Musical Instruments in Worship

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by bigat
Here is my question about this issue. .....

Do you, any of you, consider this a salvation issue??

I certainly don't. Either way. I mean, here I am thinking about faith issues, and praying a little before bed, and I'm listening to the Grateful Dead, but sometimes I just pray in silence. I think God can hear me clearly enough either way.
 
Upvote 0

Auntie

THANK YOU JESUS!!
Apr 16, 2002
7,624
657
Visit site
✟27,878.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Originally posted by bigat
Here is my question about this issue. .....

Do you, any of you, consider this a salvation issue??


The Church of Christ(most of them, not all) teaches that it is a sin to worship God with musical instruments, and that you will go to hell for worshiping God with instruments. They also teach, if you repent of this sin and never commit it again, you will be forgiven. But if you die without repentance or forgivness of worshiping God with instruments, you will go to hell. I was raised on this stuff.:sigh: Jesus set me free from the bondage of this doctrine, hallelujah!
 
Upvote 0

Auntie

THANK YOU JESUS!!
Apr 16, 2002
7,624
657
Visit site
✟27,878.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Originally posted by seebs
I think homosexuality is not a big deal at all - I believe the furor over it stems from a misunderstanding of crucial scripture.


Well I disagree with that!:D But, yeah, I believe our sins are under the Blood of the Lamb. That includes sins that we aren't aware of. I think we all sin, daily, without even knowing something is sin. I think it's better to keep our eyes on Jesus anyway, and not on our sins.;) The more I see Jesus, the less my mind is on my sins, much less the sins of others.


Originally posted by seebs

On the other hand, I believe that public prayer is clearly forbidden. I think things like "See You At The Pole" are a flagrant violation of God's explicit commands to us, and I find them repulsive.


hmmm....I'll have to study on that one. I thought Jesus prayed in public when he taught the Lord's Prayer?:scratch:
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by Auntie

hmmm....I'll have to study on that one. I thought Jesus prayed in public when he taught the Lord's Prayer?:scratch:

I think it may be acceptable for a spiritual leader to lead others in prayer, but He says over and over not to pray in public, and frequently went away from other people to pray. It's pretty consistent that you shouldn't want other people to see you pray.
 
Upvote 0

Auntie

THANK YOU JESUS!!
Apr 16, 2002
7,624
657
Visit site
✟27,878.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Originally posted by seebs
It's pretty consistent that you shouldn't want other people to see you pray.


seebs, you have reminded me of a good thing I learned many years ago. My husband and I were traveling, it was late at night, and we stopped at an all-night restuarant for coffee. There was a man sitting at a table next to us, and he scared the dickens out of me, because he was extremely "scarey looking", for want of a better description. He was a huge man, and his facial features were monsterous and evil looking. I told my husband: "Please, I want to leave, that man looks like a criminal and I don't feel safe here". Right about then, I saw the man bow his head in silent prayer, saying grace before he ate his food. Oh, wow, did I ever feel bad.:( Here I had wrongfully judged a man, a humble man of God.:( This man's prayer was a great witness to me. Never again have I judged someone based solely on their looks. Also, because of the silent witness of this man of God, I always say grace in restuarants now. God used this man in a mighty way, and the man never even knew it. We can never really know what affect our actions have on others, but this man's prayer was a great witness to my heart.
 
Upvote 0

cougan

Senior Member
Apr 21, 2002
766
7
51
Visit site
✟8,856.00
Faith
Christian
Thanks for the compliment.&nbsp; It's always nice to be appreciated <IMG alt="" src="http://www.christianforums.com/images/smilies/cry.gif" border=0>

Anyway - on a serious note....Can you people (speaking to those of you who believe we should NOT have instruments during worship) believe that it is a SIN to use instruments?&nbsp; By being a SIN then those who participate are going to Hell?&nbsp;

Please, don't climb on your soapbox.&nbsp; A simple Yes or No will do.&nbsp;

Back to my corner. <IMG alt="" src="http://www.christianforums.com/images/smilies/scratch.gif" border=0>

The use of a musical instrument itself is not sinful. If however it used to worship God with then it becomes a sinful act. Its kind of like fire itself was not sinful. But Nadab &amp; Abihu offered a strange fire and died for it. Was the fire sinful itself? NO. It was because it was not done as God had commanded. Its as simple as this my friend. All authority was given to Jesus Christ Mat 28:18. To do that which Jesus has NOT authorized is to void his authority. The old law was written for our learning but we are under the new law of Jesus Christ and with God being our master and we being his slaves we need to OBEY his commands under the new convenant and not the old.

Its as simple as this. We are to walk by faith 2Cor 5:7 Faith comes by hearing of the word Rom 10:17 If something is not done by faith than it is a sin. Rom 14:23. Sin brings about spirtual death rom 6:23. If we continue to sin willfully after the truth has been given to us there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin. Heb 10:26.

Im&nbsp; very sorry but I cannot answer you question with a simple yes or no. You see it is up to you to decide. It is between you and God. I have proclaimed what I belive to be the truth found in the word of God and I have presented on this thread for all to see. I am just doing what I can to be a servant to my God. I am by no means trying to offend anyone or tear them down. If these things happen its not because of me but of what I proclaim from the word of God. If I am correct about what the word says about the use of musical instruments, if you use them you are adding to the word of God and doing something that is not authorized by God to do in worship. This would be a sin. Sin is sin. All I can do is tell you what I believe to be the safest route to take. If you want to gamble with your soul I can't stop you I can only implore you to do that which the bible authorizes.

In conclusion:

1.The Lord nvery authorized mechanical music.
2. The apostles never sanctioned them.
3. NT writers never commanded them
4. Apostolic churchs never used them.

It is RIGHT and SAFE TO SAY: Vocal Music is the only kind of Music divinly authorized for christian worship today.

Ok... want to use Scripture.. how about reading Titus 3:9............

This issue is not a salvation issue - its not gonna keep Christians out of Heaven because they play instruments...... it has one purpose the way its going - to please satan........

satan is just laughing it up - watching Christians fight and argue - call each other names etc etc etc.......... instead of trying to edify one another - it appears people are trying to tear down one another.......... that goes on both sides of the issue.......... hey - I'm a strong believer in that instruments are okay in worship service.. but nothing is being proved here


personally - I think a better thread would be - Why should it matter???? Why are christians at each others throats....

In fact - read Titus 3:1-11.................

First thing my friend I do my best to speak in love and I try to season my words with salt (Col 4:6). I in no way am trying to tear anyone down. 2nd you must understand that this is a debate thread. When people come in here they should expect that one side will present their arguements and then the other side will do the same. Name calling or anger sometimes will be displayed when people get frustrarted which is something we all need to work on everyday but this to me is not a pointless arguement. Intead its useing the bible and reasoning from it and sharing what it says. Scott challenged me to defend my view by making 4 arguements at the begining of this thread. The bible delclares that I should defend the hope that is in me.

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always <I>be </I>ready to <I>give </I>a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;

I am sadened by what you said this topic should be changed to. Why should it matter???? Why should anything matter? This is a very liberal attitude to have. Its like saying: Who cares what the bible has to say about as long as it feels good or the majorty are doing it its ok. I could be completely wrong about you but it seems from your statements that you dont feel that one should reprove or rebuke another person. If this is the way you feel let me show you a few passages.

2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word! Be ready in season <I>and </I>out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.

Luke 17:3 "Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.

Titus 1:13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,

1 Thessalonians 5:14 Now we exhort you, brethren, warn those who are unruly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all.

Gods people and not just elders should reprove and rebuke 2tim 4:2, 2Thes 3:6

Bibical examples:

John and Heord Lk 3:19-20
Jesus and Scribes &amp; Phaarisees Lk 11:37-54
Peter and Simon Acts 13:9-11


This is just a short list and I can eloborate on this in much more detail but this should be sufficent enough to show that the bible does authorize debate which reproves and rebukes and that it can turn people away from a wrong teaching and show them the truth of the word of God.

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.

Now I would certainly agree that one should not get entangled in foolish disputes about the word of God but, if you will notice this paticular verse is talking about disputes about the law that is the old covenant. Again, I still think this concept is great advice for those things in the new covenant. One might try to argue if Paul was bald or not. This would indeed be fooling dispute. But when it comes to reasoning from the word of God on matters of things that are sinful or not authorized in the word of God these by no means are foolish.

God Bless,

Cougan
 
Upvote 0

cougan

Senior Member
Apr 21, 2002
766
7
51
Visit site
✟8,856.00
Faith
Christian
We've got a problem here, if we interpret it the way you do. Is it possible for the NT to make a person perfect? If so, then the "Scripture" he is referring to can only mean the NT, and not the OT. The reason that nothing was made perfect under the Old Law was that man, in and of himself, is a sinful creature. If the Old Testament is being spoken of in the Hebrews passage, why would something inspired by God be "weak and unprofitable?" What does that say about the OT? Your combining of the two passages raises many, many more questions than it answers.

Because of the unlikelihood that Timothy had any of the NT Canon with him, we must conclude that Paul is understanding that with the redemption of Christ, which the OT foretold in many, many ways, Timothy could clearly understand the OT Scriptures and what their place was in the time after Christ's death. Again, you assume that Timothy understood that these writings were Scripture, and historical (and Biblical) sources provide strong evidence to the contrary.

Actually 2tim 3:17 would be better rendered makes a person complete. I think you know that as well. I thing the verse means exactly what it says ALL scriputure that is the old and the new is what makes a man complete and fully furnished. I have never implied or stated that the OT was somehow flawed. It came by the word of God the law itself was not flawed it was mans ability to keep it is where the fault was and not to mention the fact that there no one could really be saved under the old law it took the blood of Jesus Christ. I dont think that people were carrying around a NKJV bible in there hands as what they had was written on scrools. You still have to keep in mind that 2tim wasnt written until around 68ad and evidence shows that most or if not all the books that we now posses were already written by that time. I belive that through the providence of God we ended up with the the books we have today. If want to deny that then you might as well just chunck your bible into the trash can and just let your own thoughts guide you into what God wants from you.

People twist the laws of the nation, but that doesn't make them Scripture necessarily. Read what I wrote about this passage earler.

NECESSARILY, so then you must not be able to rule out in your own mind that this does indeed show that Pauls writting are scripture. Its really simple Scott. Scripture is inspired by God. Paul an apostle who was inspired by God not only revealed the word by mouth but also wrote it down under the inspiration of God. It becomes very easy to see that what Paul wrote down was inspired by God which would make it scripture. A child could understand that my friend. Here I will give you another one to wrestle with.

1 Timothy 5:18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer <I>is </I>worthy of his wages."

Luke 10:7 "And remain in the same house, eating and drinking such things as they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not go from house to house.

This is quite interesting indeed. Notice that it says FOR THE SCRIPTURE SAYS: then you see a quote from the OT but then you see another quote mentioned that is still being called scripture. Check it out the only place this quote is made is the book of Luke. So here it appears that the book of luke is being refered to as scripture. :)

So, now you say that this instance of Scripture is the Old Testament again? Do you change the meaning of the word depending on your own view of doctrine? Interesting! Again, the burden of proof for you to show that the NT by itself can make a man perfect is on your shoulders.

It is very obvious from the verse that scripture is being refered to the law. I like how you dodge the arguments. I already told you that I belive that its all scripture that makes a man complete/perfect. The old law and prophecies tells us about the coming of Jesus and what he would do the New convenant tells us what he did do and what is we are to do and how it is we get into christ where we are complete. Col 2:10, 4:12.

Which the people of Thessalonica did not have. How can you assume that gospel is the written word when it did not exist to the early Church? Did the meaning of Paul's writing automatically switch when the NT was canonized in the middle of the 4th century?
By the gospel of Christ - we are not judged by words out of a book - we are judged by the good news of Jesus Christ.
Again, there's such a huge burden of proof for you to show that this is exactly what Jesus meant.
SO you do not understand that there is a difference between "gospel" and the writing down of the "gospel?" It seems clear from your verses that this is exactly what Paul is saying. You keep using II Timothy to say that everything is complete, but that says nothing about the canon being complete. Indeed, there is nothing in the Bible that talks about the 27 books we have as being the complete and done Word of God. The authors of the Bible, while they were inspired, show no evidence that they recognized that their letter would be read by the rest of the world for the next 2000 years, and that what they write would be "unable to be added to" according to different people.

I have already dealt with part of this in this post. I just want to know something. The gospel which is the good news is the written word we have good news or bad news? I have never heard such strange reasoning on what the good news is. There was good news given before things were written down as the apostles and prophets revealed the good news by means of the HS and confirmed there words with signs and miracles. This same good news was written down for everyone so that it could be passed on through the generations so that others could have the good news to give to others. It sounds like to me that you are denying that we have the word of God today in the NT. That somehow it isnt the good news. I tell if it isnt good news then I sure dont know what good news is. Do you no think that God had a hand in what his word would end up as? What exactly is your point to this whole arguement about the word not being the good news anyhow?

I've given you earlier in the thread my defence for that. You disagreed, and that's fine. I tried to show you what Christ was meaning when he said he fulfilled the prophets and the psalms, but you think he was talking about everyone else.

I have a question about your use of the Holy Spirit. You maintain that you were "led by the HS." According to what I've read in the past about your belief of the HS, the gift of the Spirit can only be given by an apostle. Which apostle has given you such a gift? Or are you going to now deny your previous statements? Well, we both think that our interpretations are led by the Spirit - yet it is I who have shown a doctrine of believing in the leading of the Spirit, and you have not... Hmmm.. I wonder who wins, then...

Oh, and you missed a lot of stuff from my previous post, which includes how Psallo was used in contemporary sources to mean music with accompaniment. I was sure you would talk about that.

You are completely missing the point Scott. I answered the question you raise in the very post you asked this question about the HS leading me. Here read it again.

I was led by the HS by means of the word he ispired to come to my conclusion but if you indeed are led by the HS directly you should easily be able to show me from the bible why it is my arguement is wrong.

I am not claiming that the HS leads me DIRECTLY in a miracelous way but that everthing that the HS does in leading, convicting, directing, and edifiying is done through the word of God. You however are claiming to be led by the HS DIRECTLY outside of the word of God which would be miracleous in nature. If you do have that same DIRECT leading of the HS as they had in the 1st century then you should be able to stop me in my tracks using the word of God. This was the case with Stephen in Acts.

Acts 6:10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.

The only thing you even tried to defend was the luke verse about Jesus fufilling the law, prophets, and the psalms concerning me. I corrected you on it and there was nothing you could say in return. Then even better than that you agree that the old law was nailed to the cross col 2:14 but you did not anticpate me to be able to show several passages that show the Psamls were part of the law.

The book of Psalms is a part of the Law.
1.&nbsp;John 10:34 / Ps 82:6
2.&nbsp;Jn 12:34 / Ps 110:4
3.&nbsp;Jn 15:25 / Ps 35:19
4.&nbsp;Rom 3:10-12,14,19 / Ps 14:1-2, 53:1-2

Now what I want you to do under the inspiration of the HS is to deny that the Psamls are part of the law which was nailed to cross. I want you to put me in my place with you wisdom and the spirit thats in you. I am ready to be rebuked and if you have the ability that you claim I have no doubt that you can show me your arguement is from God. Please note the following verses.

Proverbs 28:23 He who rebukes a man will find more favor afterward Than he who flatters with the tongue.
Ecclesiastes 7:5 <I>It is </I>better to hear the rebuke of the wise Than for a man to hear the song of fools.

Of course I could ask you to back up your words with a sign or a miracle which should be something that is done to back up those that claim the spirit leds them to do this or that when it is not found in the word of God but I will just humbly wait for your correction.

Cougan
 
Upvote 0

cougan

Senior Member
Apr 21, 2002
766
7
51
Visit site
✟8,856.00
Faith
Christian
Originally posted by Azeotroper
Wow, I haven't been on this forum for probably 2 months, and when I return it is just like&nbsp;returning to watch&nbsp;Days of Our Lives after 10 years.....Nothing has changed.&nbsp; Cougan is still beating the dead horse.&nbsp; Is "The Bible is Right" still with us?

Thank goodness, Christ set us free from this Pharisaical nonsense.&nbsp;

Auntie, my condolences for fighting the good fight. :sigh:

This is a response to both Autie and Az. Auntie, again I am very sorry that you were in Church of Christ that taught the way it did. I have spoken with you in times past and I think you know that I do not go to the extreme that the church you grew up in went to. I by no means fell like I am under bondage. I know that I am under the law of Grace. I know that I dont have to be perfect and I know that every person sins. I know that if I continue to walk in the light and grow in the grace that my sins will be forgiven and I have no doubts that I have a home in heaven. I know that I can not earn my salvation no matter how many works that I do. Since I love my master I obey my master and I do those things which please him and not myself. I know that if I become disobedient it is a sin and if I continue in that disobediece that I will fall from grace and face firey indignation. I know that my God is a merciful and just God. For example even though UZ had good intentions of sturdying the ark he died because God is just. When he said that only the Levites (I hope that right) could carry it or touch it that exactly what he meant. So when my master did not authorized musical mechanical instruments as worship&nbsp;I stay away from them. I am just trying to be the best servant I can be to bring as much glory as I can to God.

Now Az its funny that you imply that I am taking the pharisees approach. I can tell you my friend I am not. I am going by what the word says. If anything you would be more like the Phaisees than I and this is the reason why. The Pharisees took the law and then they ADDDED there OWN TRADITIONS to it and made it like it was part of the law. Of course Jesus corrected them and rebuked them for putting their own tradtions above the word of God. This is exactly what you are doing when you try and say its ok to use musical instruments even though no authorization is found for it under the new convenant.

But I am with you, Thank goodness, Christ set us free from this Pharisaical nonsense.&nbsp;
 
Upvote 0

cougan

Senior Member
Apr 21, 2002
766
7
51
Visit site
✟8,856.00
Faith
Christian
I think homosexuality is not a big deal at all - I believe the furor over it stems from a misunderstanding of crucial scripture.

Rom1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible <I>attributes </I>are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, <I>even </I>His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify <I>Him </I>as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man -- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,

25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.

27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in <I>their </I>knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; <I>they are </I>whisperers,

30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;

32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
 
Upvote 0

ScottEmerson

I Like Traffic Lights
May 9, 2002
366
0
45
Ocala, FL
✟682.00
Faith
Christian
Originally posted by cougan
I dont think that people were carrying around a NKJV bible in there hands as what they had was written on scrools. You still have to keep in mind that 2tim wasnt written until around 68ad and evidence shows that most or if not all the books that we now posses were already written by that time.

But the letters and writings that were going around were not called Scripture. That was not done much, much later - the middle of the 4th century. According to Marcion (who was born in 85 AD), only Luke, Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I and II Thessalonians, and Philemon were regarded as SCripture at the time he wrote it! So even allowing that those books were considered Scripture around 110, there is much of what we consider Scripture that Paul not Timothy would recognize as such. In fact, it is very, very likely that John (if not Luke and Acts as well) were written after II Timothy, so do those count as Scripture, too?

Face it! There are just too many logistics around your interpretation of Timothy, unless you believe that Paul was somehow writing to future audiences here, instead of specifically to Timothy. You even admit that there is a possiblity that not all of the books were written. The fact is that none of the books were canonized and considered as "Scripture" yet - and history shows this to be true.

I belive that through the providence of God we ended up with the the books we have today. If want to deny that then you might as well just chunck your bible into the trash can and just let your own thoughts guide you into what God wants from you.

I agree with the first sentence.&nbsp;But God let the Canonization through the first 3 or 4 centuries of the church - read any history of the canon to understand this!

Scripture is inspired by God.

Agreed. I think the NT was inspired by God - but this is NOT what Paul says.

Paul an apostle who was inspired by God not only revealed the word by mouth but also wrote it down under the inspiration of God.

This isn't what we are arguing.

It becomes very easy to see that what Paul wrote down was inspired by God which would make it scripture.

But did Paul think that when he was writing his letters that they would one day be seen as SCriptures? There's a burden of proof for you there - one you cannot answer.

1 Timothy 5:18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer <I>is </I>worthy of his wages."

Luke 10:7 "And remain in the same house, eating and drinking such things as they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not go from house to house.

This is quite interesting indeed. Notice that it says FOR THE SCRIPTURE SAYS: then you see a quote from the OT but then you see another quote mentioned that is still being called scripture.


That's right. The OT quote appears, and then he uses another quote. Is this characteristic of Paul? Romans 9 has instances of back-to-back Scriptures, and Paul begins each one of them by saying "It is written."&nbsp; (See Romans 11:8 and 11:9 for proof of this.) Are there any places you see where Paul just goes back-to-back and doesn't use "It is written" or "for the Scripture says" before any of the passages? I can't find any. I don't know why this would be an exception. From Jameison, Fausset and Brown's commentary: it is possible that "Scripture saith" applies only to the passage quoted from Deuteronomy 25:4&nbsp;and then his quotation will be that of a common proverb, quoted also by the Lord, which commends itself to the approval of all, and is approved by the Lord and His apostle.

It is very obvious from the verse that scripture is being refered to the law. I like how you dodge the arguments. I already told you that I belive that its all scripture that makes a man complete/perfect. The old law and prophecies tells us about the coming of Jesus and what he would do the New convenant tells us what he did do and what is we are to do and how it is we get into christ where we are complete. Col 2:10, 4:12.

So is&nbsp;it the Scripture or is it the sanctification of Christ that makes us perfect?&nbsp;Kinda takes SOla Scriptura to a new level, huh?

I have already dealt with part of this in this post. I just want to know something. The gospel which is the good news is the written word we have good news or bad news? I have never heard such strange reasoning on what the good news is. There was good news given before things were written down as the apostles and prophets revealed the good news by means of the HS and confirmed there words with signs and miracles. This same good news was written down for everyone so that it could be passed on through the generations so that others could have the good news to give to others. It sounds like to me that you are denying that we have the word of God today in the NT. That somehow it isnt the good news. I tell if it isnt good news then I sure dont know what good news is. Do you no think that God had a hand in what his word would end up as? What exactly is your point to this whole arguement about the word not being the good news anyhow?

Evangelion literally means "good news." The word "gospel" did not apply to the NT until much, much later. Again, read your history! The BIble contains much good news, especially what we call the Gospels in today's language. The fact is that the writings were not considered "Gospels" as we say today - they meant "gospels" as good news then. You are absolutely denying the history of how the Bible came into existence.

If you do have that same DIRECT leading of the HS as they had in the 1st century then you should be able to stop me in my tracks using the word of God. This was the case with Stephen in Acts.

Acts 6:10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.

Those who are hard-hearted are not affected by the Spirit of God. One only read about the history of Paul, who was a man filled by the Holy Spirit, to see all the people who resisted him.

Of course I could ask you to back up your words with a sign or a miracle which should be something that is done to back up those that claim the spirit leds them to do this or that when it is not found in the word of God but I will just humbly wait for your correction.

If you were to have been at our youth service a week ago on Sunday night, you would have seen the signs. True miracles occured, people's heart were changed, students truly began to worship, and all while we were singing and praising God using accompaniment in the form of guitars and drums. The Spirit filled the entire place, and it was an incredible experience. That in and of itself is evidence enough for me that the Spirit encourages music in worship, whether it is accompanied or not. That is enough to convince me. You've had 17 or howeve many posts to explain your case. You have failed to convince me or anyone else, for we have experienced the power of such music in our lives. Your Scriptural supports require a priori assumptions which I do not hold, nor do the majority of people on this board and on this thread. You can continue to worship in your unaccompanied ways - that's not a problem. But the fact remains that the Spirit is at work in churches all over the world - and the people of God are using all kinds of methods to magnify and worship Christ. That is what it boils down to. They are being led by the Spirit to worship in Spirit and in Truth. They do so through music, both with and without accompaniment. Your point that music with accompaniment within the walls of church falls and crumbles.

Can I sit next to you in heaven with my harp? I may have to teach you how to use it since I've had all this practice here worshipping on earth!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cougan

Senior Member
Apr 21, 2002
766
7
51
Visit site
✟8,856.00
Faith
Christian
That's right. The OT quote appears, and then he uses another quote. Is this characteristic of Paul? Romans 9 has instances of back-to-back Scriptures, and Paul begins each one of them by saying "It is written."&nbsp; (See Romans 11:8 and 11:9 for proof of this.) Are there any places you see where Paul just goes back-to-back and doesn't use "It is written" or "for the Scripture says" before any of the passages? I can't find any. I don't know why this would be an exception. From Jameison, Fausset and Brown's commentary: it is possible that "Scripture saith" applies only to the passage quoted from Deuteronomy 25:4&nbsp;and then his quotation will be that of a common proverb, quoted also by the Lord, which commends itself to the approval of all, and is approved by the Lord and His apostle.

This is an instance when we need to see what Jameison, Fausset Browns says in his entirety keeping in mind that this is just this mans opinion.

18. the scripture -- (De 25:4; quoted before in 1Co 9:9).

the ox that treadeth out -- Greek, An ox while treading.

The labourer is worthy of his reward -- or "hire"; quoted from Lu 10:7, whereas Mt 10:10 has "his meat," or "food." If Paul extends the phrase, "Scripture saith," to this second clause, as well as to the first, he will be hereby recognizing the Gospel of Luke, his own helper (whence appears the undesigned appositeness of the quotation), as inspired Scripture. This I think the correct view. The Gospel according to Luke was probably in circulation then about eight or nine years. However, it is possible "Scripture saith" applies only to the passage quoted from De 25:4; and then his quotation will be that of a common proverb, quoted also by the Lord, which commends itself to the approval of all, and is approved by the Lord and His apostle.

First of all he recognized the book of Luke being Gospel. 2nd it was his opinon that the Paul was calling that which Luke wrote scripture. Then he just adds that its possible for the quote to be a common proverb. But we see what this commentary thinks is correct. Maybe you can try again Scott.

Just as a side note you stated something along the lines that I have not convinced you or anyone else about what I have been proclaiming. Do you know the hearts of every person that has read this thread? Are you speaking under the dircect influence of&nbsp; the HS to make this claim? Just saying something doesnt make it so. I have labored dilgently and presented a great deal evidence and bibical arguements to defend my view which are all rock solid in my opinion. In my opionion you have failed to show authorization for musical instruments today. You are forced to hide behind the phrase well if the HS leds you to do it its ok. You have admitted that the HS can not led someone differently than what the word of God says and you have failed to produce any tangable evidence that musical instruments are authorized under the new convenant. Furthermore you still have not showed my how the Psalms are not part of the law because YOU CANT DO IT!!!! I am still patiently waiting for you to correct me on this which I fell you cannot do by the word of God.

In your opinon Scott can something that was commanded under the old law be binding to us under the new law?


&nbsp;
 
Upvote 0

cougan

Senior Member
Apr 21, 2002
766
7
51
Visit site
✟8,856.00
Faith
Christian
If you were to have been at our youth service a week ago on Sunday night, you would have seen the signs. True miracles occured, people's heart were changed, students truly began to worship, and all while we were singing and praising God using accompaniment in the form of guitars and drums. The Spirit filled the entire place, and it was an incredible experience. That in and of itself is evidence enough for me that the Spirit encourages music in worship, whether it is accompanied or not. That is enough to convince me. You've had 17 or howeve many posts to explain your case. You have failed to convince me or anyone else, for we have experienced the power of such music in our lives. Your Scriptural supports require a priori assumptions which I do not hold, nor do the majority of people on this board and on this thread. You can continue to worship in your unaccompanied ways - that's not a problem. But the fact remains that the Spirit is at work in churches all over the world - and the people of God are using all kinds of methods to magnify and worship Christ. That is what it boils down to. They are being led by the Spirit to worship in Spirit and in Truth. They do so through music, both with and without accompaniment. Your point that music with accompaniment within the walls of church falls and crumbles.

Can I sit next to you in heaven with my harp? I may have to teach you how to use it since I've had all this practice here worshipping on earth!

I don't doubt your sincerity Scott and you may have felt like your assembly was filled with the HS. But when&nbsp;I read what you have said I just see emotions being raised which musical instruments are good at doing and teenagers getting into the moment because of their emotions being stired by the musical instruments. You say that the place was full of the HS was there any manifestation of the Sprirt. Were there any speaking in tongues or where their any miracles being performed or any new revelations from God that should be written downs as inspired from God? OR was it just a postive ora that filled the room where ever one seemed to really be emotional stirred by the music and the speaking?

If harps are being used in heaven and that is what pleases God than yes sir I would want you to sit by me and teach me how to play. However you and I both know there is no proof whatsoever that there are musical instruments in heaven and if there are that has nothing to do with God wants us to do here on the earth.

&nbsp;
 
Upvote 0

ScottEmerson

I Like Traffic Lights
May 9, 2002
366
0
45
Ocala, FL
✟682.00
Faith
Christian
Originally posted by cougan
This is an instance when we need to see what Jameison, Fausset Browns says in his entirety keeping in mind that this is just this mans opinion.

18. the scripture -- (De 25:4; quoted before in 1Co 9:9).

the ox that treadeth out -- Greek, An ox while treading.

The labourer is worthy of his reward -- or "hire"; quoted from Lu 10:7, whereas Mt 10:10 has "his meat," or "food." If Paul extends the phrase, "Scripture saith," to this second clause, as well as to the first, he will be hereby recognizing the Gospel of Luke, his own helper (whence appears the undesigned appositeness of the quotation), as inspired Scripture. This I think the correct view. The Gospel according to Luke was probably in circulation then about eight or nine years. However, it is possible "Scripture saith" applies only to the passage quoted from De 25:4; and then his quotation will be that of a common proverb, quoted also by the Lord, which commends itself to the approval of all, and is approved by the Lord and His apostle.

First of all he recognized the book of Luke being Gospel. 2nd it was his opinon that the Paul was calling that which Luke wrote scripture. Then he just adds that its possible for the quote to be a common proverb. But we see what this commentary thinks is correct. Maybe you can try again Scott.


If the addition of the remainder of the commentary is all that you add here, then can I assume that you've dropped the rest of the post? Can you answer what I said earlier?



Just as a side note you stated something along the lines that I have not convinced you or anyone else about what I have been proclaiming. Do you know the hearts of every person that has read this thread?[/quote]

If there is one, let him or her speak. Otherwise, I am right.

Are you speaking under the dircect influence of&nbsp; the HS to make this claim?

This is common sense right here, which was given to us upon creation. No one has been convinced by you.

Just saying something doesnt make it so. I have labored dilgently and presented a great deal evidence and bibical arguements to defend my view which are all rock solid in my opinion. In my opionion you have failed to show authorization for musical instruments today

And all this is done in your opinion. The fact is that the vast, vast majority of Christendom, whether members of the church, clurgy, or theologians,&nbsp;does not. While this does not prove anything, it shows that your view is in the extreme minority. I thank God for that. Hmm...and no conviction in doing so.

You are forced to hide behind the phrase well if the HS leds you to do it its ok.

Which you cannot argue. If the Holy Spirit has truly led a person do to something, I am not going to raise my voice against them. I don't know why you would want to, either?

You have admitted that the HS can not led someone differently than what the word of God says and you have failed to produce any tangable evidence that musical instruments are authorized under the new convenant.

I have labored dilgently and presented a great deal of evidence and bibical arguments to defend my view which is all rock solid in my opinion. In my opinion you have failed to show how the use&nbsp;of musical instruments in today's church is a sin. (See how that works? I used the same phrases you did, and it works!)

In your opinon Scott can something that was commanded under the old law be binding to us under the new law?
&nbsp;

Yes. Love God with all your heart. Do not murder. No other gods but God. And so on, and so forth.

&nbsp;
 
Upvote 0

ScottEmerson

I Like Traffic Lights
May 9, 2002
366
0
45
Ocala, FL
✟682.00
Faith
Christian
I don't doubt your sincerity Scott and you may have felt like your assembly was filled with the HS. But when&nbsp;I read what you have said I just see emotions being raised which musical instruments are good at doing and teenagers getting into the moment because of their emotions being stired by the musical instruments.

Of course you do, since you deny the active working by the Holy Spirit. Your opinion and perspective does not change the Truth.

You say that the place was full of the HS was there any manifestation of the Sprirt. Were there any speaking in tongues or where their any miracles being performed or any new revelations from God that should be written downs as inspired from God?

Yes. THere were many, many revelations that these teenagers have that could be written down as inspired by God. This would not make them Scripture, because that is not the purpose for such revelation.

OR was it just a postive ora that filled the room where ever one seemed to really be emotional stirred by the music and the speaking?

For some, I imagine that it was. But for many, many others,&nbsp;it was the&nbsp;Holy Spirit, who transformed lives last week. I am sorry you have never personally realized such an amazing Spirit as that. I really am.&nbsp;

If harps are being used in heaven and that is what pleases God than yes sir I would want you to sit by me and teach me how to play. However you and I both know there is no proof whatsoever that there are musical instruments in heaven and if there are that has nothing to do with God wants us to do here on the earth.

Does it not say specifically in the OT that they have instruments in Isaiah or Ezekial? I really believe that it does.... Or did heaven automatically change when the new covenant was added? Silly cougan, you probably think that God changed upon the addition of the new covenant!
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You know, it's odd, because now that you mention it, it seems the Apostles never mentioned the use of worldwide networks to debate theology, nor is it mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

Can we thus conclude that it's sinful to do this?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cougan

Senior Member
Apr 21, 2002
766
7
51
Visit site
✟8,856.00
Faith
Christian
If the addition of the remainder of the commentary is all that you add here, then can I assume that you've dropped the rest of the post? Can you answer what I said earlier?

You can try and just blow off what I have presented here it is your right. But, I hope those that are reading this post will notice how you avoid my responses with questions or some words you just through down. You introduced this commentary but you only quoted the part that you wanted people to see. I posted the whole thing to show that the writter only stated it was a posibility but the writter in his own opinon belived it to be refering to the book of luke as scripture. I have not dropped anything, I only responded to those things I felt needed a response. You should know by now that I have no problem dealing with any statement you may bring up. Lets make a deal shall we. You list in your next post the questions you feel I have not answered or that you want me to answer and I will do it. Now here is you part of the bargain. I want you to stop avoiding my question on your 3rd arguement you made.

3. While the Law was fulfilled, we do not see that the Psalms were fulfilled. The Psalms are filled with references of using music, the most known is probably Psalm 150. Jesus fulfilled the 600+ laws of the Pentateuch, but we do not see that he negated the use of instruments.


This is the 4TH time I am bringing this up. Here is my challenge to you Scott from the last time I posted it.

The only thing you even tried to defend was the luke verse about Jesus fufilling the law, prophets, and the psalms concerning me. I corrected you on it and there was nothing you could say in return. Then even better than that you agree that the old law was nailed to the cross col 2:14 but you did not anticpate me to be able to show several passages that show the Psamls were part of the law.

The book of Psalms is a part of the Law.
1.&nbsp;John 10:34 / Ps 82:6
2.&nbsp;Jn 12:34 / Ps 110:4
3.&nbsp;Jn 15:25 / Ps 35:19
4.&nbsp;Rom 3:10-12,14,19 / Ps 14:1-2, 53:1-2

Now what I want you to do under the inspiration of the HS is to deny that the Psamls are part of the law which was nailed to cross. I want you to put me in my place with you wisdom and the spirit thats in you. I am ready to be rebuked and if you have the ability that you claim I have no doubt that you can show me your arguement is from God. Please note the following verses.

Proverbs 28:23 He who rebukes a man will find more favor afterward Than he who flatters with the tongue.

Ecclesiastes 7:5 &lt;I&gt;It is &lt;/I&gt;better to hear the rebuke of the wise Than for a man to hear the song of fools.


Oh yeah let me also post the Luke verse.
Luke 24:44 Then He said to them, "These <I>are </I>the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and <I>the </I>Prophets and <I>the </I>Psalms concerning Me."

I think its about time for you give up this arguement because you can not deny it and you know it. You were humble enough to give up your 4th arguement.

4. Revelations 14:2-3 suggests that worship in the heavens will be accompanied by music - not just singing!


So why not give up your 3rd arguement when you know you cant say anything to refute what I have presented. Its pretty simple my friend Jesus fulfilled the law which included the law of moses the prophets and the Psalms. You even state within your own arguement that the law was fulfilled and I have shown you with out a doubt that the psalms were part of the law. Will you remain silent once again on this arguement or will you finally give it up and then cling to your first 2 arguements? I guess we will all wait to see.

And all this is done in your opinion. The fact is that the vast, vast majority of Christendom, whether members of the church, clurgy, or theologians,&nbsp;does not. While this does not prove anything, it shows that your view is in the extreme minority. I thank God for that. Hmm...and no conviction in doing so.


Your absoultly right Scott the Majorty does not prove anything. In fact when you look through out the bible you see that it is usually the minorty that are blessed.Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few chosen.

Matthew 7:14 Because strait <I>is </I>the gate, and narrow <I>is </I>the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Which you cannot argue. If the Holy Spirit has truly led a person do to something, I am not going to raise my voice against them. I don't know why you would want to, either?

Actually Scott I can argue it from the bible and you have read it in the past in my baptism thread. I took a great deal of time and went into great detail why we do not have the baptism of the HS in a miracleous way where he leds us directly today. The HS works through the word today. Even you agreed that if somehow the HS was directly leading people seprate and apart from the word that he would not have them do something that is not found in the word of God. The bible tells us to test the spirits 1john 4:1 so we can see if the are from God or not. How do you suppose we test them? Its by the word of God. If a person starts worship God in a way not authorized by the word tehn we can defintaly raise our agaisnt them. This of course is not a HS discussion but if you want to read all that I had to say about the matter go to this link http://www.christianforums.com/threads/24268-23.html&nbsp;and read post #226 - #234.

<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 width="90%" align=center border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD><B>quote:</B>
</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #000000 1px solid; FONT-SIZE: 11px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; COLOR: #ffffff; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #828fa2">In your opinon Scott can something that was commanded under the old law be binding to us under the new law?

&nbsp;
</B></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Yes. Love God with all your heart. Do not murder. No other gods but God. And so on, and so forth.

[\QUOTE]

Maybe you did'nt understand the question Scott. Let me try a different angle. All the things you have listed are found in the new convenant. We have the Sabbath day commanded in the 10 commandments. Are we to keep the Sabbath day today since it was commanded in the Old law but it was not commanded in the new law? As far as that goes are we to keep those things commanded in the old law that are not restated in the new law? Do you believe that when we old law was replaced by the new law that we are to go by the new law now? See Heb 8:13, 10:9

Does it not say specifically in the OT that they have instruments in Isaiah or Ezekial? I really believe that it does.... Or did heaven automatically change when the new covenant was added? Silly cougan, you probably think that God changed upon the addition of the new covenant!

I have no idea what your talking about. We are not told what heaven did as far as I know when the new convenant was added.

You know, it's odd, because now that you mention it, it seems the Apostles never mentioned the use of worldwide networks to debate theology, nor is it mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

Can we thus conclude that it's sinful to do this?

Why Seebs thanks for the comment. I would say the answer to this is no. The bible says to:

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations

Now how are we to GO. This is left up to the person to decide how to Go and teach. One could drive, fly, take a train, or use the informational highway to teach the word of God. The internet would be an aid in teaching the word of God and is not an addition to the word.

Again, thanks for your comment Seebs.
</FONT></FONT>
 
Upvote 0

Auntie

THANK YOU JESUS!!
Apr 16, 2002
7,624
657
Visit site
✟27,878.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Azeotroper

Active Member
Aug 27, 2002
34
0
57
Texas
Visit site
✟7,666.00
Faith
Protestant
9th February 2003 at 07:43 AM cougan said this in Post #189


Now Az its funny that you imply that I am taking the pharisees approach. I can tell you my friend I am not. I am going by what the word says. If anything you would be more like the Phaisees than I and this is the reason why. The Pharisees took the law and then they ADDDED there OWN TRADITIONS to it and made it like it was part of the law. Of course Jesus corrected them and rebuked them for putting their own tradtions above the word of God. This is exactly what you are doing when you try and say its ok to use musical instruments even though no authorization is found for it under the new convenant.

But I am with you, Thank goodness, Christ set us free from this Pharisaical nonsense.&nbsp;

Hi Cougan!!

Admittedly, I am usually slow to catch on. &nbsp;I thought that by "ADDING" our own traditions&nbsp;to the law&nbsp;we would be taking a written&nbsp;law of God and "ADDING" some stipulation to it.&nbsp; What I mean is......you are right in that the new testament does not mention harps or cymbals or pianos or bass guitars or zithers in praise to God though, of course, some of them are mentioned in the old testament.&nbsp; Where you are adding to God's Law is by saying&nbsp;musical instruments&nbsp;cannot be used simply because they are not mentioned, or somehow authorized by the new testament.&nbsp;

Seriously, can members of your church not speak into a microphone to praise God in testimony because microphones are not authorized by the new covenant?&nbsp; And are you guilty&nbsp;of sin if you praise the Lord while typing on your computer because it was not authorized by the new covenant?&nbsp; And is the Church of Christ minister who broadcasts on Sunday morning TV (In Search of the Lord's Way is the name of the show) guilty of sin because he is not only praising God with a non-authorized camera recording the event, but also sending out the sinful act over the airwaves to be viewed on my non-authorized television?&nbsp; And are the people (who are dutifully singing praise to God&nbsp;acapella) on this TV broadcast unwittingly guilty of sin for being associated with the whole sordid mess?
 
Upvote 0

ScottEmerson

I Like Traffic Lights
May 9, 2002
366
0
45
Ocala, FL
✟682.00
Faith
Christian
Today at 12:12 AM cougan said this in Post #197


Let's recap the argument. I stated my argument about Psalms and what was fulfilled within the context. You never provided a counter-argument, but went off on a straw man. My point still stands, and there is no reason for me to say it again...but I will.

What part of the Law was fulfilled? All of it.

What part of the Prophets and the Psalms was fulfilled? The prophecies concerning Jesus Christ. Jesus himself said so. (Luke 24:44)

And here is a simple syllogism for you, that you never answered:

1. Paul says to use Psalms

2. Psalms includes uses of instruments

3. Therefore, Paul must agree that instruments may be used in worship.


Your absoultly right Scott the Majorty does not prove anything. In fact when you look through out the bible you see that it is usually the minorty that are blessed.Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few chosen.

Matthew 7:14 Because strait <I>is </I>the gate, and narrow <I>is </I>the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.



And you RIP another passage completely out of context. Christ is talking about salvation here. Why must you constantly misspeak what the Word says to make a point?

Actually Scott I can argue it from the bible and you have read it in the past in my baptism thread. I took a great deal of time and went into great detail why we do not have the baptism of the HS in a miracleous way where he leds us directly today. The HS works through the word today. Even you agreed that if somehow the HS was directly leading people seprate and apart from the word that he would not have them do something that is not found in the word of God. The bible tells us to test the spirits 1john 4:1 so we can see if the are from God or not. How do you suppose we test them? Its by the word of God. If a person starts worship God in a way not authorized by the word tehn we can defintaly raise our agaisnt them. This of course is not a HS discussion but if you want to read all that I had to say about the matter go to this link http://www.christianforums.com/threads/24268-23.html&nbsp;and read post #226 - #234.

And in the baptism link, I show from Scripture evidence of the Holy Spirit leading in people's lives.

1. If the Holy Spirit leads someone do to something, it will not contradict the Word of God.

2. Let us assume the Bible is silent on an issue.

3. The Holy Spirit will lead a person as to whether that issue is right or wrong.

4. If the Holy Spirit is leading a person that the issue is right, it is not contradicting the Word of God.

I have no idea what your talking about. We are not told what heaven did as far as I know when the new convenant was added.

So upon the new covenant being implemented, the physical characteristics of heaven and the angels somehow changed? Where is the proof?

You've dropped the idea of what the NT authors understood as Scripture. You've placed a strawman on the Psalms argument.


----

Questions to help me clarify your perspective on the Holy Spirit...

Do you think that God can speak to you, or are you confined only to what the Bible says? How does He speak to you? How does he draw a person to salvation? What is the role of the Holy Spirit today in the life of the believer?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I think music to us is different than music to God. For example, me singing in my car may sound like music to me but to someone else it may think it sounds like ****. The Bible tells us to make a joyful noise unto the Lord, as long as I sing joyfully unto Him then its music to God. Music could be anything as strumming a tune on a guitar or even a whistle. Therefore I think using instruments with a joyful heart unto the Lord is a beautiful thing to Him.
 
Upvote 0