Musical Instruments in Christ's church

Right; you have a song leader.

When I was in a militantly vocal-only group within the Churches of Christ, every so often "song leader training" was offered.

I do not see specially-trained song leaders in my New Testament. I do see musical instruments being used during song. One of the places I saw it was in a passage you just denied the usefulness of.

 

As has been mentioned to you many times already, David did not write under the law. He wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit entirely apart from the Law. Were the Psalms abolished at the cross; nailed to the tree; done away by the blood of Christ, never to applicable for us any more? Of course not! The Psalms are prayers and songs of David and other psalmists. They come from the hearts of those who wrote them, inspired of God, for our benefit. They are classified, not as books of the Law, but as "Poetical Books." Your assertion is just plain wrong.

So did Jesus:
I am the door.
I am the Good Shepherd.
I am the light of the world.
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
The Lord said to Abraham that he would make his seed: as the sand of the sea.
"I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness."
He that does not eat my flesh and does not drink my blood cannot be my disciple.

I quoted from all of the gospels, the book of Isaiah, and the book of Genesis. Are you willing to rip those books out of your Bible also? Or at least entertain the possibility of admitting that you cannot use any of those books for interpretation for they all contain figures of speech. That really ties your hands doesn't it. Every book of the Bible contains figures of speech. You cannot get around it.

Revelation isn't a Jewish apocalyptic book. Put it to rest.

This argument does not apply. Revelation was written at the same time as the Gospel of John and as all three epistles of John. Are you willing to throw them out as well? The Gospel of John is full of signs and symbols. Yet, it is the most widely used book to present the gospel--the new birth.

And who is Ray Summers, and why should I listen to him?
The Book of Revelation is part of our canon of Scripture. If you cannot understand what is being written in that book, then you are the one that has the problem, right?

No, you are wrong. There is no principle to say that everything in Revelation is symbolic. Is John himself also symbolic. Is God symbolic? How ridiculous do you want to take this logic of yours? You can make the Bible mean anything you want with your method of hermeneutic. It makes no sense. But as I say: If you don't understand the Book of Revelation, then that is your problem, right?

And if you can't understand it then it is your problem, right?

The Gospel of John is full of symbols and signs that represent something other than current day definitions. Therefore, according to you we can't use it. That is your logic.
What logic does it make when Jesus says:
I am the door.

It doesn't. It is symbolic.
But the harps in Revelation five are not symbolic.

 

This is reading into scritpure your own view scripture at no time supports this suggestion. David also slept under the law so therefore we must not sleep? Or David had children under the law so we must not have those either? God set aside the Sabbath to worship him so since thats under the law we shouldn't worship him? The reasoning for this line of thought is absurd.

 

Well, I can tell you this much: when an organ or piano or guitar or whatever is playing, I can sing.

You wrote "Musical instruments invade the acts of worship (singing)" and I have shown that this is nonsense.

Your feeling that "Musical instruments invade the acts of worship (singing)" is due to your group's dislike of musical instruments. To most of us, we never really give much thought to instruments playing as we sing.

I can sing with instruments or without instruments. Many people sing along with instruments every day. Your feeling that "Musical instruments invade the acts of worship (singing)" is a non-biblical opinion.

As for your accusations against those who disagree with you on musical instruments, I will briefly address one of them: church congregations have musical instruments for different reasons. I am not going to get into them. Your accusatory remarks were most likely motivated by spite against those who disagree with your group on this, as opposed to anything you think due to evidence.

Scripture does not support your desire to see no one use musical instruments. Therefore, it looks like you are beginning to indulge in flippant accusations against those who have `dared' to disagree with your group on musical instruments.

 

It is not true that David was under the Mosaic law? Really? What law was he under then?? No law at all??
So the law only applied to those people found in the first 5 books of the Bible, and any book outside has absolutely nothing to do with the law and the people found in those books were not under the law?

Hmm...I said that? Really...? I don't seem remember saying "revelation does not apply" or saying anything even close to that. If you would, show me where I said that - so I can correct that statement (that I don't remember saying).
:thumbs:

What, did I say it was evil too!?
Darron, please - stop implying that I am saying all these things that I have not.
You have clearly not understood what I have shown to you through evidence of what the book of Revelation is.

Firstly, I have never heard of "song leader training" and secondly - any male member of the church may lead the songs at any time he desires, no training required.

 

You go from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Can you direct me to the OT law where it states: "Thou shalt not write psalms."
David wrote psalms under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, even as he wrote a psalm of repentance (psalm 51), a prayer of repentance and sorrow for his sin of adultery and murder. What has that got to do with the Law? Nothing!

What do the Proverbs,written by Solomon have to do with Law?
Nothing. But Solomon wrote those by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as well. The law had nothing to do with it.

 

Dude, you really, really need to go back and read Hebrews 11; David may have been under the law, but he wasn't saved by it. He was saved by his faith. (check out verse 32)

I'm having a hard time understanding why you have such a focus on this; I mean, the only reason this would be a matter of topical discussion is because, for some reason, you might think that musical instruments in a worship service keeps people from being saved.

And while I would agree with you in regards to those mega-churches who focus on 25-piece orchestras, rock bands, and interpretive dance, I simply cannot find any scriptural reason to agree with you as a general principle.

Okay, I'm done with this guy. He has no problem mis-using scripture, and that in itself makes him a type of anti-Christ.

The very same verse indicates that the "lifeless instruments" must give a distinctive sound.

This guy is intellectually dishonest, shaping scripture to fit his particular theological view.

 

Defender,

Behind "learning" is the Greek word for "instruction," the same word in 2 Tim 3:16.

Paul says that we're to receive "instruction" from the OT. I'm with Paul.

I'm sorry, but Paul doesn't link Acts 17:30 to Rom 15:4. You did.

By the way, Do you know what ignorance Paul is speaking of?

So are we justified by keeping the laws of the NT?

Please complete what Paul is saying: If a person wants to be justified by keeping the law, then they must keep the whole law.

That sounds different that what you're saying.

No one is calling for justification by the observance of the OT.

 

Was he not living under the law and in his life he wrote the Psalms?
He wrote living under the law.

But the very man who wrote them was under the law and his writings were a work under that law.

Your implying that since I said that Revelation was a book of figurative language that I'm "willing to rip" it out of my Bible.
Totally going beyond what I said, putting words and meanings into what I said but that I totally didn't imply and your taking an extremist view of what I said about Revelation.
Either you didn't read all of what I said and you just want to come to your own conclusions about what I said/meant.
Or your not thinking clearly.

Am I trying to "get around it"? I'm pointing out what the book of Revelation is and there is no changing it.
They "contain figures of speech" but the book of Revelation is almost entirely figurative language written when the Christians were under pursecution.

The Jewish apocalytic books were an example...you have no point here saying that is isn't one of them. It was an example of what apocalyptic literature is like.

Wait...when did I say that I was "willing to throw out" the book of Revelation? Again, going beyond what I said and meant.

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's great how he was a professor of Baptist Seminarys!

So you get to pick and choose what you think is symbolic and what isn't? The principle must apply to the entire book because the entire book is apocolyptic literature (unlike other books of the bible that has parts containing figurative langauage).

Wait - did I say "we can't use it"?
REALLY? Where??
Because I DIDN'T.
I said that using a single verse in Revelation (a book full of signs and symbols) cannot be taken as a literal straightforward guide.

 

Your error is in thinking that worship is limited to a timed event in a church building. Worship is a lifestyle. Not an event.

 

Good, now that you have changed your mind and have admitted that we can use it. I will quote these verses once again:

Revelation 5:8-9 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

--Once and for all showing that the song of the redeemed in heaven will be accompanied by instruments--the harp, in particular.
Words have meanings. You cannot just say this is symbolic therefore we can't use it. That is just foolishness. If you don't want to believe the Bible, then that is your choice.

 

Sure: I showed that Revelation 5 shows that musical instruments in worship is not wrong. Here is what you wrote in reply:

Yeah; you basically said that we cannot really believe Revelation 5.

About Revelation 5, I wrote

You are the one who is adamant that musical instruments in worship should not happen.

This implies that it is a sin. Sin is evil.

If you are indicating that musical instruments in worship is wrong, you are alleging that it is a sin, and therefore it must be evil.

It is really unfortunate that you are choosing to now deny that you have asserted what you have been asserting -- and to add to that, falsely accuse me of misrepresenting you. The poster who accused you of being dishonest may have been spot on.

 

Wow. You sure do manage to disqualify a bunch of Scripture, just to hold to a "biblical" position.

First Psalms, now Revelation.

What's next?

 

Darren, DHK, help me understand. If I say that I can't use a certain form of worship, because it was written by a man who was still under the law, and therefore what he wrote was under the law....

Does that mean I don't have abide by the ten commandments? Because they were written as the law, by a man under the law.

I'm just not understanding.

 

I have read Church of Christ literature that says the Ten Commandments are not applicable today.

Yes I am serious.

No that is not all Churches of Christ.

You cannot understand because have not `drank the funny Kool Aid,' you do not have a blinding loyalty to that portion of the Churches of Christ, your brain works and you are letting it do its job.

 

How is that possible? I read in Romans 13 where Paul is quoting the ten commandments; so how can they not be relevant for today?

 

Without citing chapter and verse, all of the Commandments are reaffirmed in the New Testament, save one. That's the one regarding Sabbath day observance. Paul specifically exempted it in Colossians 2:16.

"Let no man judge you, therefore, judge you in meat and drink, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body of Christ."

Paul is saying here, I believe, that all sabbath observances, including the weekly Sabbath as well as other ceremonial observances, were abolished.

Romans 13, on the other hand, shows that the other commandments were not.

My point: If Psalm 150 (which mentions many instruments in worship) is negated, one would think there would be a specific NT scripture about it, not silence.

 

I'm only this far, but Amy, Bravo!!!

Off to catch up...

 

Another bravo!

Still reading...

 

Bravo!

Still reading...