that makes musical instruments appear to "invade" "worship."

The playing of a musical instrument does not hamper my singing.

 

And nowhere in the New Testament do we see the banning of musical instruments in worship to be the will of God.

I apologize; there has been a LOT of things written since I posted, and I can't address them all.

I will address your statements about "specific" and "generic" by agreeing with you; I often find a biblical principle that addresses many of today's situations, without specifically mentioning the situation or its many integral parts.

The same goes with this. You only need look at the many references in the New Testament that talk about musical instruments, to realize that they are not banned from worship.

Take a look at 1 Corinthians 14; while the main point of the chapter is about speaking in tongues, there are references to pipes and harps; and the end of the chapter emphasizes that the chapter is about how a church service is to be conducted. Me, personally, I don't think there are any coincidences in scripture; and to combine all these elements when talking about how to properly hold a church (worship?) service...well...if you really want to get down to it, the only thing I can find in the New Testament actually banned from a worship service, is women speaking....

So what were the Old Testament commands on using musical instruments with worship?

 

Huh?

Your reasoning does not work. Bible-based reasoning does work.

You say we do not have the authority to have them. From what? It is not from any statement of Scripture.

The Bible shows that God approves of musical instruments in worship of Him. Prior posts list the Scriptures, such as http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1339626&postcount=50.

I never said that "We do not have the authority not to have them." I said no such thing; you wrongly attributed that sentiment to me, possibly in order to make your argument easier for you.

I said what I said, and meant exactly what I said: there is no authority to add a ban against musical instruments.

We can have them. We can choose not to have them. There is no authority in Scripture to add a ban against what God indicates approval of throughout Scripture.

 

Yes, that is what we all do--worship. It is commanded of the Lord, and the Lord never prohibited instruments, just as he never prohibited church buildings. But you are not consistent. You prohibit one, but allow the other.

Chapter and verse please.
Since you cannot come up with such a list, as you just admit, you cannot be sure that instruments or church buildings would not be on that list. You lose on that count alone. It is impossible for you to prove anything arguing it from silence. Since the Scripture is silent on this issue you have no other choice but to be silent.

Not if you have a mandate from the Bible on how, where, why, what, etc. to do things from the NT. If the NT is your example, your guidebook, from which you get your mandate to do all things, then church buildings are included in that guidebook--or ought to be included. But you are very selective in your choices. You prohibit some things and allow others. It is a hypocritical process.

Singing is involved in the how and who we worship.
Instruments are involved in the how we worship.
The building is involved in the where we worship.
Even the car is involved in how we get to the worship.

You condemn some and have God bless the others. It is hypocritical.

I can almost guarantee you that if your building was simply a box with a door--no chairs, no bathrooms, no paint, nothing but a square wooden box-like structure with a door to go in and out, that many if not most of your members would not come. Yet that would be more than most Christians in third world nations have for a meeting place for a church, and more than the first century Christians had for a church building. And yes, it has a whole lot to do with worship. If you can't see that, then you are blind.

The church building provides an atmosphere for worship. There are many places that are more appropriate to refer to "the house of God," then other places. They are called places of worship for a reason. Fifty years ago these places never had a locked door. One could go into the building and find time to pray, not that they needed to go to a church to pray--but that is the way it was.

You really ought to be ashamed of yourself. This is a veiled accusation, and it is one of the most insulting accusations, not only to me but I believe to God himself.

The above was your answer to my testimony that when my children play the great hymns of the faith on the piano, hymns such as "It is Well With My Soul," that it stirs my heart, and causes me to worship the Lord even more fervently than before.
That is what I said.
Now you accuse me that when I hear Godly music set to words about Christ, his atoning blood, and the peace that he gives those who trust him--you say that my heart is not right!!! Your veiled comment says that my heart can be changed (and should be changed--right?) You are most arrogant!
I listen to some of the most Godly music every written: How Great Thou Art, Rock of Ages, Amazing Grace, Wonderful Grace of Jesus, etc. And then you tell me that my heart is not right with God!!! How arrogant! You don't even know me. You only hold to a tiny thread of your twisted theology which you cannot prove.

No, God does not condemn me for listening to Godly music. Why would he??
Why the veiled accusations??

The Word is my authority. The whole topic here was my listening to my children's playing the piano, and how my heart was lifted up in praise to God.
Now that you have falsely accused me, insulted me, and insulted the Lord (Scripture set to music is still Scripture--it would be an insult to God if you tell him that His Word is wrong to be sung to music), what more have you to say?

I pity you if you are a person with no emotions. If you have no emotions, you can't worship God. Praise in and of itself involves the emotions.

My daughter just completed her grade eight in piano. In eight grades I hope she learned something, because the lessons aren't cheap. It is obvious that the music does teach, or the music could not be taught. Music is taught for a reason. Remember the music that calmed the soul of Saul, and the demon that was cast out as a result of it. David didn't do it "by himself." He did it via a musical instrument, and that says a lot.
The emphasis must always be on the words, the lyrics. I agree.
But instruments, played in the proper way, glorifying to God, are not wrong. If they were God would have condemned them in the OT, and they certainly would never have been allowed in heaven.

 

What then does Paul mean in Rom 15:4?

Not at all!

Paul is here defending the gospel against distortion in the form of law-keeping. The gospel is Christ alone. Not Christ plus the law. That's the genius of Paul's argument.

It has nothing to do with the merit or demerit of instrumental music. Speak where the Scriptures speak.

The early church and the NT writers made good of the OT. You are the one who have a problem with the OT.

I suggest you read Acts and the Letters and Revelation to see the dependence on the OT.

You need to understand the nature of the contrast between the OT and the NT covenant.

Again, not allowing Scripture to speak for itself. You are adding to Scripture.

And even if one were to keep the entire law perfectly doesn't equal right standing with God. You're missing the point.

Maybe you need to reread the Psalms to see how all types of instruments were used to worship and praise God.

 

Make up your mind. Which one is it?

I bet holding this position gets awful confusing sometimes. Doesn't it make you wish you were a Baptist? :saint:

 

-- and they would have been condemned in the New Testament.

 

Maybe I should use better terminology because "invade" has a negative connotation.
The church building has no affect on any of the acts of worship.
Musical instruments do very much affect an act of worship (singing).

You said it doesn't "hamper" your singing - I never said it does/will. But even if it does hamper or aid or strengthen your singing - it still has its part in that act of worship - the church building does not.

Why don't you address the fact that the New Testament doesn't ban juggling, horse riding, cooking, partying, ect - in worship - does that make it right? (of course one could come up with better examples...)

Don't worry, take your time. :thumbsup:

The many references? Like the one you posted about 1 Corinthians 14 (below)

And I will take a look at 1 Corinthians 14.
First we see Paul telling them to pursue love and desire spiritual gifts (Vs. 1) so we know this part of the letter is about spiritual gifts.
Then lets skip down to the part that you say references flute and harp (and bugles).
1 Corinthians 14:6-8
"Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching?
If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played?
And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?"

Your trying to make this scripture mean something that is does not.
Firstly he calls them lifeless instruments (interesting, isn't it?) and then he says if they "do not give distinct note, how will anyone know what is played?"
He is referring to the earlier verse (6) talking about how will he benefit you, or build up the church (vs 5), if he doesn't bring knowledge, prophecy, or teaching and then he uses the instruments as an example of how will anyone know what is played unless they give "distinct notes". This reference to the flute and the harp is a metaphor.

Commands actually in the law? I do not know of any, but examples of musical instruments as works under the law commanded by men living under the Mosaic law?
Here's some of what Alan Highers said on the subject of psalms.

"You also raised the question about the Psalms - psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. First of all, that does not necessarily mean that it has to be an Old Testament Psalm. But even if it includes those Psalms, it does not justify everything mentioned in the Psalms because Psalm 66 aslo commands animal sacrifice. The Psalms were written under the old law and embraced many principles of the law. If Christians sometimes sang praises to God from the Psalms, it did not mean they endorsed animal sacrifices, instrumental music, or toher shadows of the law tht are abolished in the New Testament (Col 2:14)."

Notwithstanding the eternal truths that are in the psalms (and other parts of the OT), we have to understand that they were written by men living under the Mosaic Law, and will contain references to and instructions for people living under that Law.

Your not making sense my friend. Saying we have no authority is saying that there is an absensce of a verse in scripture providing us with the authority to have instrumental music in worship.

Everything posted in your post #50 has been thoroughly covered and any scriptures posted show no evidence or indicate at all that musical instruments were used or encouraged in the NT church.
You can even speak with DHK on this matter and as he has said many times, he agrees that they did not use instrumental music then.

You use the words we do not have the authority to "add a ban" against them - but your twisting this reasoning. We're not "adding a ban" we're simply "not allowing" them into our worship because we have no authority!
You say "add a ban" to imply that we're doing an act that we have no authority for, but not having musical instruments (in worship) is NOT DOING AN ACT that we have no authority for (using musical instruments in worship).