In June 1923, the Ryman Auditorium in Nashville was the scene of a now-classic debate on the subject of using instrumental music in worship. The proposition was: “Instrumental music in church worship is scriptural.” Representing the affirmative was Ira Boswell, a minister for the Christian Church; representing the negative was N. B. Hardeman, a minister for the Church of Christ, after whom Freed-Hardeman University was named. Over five nights, thousands packed the Ryman to hear a total of 22 speeches, evenly divided between the two orators. By the mid-point, however, it was clear that all salient points had been covered, and the remaining speeches consisted of rehashing previous arguments. Neither man yielded to his opponent, and neither side was “converted” to the other. Nevertheless, this debate allows the reader to weigh the arguments for and against instrumental music in worship and to determine what is scriptural and what is not. The debate, so titled above, is published by the Guardian of Truth Foundation as a 239-page, soft-cover edition and may be ordered through the Gospel Advocate Company. Boswell’s and Hardeman’s principal arguments will be presented in forthcoming, separate installments.

Boswell based his premise on the meaning of the Greek verb “psallo,” which appears five times in the New Testament (NT). He quoted from numerous Greek lexicons and Bible scholars, most of which or whom implied that the word meant to touch or strike, regardless of what was struck, either literally or metaphorically, but that it did include plucking an instrument. To Boswell, “psallo” always implied use of an instrument, and especially singing with instrumental accompaniment. But because he had “liberty” in Christ, it was scriptural to worship with or without musical instruments, and that Paul allegedly gave apostolic example of resisting encroachment upon liberty in Christ. Boswell, who based most of his arguments on a book by O. E. Payne, “Instrumental Music Is Scriptural,” also claimed that Jesus worshiped in the temple where there were musical instruments. If they had been wrong, He would have driven them out like He did with the moneychangers.

Here are a few examples of scholars whom Boswell quoted. It is clear that he relied heavily on human scholarship:

From Prof. Maurice Hutton, University College, Toronto: “This general truth is certain: ‘psallein’ does not only not preclude a musical instrument, but it necessarily implies one, and most naturally a harp, though the word might cover less naturally a flute, or even a modern organ or piano, since it means to strike with the fingers.” He is talking about the classical and Christian use of the word as accompaniment to the stringed instrument.

From Benjamin W. Bacon, Prof. of New Testament Criticism and Exegesis at Yale: “Of the meaning of the word ‘psallein’ at the time [when the NT was written] there can be no question. The meaning, ‘play a stringed instrument,’ is primary; the application to ‘sing,’ secondary. If the revisers knew Greek, they must have known the word in New Testament times did allow the use of the instrument. If not, their opinion is valueless.”

From Prof. John H. C. Fritz, [then] Dean of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis: “The word ‘psallo’ in Greek originally means to play on a stringed instrument, and then it also has the meaning to sing, especially to sing praises to the Lord. It can, therefore, mean to sing with or without musical accompaniment. We know that in the Old Testament service musical instruments were used. It is, therefore, likely that he who used the world ‘psallo’ rather had in mind singing with musical accompaniment.”

From Dean Alford: “The word [psalmos] properly signified those sacred songs which were performed with musical accompaniment. ‘Hymn’ is the word for a song without accompaniment. James 5:13: ‘Psaletto,’ let him sing praise; literally, let him play on an instrument; but used in Romans, First Corinthians, and elsewhere of singing praises generally.”

Boswell believed that there could not be the shadow of a doubt about the proper meaning of “psallo” and of its original use in the apostolic age. He agreed with Dean Alford, who believed that it came to be carelessly used and generally as “songs of praise”; but it properly means melodies, tunes of praise played on an instrument, and, naturally, upon the harp in particular.

He asked these questions: 1. Since Ephesians, which mentions making melody in the heart, was written in the year 62-63, some years after James (44-60), Romans (58-59), and 1 Corinthians (57) were written, the latter three of which mention only “singing,” how could those earlier Christians have known anything about making melody in the heart? 2. All sincere worship comes from the heart, but that does not exclude using mechanical instruments. What wrong is there in using them? 3. What makes them bad?

Boswell also stated, “While Hardeman has consistently told you what Paul says, what God says, at no time has he made any effort to prove that his interpretation is correct.” (This implies that materials other than the Bible are necessary to prove that Paul in Eph. 5:19 means to sing and make melody in the heart without using musical instruments.)

Another interesting Boswell statement: “About our playing the organ during Communion: Grant that it is wrong, grant that it is sinful, grant whatever you please about it, that would not prove that the New Testament does not give us the right to use the instrument in the worship.” (This implies that even if you openly agreed that mechanical instruments were sinful, you still couldn’t prove that the NT denied the use of them.)

Hardeman initially posed 13 questions to Boswell, who often evaded them or gave little attention to answering them:

1. “Can Eph. 5:19, 1 Cor. 14:15, Rom. 15:9, and James 5:13 be obeyed without using an instrument?” ANSWER: “The affirmative position is: ‘To sing with or without instrumental music.’” Boswell said that the scholarship of the world had answered by saying that “psallo” meant to sing with or without a musical instrument.

2. “Do you agree with Bro. H. L. Calhoun, [then] president of Bethany College, West Virginia, when he says: ‘It will be admitted that the New Testament nowhere mentions the use of an instrument in connection with the singing in the church. This fact settles, beyond all dispute, that the use of an instrument in connection with the singing in the church cannot be an act of acceptable worship, for it fails to fulfill one of the essential conditions of an act of acceptable worship, and that condition which it fails to fulfill is the thing that differentiates an act of acceptable worship from an act which is not acceptable. Worship by means of instruments to-day is not in truth, and, therefore, cannot be such as God seeks or accepts’?” ANSWER: “I do not agree with him.”

3. “Do you believe that instrumental music is demanded, commanded, or authorized in Christian worship?” ANSWER: “I believe that it is scriptural.”

4. “Is it authorized by God or man?” ANSWER: “Answered in # 3.”

5. “(a) If by God, can the instrument be omitted with impunity? (b) If by man, is it, therefore, scriptural?” ANSWER: “Answered in # 3.”

6. “Is instrumental music a part of the worship?” ANSWER: “Answered in my definition at the beginning of the discussion; that is, ‘instrumental music is in the worship only in the sense of being an item to the public service or ritual of worship.’”

7. “Do you agree [with those who say]: ‘Instrumental music is in the church, but not in the worship’?” (For answer, see # 10).

8. “Do you agree with O. E. Payne, in whose compilations numbers of lexicons have been quoted, when Bro. Payne says, ‘It is impossible to “psallein” without a musical instrument,’ and that ‘if we forego musical instruments, we cannot conform to the divine injunction to “psallein”’?” (For answer, see # 10).

9. “Was the ‘Christian Standard,’ the paper representing Bro. Boswell’s side of the question, right when it said, regarding Payne’s book, that it leads to the ‘overwhelming conviction that not only was instrumental music allowed in the worship of the primitive church, but that it was positively enjoined’?” (For answer, see # 10).

10. “Do you agree [with those who say] of Bro. Payne: ‘The author intended and aims to prove that instrumental music in Christian worship is scriptural; and when I say his effort is a complete success, I state that case conservatively. He demonstrates (and I use the term advisedly) that when the New Testament was written “psallo” carried with it the idea of the instrument of music.’ Was this as a ‘privilege’ or as a ‘duty’?” ANSWER: “It is not germane to this discussion whether I agree with them or not.”

11. “Does the instrument inhere in ‘psallo’?” ANSWER: (Boswell quotes from an M. C. Kurfees.) “‘Baptizo’ means to dip, to immerse, regardless of the particular element in which the action takes place; and the word ‘psallo’ means to touch or strike, regardless of the particular object touched or struck. These are the inherent ideas in these words, running through all their varied uses, and are the key to their meaning in every instance, whether the word be used literally or metaphorically.”

12. “Is the use of the instrument in the worship to please God or man?” ANSWER: “It depends upon the attitude of the worshiper.”

13. “Please state your position so clearly and define it so accurately that there can be no dispute or possibility of misunderstanding.” ANSWER: (Boswell directs attention to a large chart before the audience that reads, “The New Testament Meaning of Psallo, the Word of God for Instrumental Music. The Affirmative Position: To sing with or without instrumental music.”) “My position is stated on the chart. What is written can be easily read.”

Hardeman argued that “psallo” from the lexicons was defined under two headings: first, its classical or primary meaning; second, its NT or applied use. Since “psallo” meant to sing to the accompaniment of an “instrument,” it was necessary to define the instrument applied from NT context. In Eph. 5:19, Paul said we were to sing to God and “psallo” with the heart, not the fingers or anything else. Whereas worship in the Old Testament was physical and from without, worship in the NT is spiritual and from within. Therefore, the “instruments” of worship are not physical but metaphorical and spiritual. Without the heart there can be no “psallowing,” and beyond that, the NT gives no other authority. Hardeman further argued that “psallo” always carried the idea of plucking something, but that the word itself did not define that which was specifically plucked. “Psallo” alone could mean to pluck the hair, to pluck a bowstring, to pluck a chalk line, or to pluck a musical instrument. Application in the NT is to pluck the metaphorical strings of the heart. Is the instrument to be made by the hands of men, as Boswell suggests? Paul specifies that the instrument is the heart.

Since Boswell argued that one could worship with or without a mechanical instrument, Hardeman countered that if by definition “psallo” demanded a mechanical instrument, and you could not obey God without it, then how could anyone worship with OR without an instrument? When Boswell said that “psallo” meant to accompany with a mechanical instrument, he said that which no living man could prove, and it is not recorded that any dead one ever did. No man could historically show where the apostles ever used a mechanical instrument. Hardeman further argued that if Boswell could worship with or without mechanical instruments but did not omit them, he was guilty of causing division of unity by insisting that mechanical instruments be a part of the service. But if “psallo,” allegedly God’s word for instrumental music, demanded mechanical instruments, then Boswell sinned if he omitted them.

What did “psallo” really mean? According to the translators of the KJV and the RSV, most of whom supported instrumental music as such, “psallo” meant to sing God’s praise, to make melody in the heart, to sing with the spirit and with the understanding. As far as James, Romans, and 1 Corinthinians being written before Ephesians, Paul said in 1. Cor. 14:15 “…I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.” That is the “how.” Here, Hardeman speculated that it would be difficult to believe that all the apostles earlier had not taught the other churches the same concepts about singing as Paul did the Ephesians and making melody in the heart. The word “sing” was based on the Greek noun “psalmos” [psalm], which conformed with that of the verb “psallo,” which may or may not refer to instrumental music. Its proper meaning was determined by biblical context; in Ephesians and Colossians, it was the strings of the heart upon which melody and music were made.

Regarding the temple, if Christ had participated in instrumental music there, it would be no semblance of authority, for it would only prove that we should continue to burn incense and animal sacrifices, as under the Law of Moses. When pressed repeatedly to name a biblical source authorizing instrumental music in worship, Boswell did not quote Ephesians or Colossians but 2 Chronicles 29. Hardeman immediately countered that this was under the Mosaic Law, which had allowed polygamy, infant membership in the temple, burning incense, and offering animal sacrifices. Since none of the latter are practiced in Christianity, neither should instrumental music.

Hardeman also made reference to the Greek Church, which never had any instrumental music in all its history and still does not, because they know the precise meaning of “psallo.” “Professor Sophocles, a native Greek himself, of high standing, defines [psallo] as it is used in the New Testament, and suggests that it means ‘to sing the praise of God, to chant the songs thereof.’” Hardeman brought written evidence from a Greek Christian, who after conferring with his priest, submitted a letter stating that the American Revised Version provided a faithful translation of “psallo” as “sing” and “psallendi” as “to make melody.” (By that, the KJV is also faithful, for the same translation is present there.) Boswell’s representatives privately confronted the Greek Christian and presented him a Greek lexicon for him to translate “psallo” in English. He produced “to pluck, to touch, to twitch, to play with the fingers, as a stringed instrument, singing to the cithara, to play and sing.” Then Hardeman revealed that this man had privately told him, “I don’t believe that the lexicon is right,” and that the man said that he had told the same to Boswell’s representatives. This they earnestly denied, and a major argument erupted. The man was in the audience and confirmed publicly what he had told Hardeman privately. So one or more people were outright liars. Boswell contended that the Greek Church broke from the Roman Catholic Church and, to be different from the Catholics, abstained from instruments.

How could the Ephesians and the first-century Christians know anything about the organ, when it wasn’t introduced until hundreds of years later by the Catholics? The Restoration Movement began in 1801-1804, yet the organ didn’t infiltrate this Movement until 1869. Boswell’s brethren learned of the organ from the denominational world, who got it from the Catholics, who first got it from the heathen.

Regarding “liberty,” how can “psallo” and “liberty” both be authoritative? Boswell believed that he could do as he pleased, could act according to this own will and pleasure. Hardeman argued that liberty is in harmony with the “law.” We are at liberty to serve God under His authority, or we are at liberty not to. Beyond that, there is no liberty. Hardeman further charged that Boswell lacked the spirit to take God at His word, believe just what He said (especially regarding Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16), become just what He required, live inside the authority of God’s directions, and trust Him for guidance, rather than to exercise his own preferences regarding sacred matters. If God had simply said “make music,” then liberty would grant that any kind of music would suffice, because He would not have been specific. But of the two general kinds of music, vocal and instrumental, God said “sing,” and the man who uses instrumental music in worship is in rebellion against God.

Regarding what is wrong with mechanical instruments, there’s nothing inherently wrong with them, just like there’s nothing inherently wrong with crucifixes, rosary beads, and incense, until you bring them into Christian worship, for the NEW TESTAMENT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THEM. Hardeman: “If God says have it, it is right; if He doesn’t say have it, it is wrong. But the Bible doesn’t specifically forbid instruments. Neither does the Bible forbid infant baptism. Why is it excluded? God says to baptize believers, which forbids babies by the ordinary law of exclusion. When God says ‘sing’ and ‘make melody in the heart,’ that forbids using mechanical instruments.” How can anything be scriptural and left to man’s fancy at the same time? Can anything that is scriptural be omitted? Absolutely not.

Hardeman also made the analogy between “circumcision” and “psallo.” In Abraham’s day, “circumcision” meant to cut physical flesh with a physical knife. In the Gospel age, “circumcision” is used metaphorically of the heart, as in Col. 2:11. So it is with “psallo,” which means singing to the metaphorical instrument of the heart.

An on-line biography of N. B. Hardeman contains the following comments:

“The Boswell-Hardeman debate…broke the back of digression in Tennessee, and was the greatest single factor in ending all further efforts by Christian Church preachers to justify scripturally their innovations.” “Every gospel preacher should have the Boswell-Hardeman discussion in his library, and should thoroughly familiarize himself with the arguments made.” “Although he was well versed in the American Standard Version, and most of the modern translations, Professor Hardeman always stuck to the King James Version when quoting from the Bible. He was well aware that quite a few words in the King James Version were archaic, but he was equally aware that many modern translations are not translations at all, but rather a commentary on, or else a substitution for, the original.” http://www.therestorationmovement.com/hardeman,nb.htm

Not only preachers, but all Christians are encouraged to read this classic debate, so that they may become more discerning about whether instrumental music is scriptural or not. Many, like Boswell, will obstinately maintain that their “liberty in Christ” (“do as we please”) permits them to use mechanical instruments, or, as he also did, they will fixate upon the classical definitions of “psalmos” (“psalm”) and “psallo,” while ignoring how those words fit metaphorically into biblical context (Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16). That is true narrow-mindedness. To deny this metaphor is to deny other New Testament metaphors, such as Jesus’ metaphor about making his disciples “fishers of men” (Matt. 4:19) or the metaphor about circumcising the heart; that is, “circumcision made without hands” (Col. 2:11). Ignoring Scripture also applies to Mark 16:16 and baptism for salvation. Many argue that, because Jesus omitted “baptism” in the second half of the verse (He did so, because the subject is pointless with unbelievers), then baptism is unnecessary for salvation. They choose to ignore the first half of the verse, which clearly says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” When we are determined to ignore God’s Word and “do as we please,” we can bend and twist the Scriptures to fit our every desire and seem “right in our own eyes,” whether it pertains to instrumental music, baptism, or anything else.

Hardeman mentioned the “law of exclusion,” which is derived from principles of logic, common sense, and scriptural examples. It is expressed as follows: “When a general command is given, everything embraced within that general command is authorized (unless a specific thing is expressly prohibited). When a command is specific, only that which is specified is authorized. Everything else is automatically excluded.” An Old Testament example: God commanded Noah to build the ark specifically from gopher wood; any other kind of wood would have been in rebellion against God. A New Testament example, besides that regarding music: the Lord’s supper specifies bread and fruit of the vine; nothing else may be substituted. Another New Testament example: In the Great Commission, Christ gave the general command to "go," which grants us the “liberty” to use any means of transportation at our disposal.

Today, the law of exclusion is called the “law of silence,” yet many erroneously conclude that it is a man-made doctrine, an invention of the Restoration Movement and the Church of Christ to justify any negative bias about the Bible. This “law” seems to be odious particularly to the Change Movement today, which insists that whatever is not specifically forbidden in Scripture may be freely incorporated into worship at will. An abuse of Christian “liberty,” it becomes “we shall do as we please.” Could God, Who is so concerned about absolute detail that He has numbered all the hairs on our heads (Matt. 10:30), be that unconcerned about how we worship Him that He would approve of worldly fancies and fads to embellish worship? Take Hardeman’s words to heart: “How can anything be scriptural and left to man’s fancy at the same time?” Of course, some will argue for the sake of argument that hymnals, public address systems, podiums, heating/cooling units, and so on are not specifically mentioned in the New Testament and thus are not “scriptural.” If a church feels this way, then by all means do not have them, for they have indeed become stumbling blocks. They would not be scriptural if they violated specific moral or doctrinal principles as presented in the New Testament. Some would then say, “Mechanical instruments don’t violate any moral principles.” True, and, as Hardeman said, they are not bad in themselves, until they are brought into worship, for God was quite specific about the kind of music to be used (vocal) and how it was to be carried out (melody made in the heart). We need to take God exactly at His Word and not try to second-guess Him to suit our own carnal desires and pleasures.

Dr. Bill

You really did an outstanding job putting this lesson together.

I will be directing other to this site in the future.

In christian Love,

Jimmy

Per Dr. Crump's Request to Post here;

Where in the OT is it a command to Worship with an instrument? Where in the Mosaic Law are you quoting? (Please continue to read before you start responding)

So are you saying that Christ had to specifically go down a checklist of do's and don't in order to not confuse one.

You said "That Jesus worshiped with instruments in the Temple has no semblance of authority for the Christian age, for He too was bound under the Mosaic Law until He fulfilled it and laid it to rest with His death, burial, and resurrection. This now brings us to a discussion of the OT/Mosaic Law and Christians."

Why all of sudden would it be wrong to worship with an instrument on the previous week to Jesus death, but after his resurrection it is no longer ok to do this? The Great Commission should have been "making disciples of all men and clear up the issue of instruments very quietly."

The argument made about instruments can go on and on, but as I grew up and came out of this stupor (for me), I realized that it was a moot point. The argument that I long had defended had no real substance to it. Even your posting about it has fear all in it. You basically are saying that you can believe in Jesus and trust him with all your heart, but if I put an instrument into my worship he just might send me to hell. I just can't understand that anymore. I go to an acapella church of Christ, but have tons of friends (including my family) that go to instrumental churches and their fellowship with the Lord is not as “off beat” as I once suspected. They love the Lord and praise him for salvation, and the ironic thing is they are no longer enslaved to fear because of a letter written some 2,000 years ago and how some interpret may it.

Dr. Crump I once to was captivated by how people could honestly believe that instruments were ok, and was truly concerned for their soul. I then got to know them and realized they were God's Children and was doing the best they could (just like you and me).

Yes, the arguments for and against using instruments in worship can and will go on and on ad infinitum, and nobody’s mind will be changed that hasn’t already been made up from the outset. A clear example of that is seen in the debate summary above. Boswell and Hardeman both gave strong arguments, but neither man yielded to the other side.

From the giving of the initial points of the Mosaic Law on Mt. Sinai to its expansion to more than 600 statutes throughout the Old Testament, the Israelites were bound to follow that Law. All ceremonial cleansings, sacrifices, and worship fell under the Mosaic Law, which included using instruments. Furthermore, God permitted the kings to make certain commands to the people regarding worship and instruments:

“Also in Judah the hand of God was to give them one heart to do the commandment of the king and of the princes, by the word of the Lord” (2 Chron. 30:12 KJV).

Example of a command to use instruments in services:

“And he [Hezekiah the king] set the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king’s seer, and Nathan the prophet: for [so was] the commandment of the Lord by his prophets. And the Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets. And Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt offering upon the altar. And when the burnt offering began, the song of the Lord began [also] with the trumpets, and with the instruments [ordained] by David king of Israel (2 Chron. 29:25-27 KJV).

The Old Law, by God’s permission to the kings, commanded instruments in the rituals of worship.

I’m not sure what Concerned Christian meant by Christ going down a “checklist,” but since Christ was also bound by the Old Law, even HE had to conform to certain rules and regulations according to the Old Law, until He took that Law to the cross. For example, when Christ healed ten lepers, He commanded them to show themselves to the priest; that is, they still had to perform the necessary rites of purification according to the Old Law (Luke 17:12-14).

After Jesus’ resurrection, certain changes took place, as far as the new Christians were concerned. For example, the Old Law with ALL its rituals (including animal sacrifices, ceremonial cleansings, and worship with instruments) became null (Col. 2:14-15; Eph. 2:15; Romans 7:4; Hebrews 8:6-13). Also by scriptural inference, the Christian worship was changed from the Sabbath day, the seventh day, to the Lord’s day, the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2). Thus certain things were “scriptural” one day by the Old Law but were not “scriptural” the next day by the Law of Christ.

Instruments in worship are a “moot point” only to people like Boswell above who would follow their own desires rather than trust what the New Testament has to say about music, for the NT does have something to say. Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 specify that we are to use vocal music (singing) accompanied by melody made in our hearts. Thus Christian musical worship now comes directly from us to God, not accompanied by mechanical instruments, the latter of which the NT never even mentions. And I need not rehash psalmos, the meanings of which are covered in the debate summary above.

The final analysis: Does the NT specifically forbid instruments as such? No. Does the NT specifically authorize instruments as such? No. But does the NT have something to say about music in worship? YES. The NT specifically mentions singing and making melody in the heart to the Lord. As I said in another thread, singing and making heartfelt melody to the Lord (not to ourselves) is a form of worship, whether we are alone or with other Christians together.

Why is it necessary to try to get around what the NT says about music in worship? Can’t we just take the NT at face value, do what it says, and not let our personal preferences and desires make us second-guess it? Is it that important to have mechanical instruments in worship, when the NT only mentions singing from the heart? Since the NT specifies singing but doesn't mention instruments, the inference is that heartfelt singing is all that God desires from Christians as far as worship music is concerned; any other musical augmentation would be superfluous and would not please Him.

So will those who worship with instruments be damned to hell? I have no authority to say one way or another. All I can tell our readers is that since the NT addresses music in worship, it is by no means a “moot point.” We can argue and agonize about using instruments, but if we really want to please God, we should completely trust the NT at face value, neither adding anything to it, nor removing anything from it.

After all that's been said, here's a reminder to those who still feel compelled to argue, argue, argue about instruments in worship:

Further arguments just won't change what the New Testament has written about music in worship. Neither will further arguments change the minds of those who are bound and determined to have instruments in worship, one way or another.

Further arguments won't change what the New Testament has not said about the use of musical instruments in worship, nor will it change the minds of those who are determined not have musical instruments in worship.

Rick

To follow what the New Testament has definitively written about singing with melody from the heart in worship is to stand on firm ground. To second-guess the New Testament and add instruments when the New Testament has written absolutely nothing about them is to stand on unstable ground. Furthermore, using instruments adds to the NT what is not written in the NT, thus violating Rev. 22:18. Rejecting instruments neither adds to nor takes away from what is written about music (singing) in the NT. Christians have no authority to implement in worship musical alternatives to what the NT has specifically written about music (singing) in worship.

Be safe. Don't gamble. Stand firm on what is written in the NT about singing, not on what is absent from the New Testament about instruments.

Any minds changed? I thought not.

Bill;

They want to get you in what I have heard called the "Fruity Loop".

When you debunk the lies of the "Fruity Loopers" they slide to a different lie each time, unitl they arrive back at the original lie, and claim you never debunked it.

There is enough information out there now on this site and others for any truth seeker to discern the problems.

If they can't, it just means they can't discern or don't want to.

The latter being a sure way to enter the "Fruity Loop"

Mr. Rhoades,

I am not trying to "get" anyone. I was just stating the converse of what Dr. Crump stated. I said on another thread the the best we can get from the N.T. on instrumental music is tacit non-endorsement.

Lighten up and don't judge motives of people you don't know.

Rick

Please do not take Revelation 22 out of context. It is pertaining to the Book of Revelation. This has long been taken out of context to mean the entire canon. I am not saying that we should go in and rewrite letters that Paul etc wrote, but to say that the Revelation 22 passage is a blanket statement for the entire Bible is not correct.

I figured that a detractor like Concerned Christian would come up with a lame "argument" about Rev. 22:18. To imply that the principle of this passage or the lesson to be taken from it applies ONLY to Rev. and not to ALL of the NT is a dive to get around passages that detractors see as odious to them. Using CC's logic, anyone who preaches a gospel other than what Paul preaches is accursed (Gal 1:8-9), but not if the gospel is different from what the other apostles preach. Paul's warning applies ONLY to Paul by CC's logic, not the other apostles. We can't take Paul's warning out of CONTEXT and apply it to the other apostles, according to CC's logic. The ruse that CC weaves will be quite obvious to discerning readers.

David Rhoades was right: The Fruity Loop of detractors has come full circle.

Concerned Christian said he didn't think we had the authority to change scripture, but NOT because of Revelation 22:18. He's right. No one is saying they want to add to or take away from scripture. BUT- it's ignorant to say that Rev. 22:18 is talking about the whole Bible.

Think about it. The New Testament as a collected canon DIDN'T EXIST when John wrote that. Duh.

A detractor? LOL LOL LOL Very Christian like of you to call me names too. You guys crack me up! Please go back and re-read what I said about changing the words in Paul's letters etc. I believe I said that it would not be okay.

But I will warn you as you do others. That it is false teaching to take things out of Context as you did with Rev. 22. Please re-read Rev. 22 and then do some studying (exegetical studying) of verses like this one before you continue to take things out of context.

I won't call you names except Brother in Christ.

I don't see it as arguing, yet more enlightening than anything.

Peter, John, Etc. went to the temple allot. If instruments were the norm in Jesus time (Mosaic Law) as you said, then why would they continue to worship in a place that had no meaning to their "new" religion and also had the "forbidden" (law of exclusion) instruments in the Temple? Wouldn't it stand to reason that they may have had some tolerance or better yet would be completely blown away that you and I and others are even having this conversation. Ohhhh the hurt and turmoil over instruments. How it must grieve the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit that we have been so divided over this ridiculous opinion.

You see it as arguing and I see it as communicating with you. What is the point of a debate if you want everyone to "Amen" everything you put on here?

You stated your point and I am stating mine.

What does singing and making a melody in your heart have to do with instruments? I play several instruments around the house and perform for various things, and I can tell you whole heartedly I make a melody in my heart all the time with instruments or without. I do go to a church that worships a capella, but why get caught up in expending so much time and energy on worrying about something that others do that is based on nothing more than tradition.

Where does the bible authorize singing in 4 part harmony (4 part harmony was not introduced into churches until the past few hundred years)? Where does it authorize use of a pitch pipe (an instrument)? Where does it authorize to use songs books with songs that were mostly written by those not in a church of christ? These things are not authorized yet they are done not out of scriptural disobedience, but because they serve a purpose to make worship more meaningful.

It has been established that worshipping with instruments was the model under the old law. Do you not think that if God all of a sudden changed his mind on the issue that He would have explicitly stated so in new testament scriptures?? Don't quote the same verses always quoted. It's not there.

If you are truly concerned with following scripture to a "t", then I would be worried about your soul if you do not raise hands in worship and prayer. 1 Tim 2:8, "I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing." This is a specific request/command made in scriptures, and I don't see any request/command not to use instruments. Therefore, why would someone be adament about not using instruments, yet at the same time not follow scripture when it comes to lifting hands. It is not logical and it is not scripturally driven; it is traditional driven.

I have heard the instrumental vs. acapella debate my entire life. I know both sides of it in and out. I did switch sides by the way, from acapella to the evil instuments that God so clearly hates. The one question I have always asked, and never had answered is this:

I we can not use instruments in worship because they are not mentioned in the New Testament, WHY do we do other things, or use other items in worship that are also not mentioned in the NT?

The fact that no Church of Christ member, minister, or professor has ever been able to give me an answer to this is one of the primary reasons I changed my views on the issue.

By the way, Concerned Christian is right: Revelation 22:18 does not apply to the whole Bible. Don't feel bad, it's a common misuse of scripture.

Dr. Crump said in his posting February 1 2006, 5:59 PM in the Porn Sunday at the People's Church Posting, "That Jesus worshiped with instruments in the Temple has no semblance of authority for the Christian age, for He too was bound under the Mosaic Law until He fulfilled it and laid it to rest with His death, burial, and resurrection. This now brings us to a discussion of the OT/Mosaic Law and Christians."

Ken Sublett said and has said in many numerous postings that the use of instruments was "evil" and "Satan's Music" he said that Today, Yesterday, the Day before that etc.

Before this discussion goes any further could you two get together (since you are on the same side supposedly) and come to a consensus on which stance you will take? Dr. Crump says it's ok in the OT, while Ken says it's not ok constantly. Can you two get together please?

I'll try to move this back over here. I think Dr. Crump was getting his feelings hurt that people were ignoring his thread.

Here's the deal with instruments that I have been trying my best to get an answer to, and all I have heard is crickets chirping....

IF we can not use instruments because they are not authorized in the Bible (and "we MUST follow the Bible- the New Testament anyway- TO THE LETTER") then why do we have church buildings? Why do we have pews? Why do we use hymnals? Why do we make announcements on Sunday mornings? The list is infinite of "unauthorized" aspects of our modern worship services. (In America at least)

BUT- more than ask why we DO things that are "not authorized", why do we NOT DO some things that are "COMMANDED"? Why don't we require women to cover their heads (I Cor. 11:13-f) Why don't we prohibit women from speaking at all while we are assembled, not just from the pulpit? (I Cor.14:34) Then there's good ole' Acts chapter 2.

44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

I hope your experience is different, but that doesn't sound like any C of C I've ever been to!

If anyone can explain this selective doctrine, I'd definitely be open to trying to understand it. It's the reason I no longer attend a C of C, but I have a lot of family and friends that do, and I'd love to come back, if I can have someone explain this to me.

Amazed again tries to divert the discussion by comparing non-essentials, which do not alter NT doctrine, to the essentials of doctrine which the NT DOES authorize. We've already discussed at length in other threads the concept of church buildings, pews, hymnals, air conditioning units, bathrooms in church buildings, kitchens, blackboards, you name it. Does the NT "authorize" these things? NO. Does it matter one way or another? NO. WHY NOT? Because NONE of these items compromise or alter Christ's commands as given in the Gospels and the apostolic epistles. So you say, "Musical instruments don't compromise the commands of the NT." YES THEY DO. Because the NT gives specific directions about vocal music, adding instruments compromises or alters the NT doctrine of vocal music. We have no authority to change or alter anything about the NT. As we've also said before, if the NT had simply said, "Make music in worship," then we could have used vocal music with or without instruments, and vice versa. How we made the music would have been left to our discretion. But the NT does NOT leave worship music to our discretion. The NT specifies only VOCAL MUSIC--singing and making melody in our hearts to the Lord.

That's the difference between essential vs. non-essential things in the NT. We may implement various necessities to our lifestyle like buildings and air conditioners as long as they do not compromise or alter the specific commands and directions as given in the NT. This is hardly "selective doctrine." Bathrooms, pews, and hymnals, for example, have NOTHING to do with NT doctrine, for they do not compromise that doctrine.

We've pretty well covered all the bases (and basics) about worship music. Read the entire Boswell-Hardiman debate summary above for further arguments. Better yet, get a copy of the complete debate transcript and study it thoroughly. The arguments are VERY comprehensive.

Those who are bound and determined to have instruments will merely continue to make the same repetitive arguments which have been proven to be biblically unsound. Thus the "Fruity Loop" rolls on.

Hi Amazed,

Your question is incredibly appropriate and one that it is difficult to get some folks to answer with any degree of intellectual honesty. I've also wondered how many traditional congregations have elders that annoint those who are sick with oil. Many people could continue adding items to this list.

Having said that, I would encourage you to consider not letting human inconsistencies drive you away or keep you away from something if you want to be involved in it. That's not meant to be a condemnation of any sort - just an overgeneralized response to your statement that you'd love to come back. Any institution in which people are involved will be at best inconsistent - although some more than others.

God bless

Amazed, A few months ago I asked the same question that you asked and received the same response. No Answer.

Concerning Acts 2:44-47 the question you asked was conviently unanswered and everyone was fruity looped with the standard answer of why music is evil. I wondered if it was because those verses describe a form of what we today consider to be socialism. No rich, no poor, everyone sharing equally. I guess it would be hard to explain when you see Bro. Smith park his 2006 Mercedes next to Brother Jones 1987 Escort in the neighborhood church parking lot on Sunday morning. Let's see if Sister Wilson (the sister with the nice diamond ear rings and necklace) will sit with Sister Baker (the one wearing the Goodwill dress). Yep! looks as if everyone is equally sharing with those in need. No wait. I'm mistaken again. Thats the Amish.

By the way, the example was satire.

I'm continually amazed that some much time is spend on this subject. It's like watching major news media. The times we live in and the subjects they report on. It's nonsense. The only sense I can make of it is II Thes. 2:11, or it's the devil's work keeping you focus on trivial things to blind you of the real dangerous works.
Either way-
To God be the Glory
Joe McKnight

If any of you legalists want to SHARE THE WEALTH I will send you an address. Otherwise, YOUR hard-earned money belongs to YOU and there is not even an GUILT burden which can shame you into give it away.

Acts 5:1 BUT a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

Acts 5:2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles feet.

Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

Acts 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

If JESUS PAID IT ALL then why are the ROBBERS (in Paul's teachings) still demanding that you have to pay THEM to mediate as a superior meaning a Pharisee. Or "buy my book" or CD which is a Scribe. Or Pay me to be the MEDIATOR in song which is a Hypocrite?

Paul DENIED that there was a LAW OF GIVING and all of church history AGREES. That is true because the SCHOOL OF THE BIBLE has no ROLES which God FUNDED by legislation. If you have a GO BUTTON and "teach that which has been taught" then Paul gives you some LEGAL aid and comfort but he found out that you cannot RETAIL (meaning corrupt) the FREE gospel and have any credibility.

Hey, I've been away for a few days, so I have not been able to participate in the discussions, but it's like a soap opera. You can pick it up 2 years later and still not miss anything.

The answer to all questions is, "Music is evil! Music is evil!"

I've tried posting this before, but the powers-that-be ignored it.

Q: What's the biggest problem with most churches?
A: "Music is evil! Music is evil!"

Q: How can we best spread the Gospel?
A: "Music is evil! Music is evil!"

Q: What keeps most Christians from going deeper in the faith?
A: "Music is evil! Music is evil!"

Q: What shall I order for dinner?
A: "Music is evil! Music is evil!"

Q: Should I take the red pill or the blue pill?
A: "Music is evil! Music is evil!"

Some people know only one song, or worse yet, only one note. Maybe that's why they don't want music in the chuch.

Amazed, Don't expect all of your questions to be answered. Some cannot be answered while still clinging to tradions. Dr. Crump did a pretty fine song and dance around the issue while not directly addressing your question. You know, there is not one word in the New Testament about the evils of instrumental music. If it's as important as they say, then why did we not get a warning? There are plenty of warnings about false teachers, and predators and troublemakers that are very specifically defined. Do you mean to say that the Holy Spirit could not tell this would be an issue? That there were no musical instruments around in the 1st century. The N.T. is strangely silent about such an "important" topic. Get over it and get on to important things, like how to carry out the Great Commission, how to minister to the needy, how to be Jesus to a lost and dying world.

Mr. Sublett bis the woerst offender. He cherry picks the verses he wants and twists the ones that he disagrees with. The example and of the 1sy century church was that they shared with anyone of their number who had a need. The "necessary inference" is that we should do the same. But I know why Ken does not agree. He knows I know why. That's why he refusses to address me. He's afraid I will expose him.

Amazed, it is apparent that you have matured and moved on. Thank God.

Rick

Rick wonders why the Holy Spirit didn't "warn" us about the "evils" of instrumental music. This "doubting logic" says that God must lay everything out neatly for us in the NT, or we won't accept it. Could it be that the Holy Spirit wanted us to have faith in what was written about vocal music and just leave it at that? We justify adding instruments according to OUR way of thinking and OUR logic and forget that God moves in His own way. We say, "Why didn't God do it this way or that way? Why? Why? Why?" God is going to do things HIS way, and HIS way is to command vocal music and leave instruments alone. If He leaves them alone, then so should we. We have no authority to add to or take away from what has already been written about vocal music in the New Testament, or anything else written in the NT.

People use the same "doubting logic" about the five steps to salvation (hear, believe, repent, confess, be baptized) when they say, "There's nothing in the NT that mentions 'five steps to salvation'; they're just a myth. If there were 'five steps' that were so important, God would have neatly outlined them all for us." When people make statements like this, they show their ignorance of the NT. God's reasons are His own, and He need not explain why He does ANYTHING at all. However, diligent study of the NT shows that Jesus commanded five things for us to do before He would save us (yes, we're saved by grace, but only AFTER we accept and fulfill Christ's five conditions). Why didn't He lay them all out neatly for us? Again, God's reasons are His own. Could it be that God wanted us to read all the Gospels to find them? But they exist, and the discerning will find them. BTW, we've covered these five steps in other threads, so if people want to argue about them further and continue the "Fruity Loop," start another thread.

Returning to music, let's not waste any more time agonizing over and worrying about WHY God gave specific instructions for vocal music and WHY He passively dismissed instruments by not mentioning them at all. It's more important that we trust, have faith in, and accept the fact that God commanded vocal music and leave well enough alone.

Neither Dr. Bill nor any other advocates on the site have answered the questions from Amazed. You avoid instruments because of vague inference, at best. However, you ignore VERY specific commands....like:

- Women cover your heads
- Elders annoint the sick with oil
- Washing of feet
- Greet one another with a holy kiss
- Join your worldly goods in common
- etc
- etc
- etc

The CoC is clearly selective about what it considers unwavering doctrine and what is to be ignored. And the selection is made by men, not by God.

Doug,

Here are some basic questions for you ... I really doubt they will be answered, but we'll see.

1.) Is causing division wrong?

2.) What is so important about instruments that you have to have them? Why are they needed?

3.) What do they add to the worship?

4.) How can you compare a building to an instrument? Would not a house have been the same as a church building?

No scriptural authority was ever given as to where to meet - inside/outside. But authority was given to "Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord"

Speaking in psalms AND
Speaking in hymns AND
Speaking in spiritual songs.
Is the correct grammatical translation of that part of the verse. Speaking uses the voice and tongue - not an instrument. You must at least agree to that? So we do have a command here to use our voice/tongue to sing songs/hymns.

5.) Do you not see that this is an argument over adding something YOU want, not need or commanded?

6.) When did Christian's first use instrumental music? (and yes, there is plenty of historical evidence on this topic.) Why was it considered a sin even by the Catholic church for hundreds of years?

Why did the early Church elders dispute such usage and call them "sinful", "profane" and "evil". Remember, some of these men were trained with or right after the Apostles, so they were familiar with how the first churches were set up. Why are we so much smarter than them?

7.) Why do you compare a pitch/tuning fork or speaker to an instrument?

While speakers are needed just to HEAR the preacher in our larger assemblies (hearing - commanded) and a pitch/tuning fork is just a simple device to help create order in singing (orderly assembly is also commanded), how does an instrument meet any commandment or add to the worship services other than to help muffle the sound of bad singing and make SOME participants happy? What else does it add? Do you think God cares if you don't use one?

8) Do you understand the difference in biblical scripture between an AID and an ADDITION?

Per Doug,

"However, you ignore VERY specific commands....like:

- Women cover your heads
- Elders annoint the sick with oil
- Washing of feet
- Greet one another with a holy kiss
- Join your worldly goods in common
- etc
- etc
- etc

The CoC is clearly selective about what it considers unwavering doctrine and what is to be ignored. And the selection is made by men, not by God."

Doug,

Clearly there are some basic translations that seemed to have been lost or forgotten here. Only ONE of those listed is a specific command. The other three are NOT commanded. It bothers me that you would state these were "commands" when clearly they were not. This is "propaganda" only.

Let's look at your examples:

1) Women cover your heads - have you read all that section? Did you not understand the difference in long hair as a covering vs. men with short hair? Did you understand the section was about authority, and explained God was head of Christ -> head of man -> head of woman?

Do you abide by that command? Do you allow your wife to have short, mannish hairstyles? To be the "head" of a man?

2) Elder's anointing the sick with oil.
Ummm...it discusses that some elders did such, but it does NOT command all elders to do so, nor does it explain the how/what/where of such an action. Not sure where that one came from. The defiled woman dried Jesus' feet with her hair. Should we all do that? Just because something is mentioned doesn't make it a command.

3)Washing of feet...
You may want to go back and re-read that the verses before and after John 13:15. Christ is not commanding a specific action (washing feet), he is commanding his followers to follow his actions, that of a master taking care of his servant. We are to humble ourselves as Christians. That's the "example" he is trying to get across. By the way, if we were to all wash everyone's feet when we assembled, we would never get to the actual worship service! It is NOT commanded or required. However, if you want to do it, I'm pretty sure it would be a nice example of love and humility to another soul. Are you willing to do so?

4) Holy Kiss - again, NOT a command. Read the verse. Paul is asking them to give each other a "holy kiss" FOR him. A personal request. In fact, other verses explain that IF one was to perform such an age old practice it must be done in a "holy" and "loving" manner and not improperly. But the "holy kiss" is NEVER commanded.

5) Join your wordly goods in common...
Again, no general command. Jesus did ask one rich man to sell his goods, to see if he was willing to give up his lifestyle, but he did not command everyone to do so. He told lots of people to do certain things: forgive 7 x 70 - should I not forgive the 7 x 71 then?

The Bible states that during Paul's time, Christians were meeting in people's homes, which clearly indicates they hadn't been sold. We also know Christian's ran businesses, etc. Again, not shared or sold. We know Paul lived in other's homes for a time. The Bible clearly explains that Acts 4 describes a special group of new members who were moved to go beyond what was commanded, to give up more than they had to. Though what they did was giving and wonderful, it was not a universal command.

It is incredible how some can build this huge doctrine out of nothing that is said concerning intrumental music and yet when the Bible does give us clear examples and commands, we can ignore them.

Four times Paul writes about the holy kiss:
Rom.16:16 Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.
1Cor.16:20 All the brethren greet you. Greet ye one another with an holy kiss.
2Cor.13:12 Greet one another with an holy kiss.
1Thes.5:26 Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss.

The context in at least 3 of those is that they are to greet each other that way. The verses are written in the form of a command.

Gagging on gnats and swallowing camels.

Rick

Rick implies that the c of C blows up music in the NT into a "huge doctrine out of nothing." This indicates that Rick relies on his own preferences and that Rick considers music as "nothing" but a moot point. Rick is saying that what the NT says about vocal music is NOTHING. That's Rick's personal OPINION. The NT says otherwise. It should be obvious that we should trust and follow what is written in the NT, whatever it is, whether that be a holy kiss to the brethren or women covering their heads or baptism for remission of sins or using only vocal music. Those who rebel against the Scriptures will say that to follow the Scriptures is to strain at a gnat.

So let Rick go his way and worship with instruments, because I get the feeling that this is what Rick really WANTS to do. But it's not what the NT SAYS to do. I'm certainly not going to condemn Rick for choosing to ignore the Scriptures. I have neither the authority nor the desire to do so. We've done all we can to show folks what the NT says about vocal music. Now it's up to folks to decide whether they will obey the NT or their own minds.

BTW, this is a thread about music. Those wishing to argue further about the "holy kiss," women covering their heads, baptism, the five steps to salvation, or anything to divert the discussion away from music, should start a new thread.

Dr. Crump,

Thank you for not judging me and my preference for instrumental music, which I do not hide. I am quite willing to accept the Lord's judgment and have settled the question my mind.

You did, however, misquote me. You said, "Rick is saying that what the NT says about vocal music is NOTHING." That is not what I wrote. What I wrote was, "It is incredible how some can build this huge doctrine out of nothing that is said concerning intrumental music." I am well aware that the NT says a little, very little, about vocal music. I do not discount that, but the point I was making is that there are topics relating to the church and Christian conduct that have received much more attention and yet we seem to conveniently ignore those topics.

I am glad that you agree that all of what th NT says should be considered important.

Rick

p.s. The elders and I agree that we need to call a worship minister on staff and soon. That's just FYI.

Thank you Dr. Crump for making my point for me.

You mention the 5 steps. The fact that they are not called 5 steps in the Bible tells us something. Maybe we should not call them the 5 steps, it is unbiblical to do so.

But, the 5 steps are very clearly spelled out in Scripture as to what we need to do to be saved. Nobody has to infer hearing, faith, repentence, confession or baptism by immersion because there are very clear commands. There are specific Scriptures you can point to. They are clear because they are important. God knows that. That's why he made them clearly evident and unavoidably plain.

You have not addressed my question-you have sidestepped it with a clever distraction. If using the instrument is such a heinous offense, if it is as spiritually harmful as you claim, then God goofed on this one. This is an anomaly. This is different from all other things that we are supposed to avoid.

You don't answer because you can't.

Rick

When people finally learn that it is a waste of time whining about, complaining about, and speculating about why God specified vocal music but passed on instrumental music…

When people finally learn to focus on what is written in the New Testament about vocal music and not waste time on the absence of instruments from the NT…

When people finally learn to trust the NT at face value about vocal music and not second-guess it with instruments…

When people finally learn that the NT command to use only vocal music is just as significant and carries as much weight as the NT commands that authorize the Great Commission and helping the needy (that is, we may not choose which commands we obey and which we discard or minimize)…

When people finally learn that to minimize or discard the NT command for vocal music in preference for the Great Commission and helping the needy (especially because the NT does not address instruments) is to practice “selective doctrine”…

When people finally learn all of the above and put instruments away, those people will no longer need to waste time with personal justification of instruments on web sites like this; we will no longer need to expend time in teaching those people what the NT commands about vocal music; and ALL of us will have more time to devote to the Great Commission and helping the needy.

Dr. Crump,

Rick doesn't WANT to see the truth and his examples are useless in this context. No command for the "holy kiss" was EVER given. All those statements were Paul's personal requests, NOT commands. He seems to always ignore the verse right before and after - awfully convenient?

Nor does he seem to acknowledge the original Greek meaning and the difference between a command and a request. This is something he has chosen NOT to understand to continue his sham.

Rick,

By the way, YOU have yet to address the COMMAND to SPEAK a song or hymn. Hmm...that's not a personal request nor an example. That IS A COMMAND and you know that it involves "to utter sound from one's mouth, to communicate by mouth" which of course, refutes the use of an instrument. So, we have a serious command that strictly states "speaking" and allows us no room to move around it without using our mouth to sing. So, if we "play" an instrument that needs the lips, instead of singing, we WOULD be sinning. That is an easy point to understand. But what about the guitar or the piano? Well, what about them. Do they "speak"? No. Are they commanded in that verse (or others just like it)? No. They are an addition added by man to make the assembly more interesting, more emotional and professional sounding. Instruments do not make you a better Christian, they do not draw you nearer to God, they do not intercede for you. They are nothing but instruments that over shadow the command God gave to sing. They take the place of many that SHOULD sing (and yes, I've witnessed that myself in every church with instruments I've attended over the years). They drown out most of the voices, they are there to bring emotion from THEIR sound and NOT from the pure sound of many souls singing in unison to God. I believe instruments take away from Christian's singing, they mask the pure sound of souls. That in and of itself is sad.

Since we are commanded to "speak" songs, then how we sing is a very important issue and not an "unknown". A COMMAND is GIVEN - simple, elegant, universal. But someone wasn't happy with that simple little command, they just HAD to ADD to it and make it more. The question is why?

None of the instrumental group have ever addressed why it is so important to have instruments, even though they KNOW it causes division!!!! Yet, they are willing to upset others just for the sake of their own pleasure. Sad, unChristian and a waste of souls. It's simply - My needs are more important than yours. And they go on and on about being in a "loving" new church. Really? Since when is selfishness a "loving" action? Since when is division "loving"? Since when is making fun of those who stay with the old original pattern of the church "loving"? Isn't it just like a child to want to challenge things, shake it up, make it more exciting at the expense of their parent's commands? Awww...rebellion.

Rick, answer me this. Why do you have to have musical instruments? Why do you care enough to divide churches and upset those who don't want them? Does it make you a better Christian? A better singer? Think God likes you more for using them? Does that mean the first churches were sinful for believing the use of instruments was wrong? Do you think he likes the sounds of soul's singing being overshadowed by instruments? (By the way, I sang in choir and was in the band, so don't go silly on me and say they don't overshadow the voices. I took music in college. It's supposed to so that you hear only the beautiful sound of harmony and not the individual voices...dah!)

I just wondered when your "opinion" on the matter took precedence over the "reality" of the issue?

Rick: “I am well aware that the NT says a little, very little, about vocal music.”

Dr. Crump: Whether the NT writes a million verses or one tiny line about a subject makes it important enough for us to follow it. How much space the NT devotes to a subject has nothing to do about whether we should follow it or discard it.

Rick: “You mention the 5 steps. The fact that they are not called 5 steps in the Bible tells us something. Maybe we should not call them the 5 steps, it is unbiblical to do so.”

Dr. Crump: As I recall, the Bible makes no statement that we should call the whole canon as “The Holy Bible” or even “The Bible.” Yet “Bible” is the name that we have given to the canon. By Rick’s logic, it is unbiblical to do so.

PPB, you and I and hopefully the rest of our discerning readers will have realized long before now that friend Rick desperately continues to grope at straws—actually more at choking on that proverbial camel (he's gone far beyond the straining stage with that gnat).

Indeed, some people like friend Rick will just never learn.

Dr. Crump,
I for one do not see Rick "grasping for straws." He is very articulate in his discussion. You do not agree with him, enough said. I appreciate your reply to statments made on this forum, but you have not been made judge of the souls of those who do NOT worship the instrument: but, have no trouble worshiping with, or without the instrument.

I was in Mexico in 1996 on a mission trip, and baptized many "into Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, who were born and raised Catholic. I have been back twice: in the home of many, I still see the plastic statues of the "Saints" they grew up hearing about. Music is a part of the Mexican culture, they strum their guitar's in church service. They have no idea who Thomas and Alexander Campbell were. If they were to read one of Ken's posts they would more than likely say, "El humbre es loco." They break bread and drink of the fruit of the vine on the "Lord'd Day". They love one another, and are thankful for their daily bread.

Do they love the Lord...? Every bit as much as Dr. Crump, or Donnie Cruz. Most, have nothing in their poor houses; a computer is out of the question. The men labor long and hard to feed their famlies. The church of Christ in Peadros Negras, must fight off Roman doctrine as well as the Mormon and Jehovah's Witness....I am to return in September. Dr. Crump, would you like to go along and instruct the men in the church about the sin of worshiping with the guitar? I will pay your air fare, we can "go teach and make disciples," I will see that the church will furnish our interpreter for our mission and guarantee your safty.
Think it over, The offer is open to any on the forum who would like to spend two weeks "preaching Jesus" in the back country of Mexico with old Jack. Brush up on your carpenter skills, because we will be working on an old school building that has been abandoned by the Catholics, as well as teaching Jesus. Any of you fluent in Spanish?

Ken, this will not be an "entertainment hall," but a place for those of "like faith" to gather and be fed by Christian Churches, and churches of Christ from through out the United States. Hey, that sounds Scriptural, but I can hear many of you grumbling..#%#&## Mann is a piano loving hypocrite, and I wouldn't walk across the street with him to preach Jesus....why, I would rather stay here in my mansion and 'let the word of Christ dwell in me in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing myself in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in my heart," Why, let them old Mexicans find out for themselves if Jesus wants to save em, let ol Jack teach em by golly!
See you around His table...?
Jack Mann

Dear PPB/Anonymous,

I am very happy to answer you. I believe that we should speak to each other in Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. I do not believe in dividing churches. The fact is, in the church where I preach we ALL have agreed that worshiping with musical instruments is not a sin, so there is no division. I would not dream of making the musical instrument a point of contention in a fellowship of believers where even one soul felt otherwise.

As for your assertion that, "None of the instrumental group have ever addressed why it is so important to have instruments, even though they KNOW it causes division!!!!" As long as they are not trying to export their opinion or become crusaders for a cause, and as long as everyone in their fellowships agrees, then I do not see a problem. (Oh, I can hear the gasps already!)

To address Dr. Crump, I am quite teachable, and have learned many things even from this website. I have learned that you can use tactics that suit you when they suit you and argue against them when they don't. And commands given by Paul are only commands when they support your side. (Who wants to go to a kissy-face church anyway?) When something is repeated 4 times, that's more often than other weaker pillars of doctrine, we should ask, what does this mean to me.

And how about the name "Church of Christ?" It is never found in the NT. "Churches of Chrust" (plural) is found once. The most often used designation is "Church of God." (Oh no!!! We can't use that very biblical term.

Dr. Crump, I don't mind calling the 5 steps "the 5 steps." I was just pointing out a flawed argument, making a point that the impportant things are spelled out very clearly. Just like instrumental music is not. It is completely ignored.

One last thing. The church building argument is a good one. The first church building was not built until 325 AD. COnstantine, that great hero of Christianity, built it, and curiously that's about the time the church's impact began to wane. Think about it.

BTW: Thank you Dr. Crump for calling me friend.

Rick

I would like to further strengthen my assertion that by using the same logic and hermeneutic traditionally applied to instrumental music, we can build a strong case against church buildings.

The iargument against instrumental music says that we should follow the example of NT practice and not go beyond what is expressly commanded, i.e. vocal music with intelligible words. But what if we apply that to buildings?

Let's look at some Scriptures:
"For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" 1 Corinthians 3:9-16 (KJV)

Basically Paul is saying we are God's building. We are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Any other building or foundation that cannot stand the test of fire is not worthy. The one who builds will survive, but it won't be a happy event.

Moving on:
"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." Ephesians 2:19-22 (KJV)

We are built together with all the saints, apostles and prophets to become a dwelling ofr God. We are a spiritual building.

But that's not all:
"Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." 1 Peter 2:1-5 (KJV)

Again, the church is being built into a "spiritual building."

When you couple these passages with what we know of the life and practice of the early church from reading the NT, we see that the church met in homes and public places. The following is a quote from "The Open Church" by Gene Edwards, chapter 6, The Emporer's New Church:
"Let's look now at this watershed period in church history. We picked up more traditions, make more blunders, and changed the course of the church more radically from 323 to 327 than in any other period of history. Look what happened during this time.

Constantinople was founded in 323.
The first church buildings ever erected on this planet were planned and begun in 323...

...When Constantine founded the city of Constantinople (Istanbul), he planned a gigantic capital which he called New Rome. It sat, literally, half in the Orient and half in the Occident. He built a new and uninhabited city from the ground up. In it he commissioned the building of pagan temples and something he designated as buildings for Christians to meet in.

A pagan temple of that time was a small, round building with stairs leading up to an altar in the middle. Usually the people gathered around the temple and worshiped while standing outside. Across the street from some of these pagan temples, Constantine commissioned Christian meeting places. These were not shaped like pagan temples, but like the government civic auditoriums. (Christians had met inside for three centuries. But it was inside homes.) Here, for the first time, stood officially designated places for Christians to meet. This was a wonder which no Christian had ever seen before. Put another way, it was in 323, almost three hundred years after the birth of the church, that Christians first met in something we now call a 'church building.' For all three hundred years before that, the church met in living rooms!"

So, according to CoC logic and dogma, we should burn down the church buildings! (I am making an absurd point to those who would take me literally.)

Just something to think about.
(oooh, It hurts doing real research. I'm exausted!)

Rick

Rick's dissertation was primarily on buildings, which sought to divert the discussion away from music. Either stay on music to perpetuate the Fruity Loop [actually it's all been covered] or start a new thread.

Dr. Crump,

I'm a little surprised at the obtuseness of your comment. I said in my ppost that the comparison was valid because it showed the inconsistency of standard CoC hermeneutic. The 2 subjects, church buildings and singing are not directly related, but if you use one method of interpretation for one subject then you need to use that method consistently. Go back and read the post and tell me it is not a relevant comparison. As such, it belongs on this thread.

Rick

Rick, I believe you have been judged as "NON CHRISTIAN" by the female poster. In her own words posted on another thread "I do not debate with the Christian Men who frequent this site". I think she is debating the music issue with you. Musical Instruments are a salvation issue in some of the COC factions. Many have moderated in recent years but some have not. Just letting you know where you stand.

Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord"--Dr. Crump and PPB

I wonder, do they ever speak to each other in psalm 150? It just takes common sense to see that the psalms are still relevent, and what do they say??? OHHHHHH, they say to praise God with instruments!!! Amazing! What a miraculous insight on things. The pslams are supported by the NT. Wow, I think I just heard a crash at the non-instruemental CoC down the road. Oh, that was just the bottom of the non-instrumentalist side of the arguement falling through. Obviously when God was giving out brains Crump and PPB heard trains and missed theirs. You can use as many big words and attempts at put downs that you like, but God graced us with common sense and the ability to discern, you can use it or you can ignore it. It saddens me that you have chosen the latter.

Sethy,

Ummm....the Psalms discussed in that verse does not mean the Psalms from the OT...It means a "pious song"!!!!!!!!!

This is what makes me so sad. We seem to have Christians arguing points that they have never studied or have very little information on and it really makes me wonder what the Church is teaching today.

Sethy, apples and oranges. Apples and oranges.

PPB/Anonymous,

So, the OT Psalms don't qualify as psalms, even though they were inspired?

It makes me sad to see what passes for logic these days.

Rick

Dr...sorry, but bringing up other issues other than music is relevant to this thread. It is useful and necessary to put the issue into perspective from a scriptural standpoint and show that the "a capella or hell" group picks and chooses and interprets scripture in a way to justify their opininions. At least that is the way it comes across.

Rick's comparison to buildings is very appropriate and important in showing that things not mentioned are not always sinful. How about something that is not an issue that the bible is silent on, but it actually commands (raising hands - gasp!). I'm sure most people on this thread likely think that someone who raises his hands during worship is an emotional basket case who only wants to draw attention to himself thus sinning in the process(that's what I USED to think anyway as a lifelong CoC er).

I have brought up lifting hands several times on this website and it has NEVER been addressed. Please someone enlighten me on why you choose not to do something the Lord commands in 1 Tim 2:8, "I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing." Hmm, it looks like some of us need to look more closely at the last phrase of that verse as well. Anyway, I have said it before and I will say it again, why would someone be adament about not using instruments (where scripture is silent), yet at the same time refuse to lift hands to our Father (where scripture is spoken). It is not logical and it is not scripturally driven; it is traditional driven.

So, Dr and Others, although I have spent years studying, reviewing, analyzing, praying about music in worship, I am willing to listen and learn on the subject of music if you are willing to take your blinders off and address other issues (specifically). Addressing scriptural issues explicitly and consistently would give you more credibility when it comes to a specific issue like music.

Willing to listen and learn as long as you are...

Mark, have you been sneaking over here and using my computer? Moderators, you better check his IP address. If I didn't know any better, I would think I wrote that last post. That is EXACTLY where I'm at.

I just want ONE PERSON to respond to the obvious inconsistencies in C of C doctrine, with a legitimate answer, and I will be open to changing my beliefs. You can take all the half-hearted responses I'v received to this question and combine them into one answer because they all ay the same thing: "Just because."
I'm sorry, that's not good enough.

Mark, I've been down this road. I'll tell you what you can expect:

1. You will be ignored (most likely)

2. Meaning no disrespect- Incomprehensible gibberish from Sublett based on false "research", and probably including a sexual reference of some sort (2nd most likely)

3. You will get caught in the "Fruit Loops of Death" or whatever it's called by them, that they hypocritically use when they don't have an answer, but are finally too embarassed to ignore you anymore.

Good luck. I'll be watching for an answer.

Rick,

I didn't say they weren't important, but that the psalms they sang in the OT were not specifcially the ones that the scripture was pertaining to. I was totally amazed that someone thought it was. This goes to show how shallow our scriptural teachings are today. By the way, just because a Psalms from the OT states something doesn't mean that it has any authority for us today. There are many things stated in the OT psalms that were thrown out with the old law. To read them and undertstand them is still important - but thanks for trying to twist my meaning!

I really don't care how you twist the fact that the poster didn't understand that the word "psalms" did not refer to the actual book of Psalms or to just the psalms of the OT.
So, thank you for trying to twist my comment to fit your needs. You are very good at it, but not good enough. In fact, this issue really brings further concerns of how sad our "loving" and "enlightened" new churches are becoming. You really will twist anything and everything to try and get the viewpoint off your beliefs, won't you?

It's amazing that someone can provide verifiable grammatical interpretations that a verse makes a "request" and NOT a command, and your ONLY comeback is "it was stated four times so it must be important". But then, something that is definitive and clearly a command is only mentioned once or twice, and you dismiss it as not required or umimportant. Since when did God have to say it more than once? Are you now telling god how He should have inspired His writers?

Since when did quantity matter over quality?

After Israel fell into musical idolatry at Mount Sinai, God identifed the MASSES as "strangers" to the Tabernacle which honorable intentions. None of them could participate in animal sacrifices which became MANDATORY rather than conditional before they fell from grace.

God ordained the Qahal, synagogue or church in the wildernes" for the Holy Convocation meaning REST and reading or rehearsing the Word of God--carried around in the heads of ANY elder APT to teach. That assembly OUTLAWED any LOUD singing or instruments which were to send important signals and not to be sounded like a child turning on the fire alarm.

The Israelites never forgot that even when the more codified synagogue superceded the Temple after the return. That did not change until the year 1815 and divided the synagogues.

Jesus "ratified" the Synagogue as a place to READ and dialog the WORD and a place for convenient prayers which were often read from Scripture.

Jesus BUILD His ekklesia or synagogue or school of the Bible. The synagogue never had "any praise service"and who would need a command NOT to make music when Jesus comes to teach ONLY if the elders (the only Pastor-Teachers) teach that which has been taught. The word PLEASE in Romans 15 excludes arousal singing or instruments if you read the background.

The Holy Convocation might be "besides streams of still waters" because NO LAMB can and WILL if some musicators are making the sounds of mighty rushing waters. You can REST and READ back and forth in the temple court yard or in a private house: the Jews had hundres of synagogues spread around Jerusalem but NOT for WORSHIP SERVICES as in paganism. At the time school was mandatory beginning at ages 5-7 for the boys to study the Word which demanded the other skills such as reading and writing. Girls were taught elsewhere.

You can ASSEMBLE or synagogue by common practices, the approved used by Jesus and the common sense not to need a command to get in out of the rain. Being inside of a building DOES NOT IMPACT the learning-discipling process.

You cannot by example and explicit condemnation USE music or MUSICIANS who claim the pagan skill of leading you into the presence of God. Nothing which diminishes the CLASS role of the assembly can be added except by someone DELIBERATELY trying to silence the quiet voice of God. The SPEAK in the ekklesia is well documented to mean "in a whisper or in a conversational tone."

The Lord's Supper was added to the synagogue which was ALSO for teaching or showing forth the Death of Christ with no pagan, magical things happening as you eat and drink.

So, the debate goes on by two groups both of which are DEDICATED to doing just about anything to suck in the seekers. Using the "wail...., they didn hav toilit tissure back then" is just so infantile that I am going to have to go upstairs and make another pot of coffee to keep me awake and consious.