CofC adds instrumental worships and deems it right???

[- DRA -]

I am not responding to your line of argument because it's based on what I see as a fatally flawed method of interpreting the Bible. In general, the Bible is meant to be read in passages, not verses, and it is not appropriate to use a single verse as the basis for a doctrine or practice unless it's clear that the verse was intended to stand by itself (I'm thinking, for example, of some parts of Proverbs).

Really? Perhaps memory has failed me, but I'm not the one that tried to use Ephesians 5:18 and Acts 2:13 as an example of us behaving as if we are drunken. Yes, I am positive it wasn't me. I suspect there are other reasons you choose not to respond to Post # 72. Could it be that your reasoning has led to a dead end?

Okay, since we're talking about Bible interpretation now - which I do happen to believe is really getting to the heart of what divides us - then I suggest we begin with Matthew 4:5-7. Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:16 in response to the devil's quote and application of Psalm 91:11-12. So, according to the method of Bible interpretation you use, was it acceptable for Jesus to quote the verse from Deut. 6 and apply it as He did? He only used one "verse." And, if you look at the passage in its context, it doesn't say a word about jumping from the top of the temple. Did Jesus misuse the principle taught in the passage, or did He apply it accurately?

I don't see any passages in the Bible that were written to teach Christians about the proper use of music in worship. So I see instrumental music as a point on which the Scriptures are silent.

Okay, if this is true - that there aren't any passages in the Bible that discuss "music" in the worship to God under the gospel of Christ, then it really isn't a matter of instrumental music, is it? I mean, if what you say is true, then we shouldn't be singing - or playing! In brief, we have no authority for music period - of any sort - in the worship ... assuming your reasoning is correct. Therefore, the discussion about instruments is indeed a moot point. Are you positive that's what you believe?

You are the first one I've ever heard present such thinking. Maybe other readers can help us out. Anyone else believe this? Have you heard this reasoning before? Yea or nay.

Given that discrepancy, it seems to me that the best place to start is with a discussion of what the passages you cite are about, so that we can see if we have any common ground on what they teach us about music in Christian life and worship.

Alan

Post # 72 has numerous comments about the context of Ephesians 5. It is a good place to start.

 

[DerSchweik]

My question is more basic: How does the Holy Spirit define “righteous worship” in scripture?
I am not looking for a dictionary definition or descriptions that apply to pagan worship, but one definition that would apply to all correct usage of “worship” in scripture.

We know that offering up to God our obedience to “human” commands is “vain worship”. So is righteous worship the opposite, “Offering up to God obedience to His commands would be righteous worship”?
What is “formal” and “informal worship”? I know when the priest offered up a sacrifice on the alter at the temple that was very formal worship, so we are that priest today, we are that temple, we are that sacrifice and we carry the alter around with us all the time, so when are we not in “formal worship”?
If I am formally “worshipping” God all the time, by doing good stuff He commanded, then if I care for my child by playing an instrument and singing a lullaby can I not offer that up as worship to God?

I suppose a quick answer to that would be: in faith, and in truth - from the heart. We are to love Him with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, and our neighbors as ourselves. He doesn't care for sacrifice, He wants our hearts in align with His, valuing Him and the things He values.

"But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

John 4:23f

 

[- DRA -]

My question is more basic: How does the Holy Spirit define “righteous worship” in scripture?
I am not looking for a dictionary definition or descriptions that apply to pagan worship, but one definition that would apply to all correct usage of “worship” in scripture.

We know that offering up to God our obedience to “human” commands is “vain worship”. So is righteous worship the opposite, “Offering up to God obedience to His commands would be righteous worship”?
What is “formal” and “informal worship”? I know when the priest offered up a sacrifice on the alter at the temple that was very formal worship, so we are that priest today, we are that temple, we are that sacrifice and we carry the alter around with us all the time, so when are we not in “formal worship”?
If I am formally “worshipping” God all the time, by doing good stuff He commanded, then if I care for my child by playing an instrument and singing a lullaby can I not offer that up as worship to God?

1 Corinthians 14 is a whole chapter that deals with "formal worship" (i.e., the assembling of the saints). Acts 20:7 is a single passage that discusses what might also be considered as "formal worship." As for informal worship (i.e., everyday life service to God), I tend to think of passages such as Romans 12:1 and Hebrews 13:15-16.

I'm not convinced that "Rock a Bye Baby" while strumming on a guitar to calm or entertain a child is under consideration in Ephesians 5:19. I suggest you just keep on doing that. And, yes, calming and nurturing a child is a part of doing God's will. No problems there.

 

[freespiritchurch]

Really? Perhaps memory has failed me, but I'm not the one that tried to use Ephesians 5:18 and Acts 2:13 as an example of us behaving as if we are drunken. Yes, I am positive it wasn't me. I suspect there are other reasons you choose not to respond to Post # 72. Could it be that your reasoning has led to a dead end?

This is really not the point, but I do not want to give the appearance of dodging your question. So I will say that it is plainly obvious that the worship of the New Testament included prophetic utterances, speaking in tongues, singing in the Spirit, and all sorts of behavior that was loud and struck non-believers as very strange.
If you are serious about reconstructing the worship of the New Testament, you should be going for a much more exuberant and demonstrative approach that gives each person room to speak or sing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The worship that we think of as "normal" is formed far more by European culture than the Bible.

I don't see any profit in debating that issue with you, and that will be my last word on that subject.

Okay, since we're talking about Bible interpretation now - which I do happen to believe is really getting to the heart of what divides us - then I suggest we begin with Matthew 4:5-7. Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:16 in response to the devil's quote and application of Psalm 91:11-12.

If you go to Deuteronomy 6, you'll see that it is the introduction to the commandments that the Israelites are to follow while they live in the promised land. Since Jesus was an Israelite living in the promised land, these commandments applied to him.

But if we're being honest, we'll have to admit that the New Testament writers use Scripture in ways that are difficult for us to copy. Take 1 Corinthians 10 as an example, and explain the general principle by which we can conclude that the Exodus passage is a reference to baptism.

Okay, if this is true - that there aren't any passages in the Bible that discuss "music" in the worship to God under the gospel of Christ, then it really isn't a matter of instrumental music, is it? I mean, if what you say is true, then we shouldn't be singing - or playing!

Umm..."where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent." I think we would agree that we are not to restrict people in ways that the Bible does not. We have no authority for forbidding music of any sort in worship.

Post # 72 has numerous comments about the context of Ephesians 5. It is a good place to start.

Based on that, it seems to me that we agree that Ephesians 5 is a collection of instructions for Christian life, not a discussion of formal worship services.

Alan
I already responded to

 

[aggie03]

Since it's been mentioned, I think that I'll go ahead and clarify what I think it means: "Speak where the Bible speaks, be silent where the Bible is silent".

I think that overall we have turned this quote into something that was never intended the first time that it was spoken. Historically, it seems to be a beacon to unify all Christians so that everyone could work and worship together; it was a call to end denominationalism and all the strife and other baggage that is carried along with it. The crux of the message seemed to be a call to agree on the things that were made clear by the Bible.

For example, with this issue of instruments, it may be fine and dandy to use them in "Christian" worship. However, since there is no passage in the New Testament to authorize their use, we are going to stay silent about them. We are neither going to condemn or approve, and we will not use them in the event that someone's conscience is offended.

With regard to, say, giving, it may be fine to set aside money any day of the week, however, since there are no examples of that, we're going to remain silent on it - neither condemning or approving - and follow the only pattern that we see in the Bible which is giving on the first day of the week.

I hope this is sufficient to make my point. Along with this, however, comes the realization that anywhere were a group of people have agreed to do something differently than "my group" doesn't necessarily make them wrong or right if it is one of those "silent" areas. If I don't work and worship with them, then I have nothing to do with them anyway since denominations are mentioned nowhere in the New Testament.

So with regard to instruments, I think we can all agree that singing was something that was allowed, but we can't all agree on whether or not there were instruments allowed because they are never mentioned. If we can agree to follow the principle of "speaking where the bible speaks and being silent where the bible is silent", then we must agree that the only way to keep from pushing human reasoning into the matter is to only sing.

Originally, I don't see this as being a principle to divide people, but to unite them. So, for those who are arguing for the use of instruments, would you still be willing to follow it? Would you be willing to put away the piano, the guitar, the keyboard and the harmonica for the sake of your brother's conscience?

Just some thoughts from history...

 

[JDIBe]

Since it's been mentioned, I think that I'll go ahead and clarify what I think it means: "Speak where the Bible speaks, be silent where the Bible is silent".

I think that overall we have turned this quote into something that was never intended the first time that it was spoken.

I agree. We have certainly done that.



"On May 27, 1807, Thomas arrived in America from his native Ireland. He was soon ordained by a Presbyterian synod but a strain quickly developed and he withdrew. Immediately after, Campbell gathered with a number of supporters and friends at the home of Abraham Altars in Washington, PA. It was in his speech on this occasion that he first uttered the famous words for which he is best remembered: "Where the scriptures speak, we speak; where the scriptures are silent, we are silent." Following this, Andrew Monroe spoke up, "Mr. Campbell, if we adopt that as a basis, there is an end to infant baptism."

Campbell replied, "Of course, if infant baptism is not found in the Scriptures, we can have nothing to do with it." Upon hearing this, Thomas Acheson arose excitedly and exclaimed, "I hope I may never see the day when my heart will renounce the blessed saying of Scripture, 'Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven'!", quoting Matthew 19:14. James Foster replied, "Mr. Acheson, in the Scripture which you have quoted, there is no reference whatever to infant baptism." So the stage was being set for an examination of this particular issue."

Source: A SEARCH FOR TRUTH ON BAPTISM, by Wayne S. Walker (http://www.defenderoftruth.com/page6.html)



I find it very interesting that Catholics quite often use the argument of "silence" to defend infant baptism to Protestants. On the other hand, I once saw a tract put out by Hope Publishing, a tract that might even be found in a Christian Church entitled, "What the Bible Says About Infant Baptism". When you open the tract, it contains a blank page!

My point is, sometimes silence DOES mean "this" and "not that". It is the reason we don't use potatoes and milk for the Lord's Supper. It is the reason we don't baptize infants. The key is to interpret properly.

If there were no more supporting evidence on the subject of IM, I would say fine, no problem here. But there is plenty of early historical evidence that shows the earliest Christians did not use them, vigorously opposed them, and never viewed the subject as a "non-issue" or considered the Scriptures to authorize them. That secondary evidence leads me to believe that it is best not to use them due to Authority, historical, and expediency issues.

So how does one interpret silence? I feel two things that would help would be to read the passages that deal with a given subject:

1. Try to find out why and for what purpose the command was given.
2. Ask ourselves if what we are doing helps or hinders carrying out that command in any way.

 

[aggie03]

I agree. We have certainly done that.

I find it very interesting that Catholics quite often use the argument of "silence" to defend infant baptism to Protestants

Hmm, must not be very good Catholic debaters. Certainly they should be able to come up with something better than that ...

My point is, sometimes silence DOES mean "this" and "not that". It is the reason we don't use potatoes and milk for the Lord's Supper. It is the reason we don't baptize infants. The key is to interpret properly.

With regard to the quote, this is due to the only thing given as an example being unleavened bread and fruit of the vine. If we are to remain silent where the Bible is silent, then we won't say anything negatively or positively for pizza and soda. We will only say what the Scriptures say. This is not to condemn other things, but because bread and fruit of the vine ought to be two things that everyone can agree upon.

If there were no more supporting evidence on the subject of IM, I would say fine, no problem here. But there is plenty of early historical evidence that shows the earliest Christians did not use them, vigorously opposed them, and never viewed the subject as a "non-issue" or considered the Scriptures to authorize them. That secondary evidence leads me to believe that it is best not to use them due to Authority, historical, and expediency issues.

I agree with you historically speaking, but those early Christians could be just as wrong as you or me. If we're going to stick to the slogan, and the purpose of unity for which it seems to have been designed, then we won't say anything about instruments because the Bible doesn't - positively or negatively.

It could be that they are just fine. It could also be the other way around. Either one of those answers requires human reasoning beyond what the Bible plainly tells us. The one thing that everyone should be able to agree upon is singing. Does this make sense?

So how does one interpret silence?

We could just be silent, too. If the Bible doesn't speak positively or negatively, then we should be content to speak neither positive or negative things, too.

This is an interesting way to view things...we may need a different thread to talk about all of the ramifications. It may be way off, or it may not be all that far off...it'll be fun and interesting to talk about it, though.

For those of you who have no problem with instruments, would you be willing to follow this principle for your brothers and sisters in Christ?

 

[JDIBe]

With regard to the quote, this is due to the only thing given as an example being unleavened bread and fruit of the vine. If we are to remain silent where the Bible is silent, then we won't say anything negatively or positively for pizza and soda. We will only say what the Scriptures say. This is not to condemn other things, but because bread and fruit of the vine ought to be two things that everyone can agree upon.

I agree with you historically speaking, but those early Christians could be just as wrong as you or me. If we're going to stick to the slogan, and the purpose of unity for which it seems to have been designed, then we won't say anything about instruments because the Bible doesn't - positively or negatively.

This kind of reminds me of a moment in that Rodney Dangerfield movie "Back to School". The Professor comes by Rodney's apartment with his poorly graded essay on Kurt Vonegut and says, "It's obvious you know nothing about Kurt Vonegut." Rodney then goes into the next room and starts chewing out Kurt Vonegut who he paid to write his essay!!

I don't think it is wise to tell Campbell, "This is what you meant when you said this." He does just fine on his own. Did Campbell believe that silence can be prohibitive? How did he interpret his own statement right after he said it with regards to infant baptism? How should WE interpret the Scriptures with regard to infant baptism?

Now is silence ALWAYS prohibitive? Obviously no. The key is the purpose of the Scripture. Does the thing in question help or hurt?

With regard to the Early Church Fathers, I agree they could be wrong. I would never suggest someone believe something SOLELY on the word of the ECF. However, I do believe there is a less likelihood that they could be "as wrong as you or me". The earliest ones were not far removed from the direct teaching of the Apostles. They come out STRONGLY against the practice, they never mention a time when it was different. If one finds the Scriptures vague on the subject, I think it would be foolish NOT to consider this secondary source of information when attempting to interpret the primary.

Yes, it's a difficult issue to deal with. But I believe a serious, thorough study on the subject can leave you at least slanting one way or another....

 

[aggie03]

I don't think it is wise to tell Campbell, "This is what you meant when you said this." He does just fine on his own. Did Campbell believe that silence can be prohibitive? How did he interpret his own statement right after he said it with regards to infant baptism? How should WE interpret the Scriptures with regard to infant baptism?

It's also not the only time he said it, or his son, and the writer of that article had their own slant on his words. Historically, when you read more than one instance of his speech and writing, you come away with the idea that he literally meant "be silent", i.e. not speaking one way or the other. This seems to certainly be the case in A. Campbell's "The Christian System".

It's a very frustrating view for those of us who like to make judgments and draw lines about who is right and who is wrong. I personally, love it when I'm right and can show someone else that they're wrong. But that's my flesh coming out in all it's ugly shame. We have over 150 years of strife and opinions to get over on the issue, so that's hard work.

I am not speaking negatively or positively for instruments. I think that I will be content to leave it where the New Testament does, with silence. Can someone go into a long proof on why it's really all right for us to use instruments? Sure, they can. But that proof ultimately relies on human reason and wisdom. Can someone offer just as long - even longer, perhaps - argument as to why we should not use instruments? Yes, they can (I personally like to think I'm pretty good at this one). But that relies on human reasoning and wisdom.

Is one of those view right? I guess one of them would have to be. However, we all should be content, with regard to publicly worshipping with one another to leave it where the New Testament leaves it - with silence.

Now is silence ALWAYS prohibitive? Obviously no. The key is the purpose of the Scripture. Does the thing in question help or hurt?

We shouldn't necessarily try to make silence allow anything either. Generally speaking, there will be fewer problems if we would all just be quiet about a topic when there is silence.

With regard to the Early Church Fathers, I agree they could be wrong. I would never suggest someone believe something SOLELY on the word of the ECF. However, I do believe there is a less likelihood that they could be "as wrong as you or me". The earliest ones were not far removed from the direct teaching of the Apostles. They come out STRONGLY against the practice, they never mention a time when it was different. If one finds the Scriptures vague on the subject, I think it would be foolish NOT to consider this secondary source of information when attempting to interpret the primary.

Again, let's be quiet where the Bible is. Why should we make an issue where there ought to be none. We can all agree that singing in all right, so let's just sing together. Then we can all do and speak where the Bible speaks, and we can all be silent and not speak where the Bible doesn't speak.

BTW, after having read the nice compendium of "The Fathers" both Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene, they certainly are just as able to be wrong as you and I. It's very interesting to see how their views change over time and generally drift off into weirdness.

Yes, it's a difficult issue to deal with. But I believe a serious, thorough study on the subject can leave you at least slanting one way or another....

Sure, I agree . I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't have opinions and thoughts beyond what the Bible says. However, when it comes to what we do together, why not just be quiet where the Bible is? It doesn't speak positively or negatively of instruments, so let's just make that a non-issue.

Again, would those who believe that they have the liberty to use instruments be willing to leave them at home for the sake of their brother's conscience? Would they be willing to be silent on the issue in order that they might worship together?

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Really? Perhaps memory has failed me, but I'm not the one that tried to use Ephesians 5:18 and Acts 2:13 as an example of us behaving as if we are drunken. Yes, I am positive it wasn't me. I suspect there are other reasons you choose not to respond to Post # 72. Could it be that your reasoning has led to a dead end?

This is really not the point, but I do not want to give the appearance of dodging your question. So I will say that it is plainly obvious that the worship of the New Testament included prophetic utterances, speaking in tongues, singing in the Spirit, and all sorts of behavior that was loud and struck non-believers as very strange.
If you are serious about reconstructing the worship of the New Testament, you should be going for a much more exuberant and demonstrative approach that gives each person room to speak or sing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The worship that we think of as "normal" is formed far more by European culture than the Bible.

I don't see any profit in debating that issue with you, and that will be my last word on that subject.

I can see some wisdom in why it might be your last word about drunken behavior. There is an old saying to the effect: "When you find yourself digging a hole so deep you can't get out of, the first thing you should do is stop digging." With that in mind, I agree that you should stop digging. However, please keep in mind that I didn't dig the hole, nor did I throw you into it. You are the one that threw misunderstandings of Acts 2:13 and Ephesians 5:18 into the discussion. Therefore, the truly honest Bible student is faced with an - "Uh oh, messed up" - "Need to rethink that reasoning." To act as if it didn't happen in an attempt to save face, according to my understanding of how truth is supposed to work in one's life, simply isn't an option - assuming, of course, that truth is really one's goal.

As for giving "each person room to speak or sing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit": please allow me to refresh your memory. Ephesians 5:18b-19 says, "... Be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord (NKJV)." No problem doing what the Spirit directs in this passage.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Okay, since we're talking about Bible interpretation now - which I do happen to believe is really getting to the heart of what divides us - then I suggest we begin with Matthew 4:5-7. Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:16 in response to the devil's quote and application of Psalm 91:11-12. So, according to the method of Bible interpretation you use, was it acceptable for Jesus to quote the verse from Deut. 6 and apply it as He did? He only used one "verse." And, if you look at the passage in its context, it doesn't say a word about jumping from the top of the temple. Did Jesus misuse the principle taught in the passage, or did He apply it accurately?

If you go to Deuteronomy 6, you'll see that it is the introduction to the commandments that the Israelites are to follow while they live in the promised land. Since Jesus was an Israelite living in the promised land, these commandments applied to him.

But if we're being honest, we'll have to admit that the New Testament writers use Scripture in ways that are difficult for us to copy. Take 1 Corinthians 10 as an example, and explain the general principle by which we can conclude that the Exodus passage is a reference to baptism.

I've been to Deuteronomy 6. See my comment about the context NOT saying anything about jumping from the top of the temple? I can say that because I am familiar with what the chapter says.

Please allow me to point something out. Deuteronomy 6:16, in its context, is specifically discussed idolatry. Therefore, let's apply your reasoning. The command that God was not to be tempted by His people worshipping idols applied to the Israelites when they lived in the promised land. Therefore, the inference/implication is that it didn't apply if they didn't live in Israel. If this is true, I have to wonder why righteous men such as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego didn't know this. They were among the first wave of captives taken out of Israel, and were in Babylon in Daniel chapter 3. See the point? They wouldn't worship idols - even under the threat of death - and whey weren't in the promised land. According to your reasoning, this would have been acceptable for them to do. I think the command was still applicable, and they knew it. Therefore, they would NOT disobey God. Period. And, according to the application of your reasoning in Matthew 4:5-7, if the devil had taken Jesus to a high point outside of Israel, then Jesus could have jumped. After all, if Deuteronomy 6:16 applied only inside the promised land, then Jesus was free to jump as long as He was outside Israel. I think such reasoning is blatantly wrong. I think it would have been just as wrong for an Israelite to worship and idol outside of Israel just as much as inside Israel. The same for Jesus jumping from the top of the temple. To deliberately jump, no matter where it was from, would have been to tempt God - and was therefore condemned per Deuteronomy 6:16. I'm simply amazed that such simple Bible truths are that hard to understand. Incredible.



I am familiar with 1 Corinthians 10. I have taught numerous lessons using the imagery of the chapter. In a sense, the Israelite fathers were baptized into Moses, but were not faithful. Therefore, they did not enter their promised land. The Corinthians are in danger of following in the unfaithful steps of the Israelite fathers. The Corinthians were baptized into Christ (Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:14,16), but are in danger of NOT entering their promised land (heaven) because of unfaithfulness. I think of the text as a wake-up call and stern warning to the Corinthians, and also to us today as we apply the principle to ourselves.

As for baptism, the imagery continues in Colossians 2:11-12, which links circumcision with baptism, and 1 Peter 3:20-21, which links the waters of the flood with baptism.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Okay, if this is true - that there aren't any passages in the Bible that discuss "music" in the worship to God under the gospel of Christ, then it really isn't a matter of instrumental music, is it? I mean, if what you say is true, then we shouldn't be singing - or playing!

Umm..."where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent." I think we would agree that we are not to restrict people in ways that the Bible does not. We have no authority for forbidding music of any sort in worship.

Personally, I think "where the Scriptures are silent we are silent, we are silent" is an excellent commentary on 1 Peter 4:11a - "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God."

Sorry, but you have failed to establish authority for "music" of any sort in worship. Therefore, following your reasoning, we can't forbid anything in the worship that God doesn't. Once again, you are failing to see the far-reaching consequences of your reasoning. This doesn't open the door for just instrumental music, but for anything and everything.

I keep going back to Ephesians 5 and trying to apply your reasoning. Verse 18. Being drunk with wine is wrong. But, per your reasoning, it's only wrong outside the assembly. Therefore, being drunk in the assembly is acceptable, right? After all, we can't forbid it in worship. The Bible is silent about drunkenness in worship, right? C'mon now. Do you really believe this? I doubt it. You simply have used faulty reasoning and need to be willing to accept what you have done, and make necessary corrections to get back on track. The truth is worth it. It's bigger than saving face (Romans 3:4). All of us have been wrong about something in our spiritual life. It's what we do about it that makes the difference. I know I have made changes. Why? Cause my thinking was wrong. And, someone was willing to show me that from the Scriptures. It's about growing and maturing.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Post # 72 has numerous comments about the context of Ephesians 5. It is a good place to start.

Based on that, it seems to me that we agree that Ephesians 5 is a collection of instructions for Christian life, not a discussion of formal worship services.

Alan
I already responded to

Nope. We are NOT in agreement. Not by a country mile (nor a city mile). As previously requested, if Ephesians 5:19 does NOT apply to the worship, then please direct us to the passages that do. We both know this is another dead end your reasoning has led you to. You can't just hide at the dead end and expect to be pleasing to God. You need to backtrack and get on the right path. Remember, it's not about either one of us being right, but about God being right ... and being fair with His word ... and desiring truth.

 

[- DRA -]

Since it's been mentioned, I think that I'll go ahead and clarify what I think it means: "Speak where the Bible speaks, be silent where the Bible is silent".

I think that overall we have turned this quote into something that was never intended the first time that it was spoken. Historically, it seems to be a beacon to unify all Christians so that everyone could work and worship together; it was a call to end denominationalism and all the strife and other baggage that is carried along with it. The crux of the message seemed to be a call to agree on the things that were made clear by the Bible.

For example, with this issue of instruments, it may be fine and dandy to use them in "Christian" worship. However, since there is no passage in the New Testament to authorize their use, we are going to stay silent about them. We are neither going to condemn or approve, and we will not use them in the event that someone's conscience is offended.

With regard to, say, giving, it may be fine to set aside money any day of the week, however, since there are no examples of that, we're going to remain silent on it - neither condemning or approving - and follow the only pattern that we see in the Bible which is giving on the first day of the week.

I hope this is sufficient to make my point. Along with this, however, comes the realization that anywhere were a group of people have agreed to do something differently than "my group" doesn't necessarily make them wrong or right if it is one of those "silent" areas. If I don't work and worship with them, then I have nothing to do with them anyway since denominations are mentioned nowhere in the New Testament.

So with regard to instruments, I think we can all agree that singing was something that was allowed, but we can't all agree on whether or not there were instruments allowed because they are never mentioned. If we can agree to follow the principle of "speaking where the bible speaks and being silent where the bible is silent", then we must agree that the only way to keep from pushing human reasoning into the matter is to only sing.

Originally, I don't see this as being a principle to divide people, but to unite them. So, for those who are arguing for the use of instruments, would you still be willing to follow it? Would you be willing to put away the piano, the guitar, the keyboard and the harmonica for the sake of your brother's conscience?

Just some thoughts from history...

Appreciate your comments. As I have said numerous times, Speak where the Bible speaks, be silent where the Bible is silent is an excellent commentary on 1 Peter 4:11a - "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. Obviously, God has spoken about what He wants done (singing), what He wants sung (psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs), and how the inner man (the heart) is involved. Therefore, what God has said should be sufficient.

 

[- DRA -]

I find it very interesting that Catholics quite often use the argument of "silence" to defend infant baptism to Protestants. On the other hand, I once saw a tract put out by Hope Publishing, a tract that might even be found in a Christian Church entitled, "What the Bible Says About Infant Baptism". When you open the tract, it contains a blank page!

My point is, sometimes silence DOES mean "this" and "not that". It is the reason we don't use potatoes and milk for the Lord's Supper. It is the reason we don't baptize infants. The key is to interpret properly.

If there were no more supporting evidence on the subject of IM, I would say fine, no problem here. But there is plenty of early historical evidence that shows the earliest Christians did not use them, vigorously opposed them, and never viewed the subject as a "non-issue" or considered the Scriptures to authorize them. That secondary evidence leads me to believe that it is best not to use them due to Authority, historical, and expediency issues.

So how does one interpret silence? I feel two things that would help would be to read the passages that deal with a given subject:

1. Try to find out why and for what purpose the command was given.
2. Ask ourselves if what we are doing helps or hinders carrying out that command in any way.

Appreciate your comments. I have been studying with the Eastern Orthodox folks for several weeks. They split from the Catholics in about A.D. 1050. They appeal to "silence" just like you descibed. Their reasoning is that Jesus received the little children in Matthew 19:13-15, and no Scripture forbids them from baptizing infants (an appeal to silence), therefore, they can - and do. Obviously, baptism wasn't even a consideration in Matthew 19. And, baptism was to be accompanied by belief (Mark 16:16, Acts 8:37), and by repentance (Acts 2:38), and by confesssion (Romans 10:9-10, Acts 8:37). However, by ignoring these passages, the EO folks find the "silence" they need to justify their practices. I fear our brethren have fallen victim to this same reasoning (in principle).

 

[freespiritchurch]

I can see some wisdom in why it might be your last word about drunken behavior. There is an old saying to the effect: "When you find yourself digging a hole so deep you can't get out of, the first thing you should do is stop digging." With that in mind, I agree that you should stop digging.

It seems that you have completely misunderstood the meaning of my post. What I mean to say is that the loud and disconcerting worship style that we associate with Pentecostal churches bears more similarity to New Testament worship than the somber worship that you find in most RM churches (including mine). Our approval of that quiet and visibly orderly style comes from our culture, not the New Testament.

Please allow me to point something out. Deuteronomy 6:16, in its context, is specifically discussed idolatry. Therefore, let's apply your reasoning. The command that God was not to be tempted by His people worshipping idols applied to the Israelites when they lived in the promised land. Therefore, the inference/implication is that it didn't apply if they didn't live in Israel.

Except that the Israelites thrown into exile because of their idolatry, and were told that faithfulness to the laws God gave them was necessary for their restoration. Thus, the exiles were to live as if they were in the promised land, which was their goal.

If you're going to talk about the importance of following the commands of Scripture, I would like you to explain a couple of things:

How do you determine which parts of the Law of Moses to follow, and which laws to ignore? How do you know which New Testament commands to follow, and which ones to ignore?

I am familiar with 1 Corinthians 10. I have taught numerous lessons using the imagery of the chapter. In a sense, the Israelite fathers were baptized into Moses, but were not faithful. Therefore, they did not enter their promised land. The Corinthians are in danger of following in the unfaithful steps of the Israelite fathers.

In what sense were the Israelite fathers baptized into Moses? How did Paul conclude that this passage was related to baptism into Christ? How could we come to the same conclusions? What consistent law of interpretation is Paul using, and how do we apply it?

It seems to me that you continue to focus on details without considering the questions that really matter. There's no point in talking about interpretations of particular passages when we have such substantial disagreement on principles.

For example, when you say:

following your reasoning, we can't forbid anything in the worship that God doesn't. Once again, you are failing to see the far-reaching consequences of your reasoning. This doesn't open the door for just instrumental music, but for anything and everything.

I don't fail to see the consequences of my reasoning at all. In the first place, the door isn't open to "everything." We know that we must not eat and drink the Lord's Supper without examining ourselves. We know we must gather without divisions. There are a number of other prohibitions too.

But in terms of the form of worship? There's nothing in Scripture to forbid multimedia presentations, 4-part harmony, native dance, hip-hop, or any number of other forms of worship that the apostles wouldn't even be able to imagine. Barring a word from God, we do not have the authority to forbid these things.

With that said, I do agree that we need to think a lot more carefully about the consequences of what we do. I thought that DerSchweik made some good points about the vitality that can be lost when we spend time listening to music instead of participating in it, and I think we could have a fruitful discussion about how we are supposed to worship. That's where a forum like this can really do some good.

Alan

 

[bling]

I suppose a quick answer to that would be: in faith, and in truth - from the heart. We are to love Him with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, and our neighbors as ourselves. He doesn't care for sacrifice, He wants our hearts in align with His, valuing Him and the things He values.

John 4:23f

You relly only answered one question. I would like to know where my logic breaks down?

 

[bling]

1 Corinthians 14 is a whole chapter that deals with "formal worship" (i.e., the assembling of the saints). Acts 20:7 is a single passage that discusses what might also be considered as "formal worship." As for informal worship (i.e., everyday life service to God), I tend to think of passages such as Romans 12:1 and Hebrews 13:15-16.

I'm not convinced that "Rock a Bye Baby" while strumming on a guitar to calm or entertain a child is under consideration in Ephesians 5:19. I suggest you just keep on doing that. And, yes, calming and nurturing a child is a part of doing God's will. No problems there.

I do not know if God would make the distinction you are making concerning worship. There are acts of obedience we do as a group and things we do alone, with non believers or in small groups.
Are you saying, you do not feel it is a sin to offer up to God as worship the playing of a guitar under some circumstances?

Do you know people that offer up to God their abstaining from the use of musical instruments in “formal worship”? If the abstaining from the use of an instrument during “formal worship” is the result of a man made directive would that then be “vain worship”?

 

[Apollos1]

aggie03 - Again, would those who believe that they have the liberty to use instruments be willing to leave them at home for the sake of their brother's conscience? Would they be willing to be silent on the issue in order that they might worship together?

Greetings!

They were not so willing at the Quail Springs (QS) church. After what reads as much soul-searching rationalization (is that an oxymoron?) the “leadership” decided IM was coming in – based upon preference (in my opinion).

Their attempt to mitigate this unauthorized intrusion into worship, by offering an alternate time and “service”, was an affront to the local congregation as well as to the command for the saints to assemble.

Perhaps QS will eventually schedule 7 or 8 “services”, perhaps on different days of the week, to accommodate all the rationalizations imaginable of the attendees that are left there.

I can just see the Saturday 2 PM group “sprinkling babies” while the Sunday 10 AM groups immerses only believing adults. Oh yes – I want to be a part of that “congregation”… lol!

Do I hear an “Amen” ? or a “Yeah baby!!” Oh! Just applaud if you approve...

It looks like we are going to have to redefine “potluck” !
--- --- --- ---
Fine tuning…

Silence does not prohibit anything. The problem with attempting to use “silence” as the basis for justifying religious work or worship is that - silence does not authorize.

Those that recognize the authority of the scriptures, and that “authority” is needed for all that we teach and practice in religion (Colossians 3:17, 1 Peter 4:11) will attempt to find authority for any teaching or practice BEFORE attempting to compel others to follow along.

Those that ignore or fail to appeal to the authority of the scriptures drag in countless unproven fads and practices for the perusal of the less stable of the congregation. When such introductions are questioned, you never hear a “Thus saith the Lord…”.
All you ever hear (in a Homer Simpson tone of voice) is “What’s wrong with that?”

Silence does not authorize religious teachings and practices. God’s word does!

 

[JDIBe]

It's also not the only time he said it, or his son, and the writer of that article had their own slant on his words. Historically, when you read more than one instance of his speech and writing, you come away with the idea that he literally meant "be silent", i.e. not speaking one way or the other. This seems to certainly be the case in A. Campbell's "The Christian System".

It's a very frustrating view for those of us who like to make judgments and draw lines about who is right and who is wrong. I personally, love it when I'm right and can show someone else that they're wrong. But that's my flesh coming out in all it's ugly shame. We have over 150 years of strife and opinions to get over on the issue, so that's hard work.

Why do I get the feeling here I'm arguing with someone that agrees with me?

I don't think it should be a matter of determining WHO'S right and who's wrong, but WHAT's right and what's wrong to the best of our ability. That is the more germaine issue in my relationship between me and God. I prefer when everyone comes out edified and more informed in a discussion. Sadly, this doesn't always happen.

I am not speaking negatively or positively for instruments. I think that I will be content to leave it where the New Testament does, with silence. Can someone go into a long proof on why it's really all right for us to use instruments? Sure, they can. But that proof ultimately relies on human reason and wisdom. Can someone offer just as long - even longer, perhaps - argument as to why we should not use instruments? Yes, they can (I personally like to think I'm pretty good at this one). But that relies on human reasoning and wisdom.

Is one of those view right? I guess one of them would have to be. However, we all should be content, with regard to publicly worshipping with one another to leave it where the New Testament leaves it - with silence.

I don't subscribe to the theory that thinking is necessarily bad. We are told to be "wise as serpents" and as "harmless as doves". The Bereans were commended for their efforts in study and skepticism as well. Reasoning is not evil. Where it becomes a problem is when human reasoning is elevated above, or instead of, God's Word. Arguments should not be accepted or rejected because they contain reason. They should be accepted or rejected on the basis of whether they conform to the Will of God as revealed to us through His Word.

We shouldn't necessarily try to make silence allow anything either. Generally speaking, there will be fewer problems if we would all just be quiet about a topic when there is silence.

History is replete with examples of peoples who thought "If we all just look the other way the problem will take care of itself" Usually, it doesn't. You have seen the thread in the Non-D. forum. Many of those who are Non-IM don't even know why. "Just being quiet" breeds ignorance. Not "ignorance" as in "makes the wrong choice", but "ignorance" as in "uninformed decision" on both sides. Being quiet after you know all the facts is a reasonable choice, but being quiet to the detriment of knowledge of the subject for an entire generation is not profitable.

Again, let's be quiet where the Bible is. Why should we make an issue where there ought to be none. We can all agree that singing in all right, so let's just sing together. Then we can all do and speak where the Bible speaks, and we can all be silent and not speak where the Bible doesn't speak.

BTW, after having read the nice compendium of "The Fathers" both Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene, they certainly are just as able to be wrong as you and I. It's very interesting to see how their views change over time and generally drift off into weirdness.

Yes, the ECF were not perfect. It is interesting to see how their views change over time. The ECF should be viewed as "commentary". How do you evaluate a "commentary"? You compare what is said with the Scriptures and the earliest church practices. GENERALLY speaking, the earlier the speaker, the closer to the Apostles, the greater the probability he speaks correct teaching. (I say generally. This is not always the case. For example, Marcion and other gnostics of the 2nd Century) The earliest fathers are consistent in their views here. How long did it take them to "drift off into weirdness" on the subject of IM? I think you know. That has to count for something.

We use historical sources such as A. Campbell and give them weight (although not as Scripture) in an argument. Why are we not allowed to do the same with 1st and 2nd Cent. ECF's?

I agree with you the problem would just go away if people would just lay down their instruments. I think that would be a very hard thing for some people to do. Maybe too hard for some without some sort of justification.

On a personal note, I have been away from here for a while and didn't see you much here before then. I have however, read many of your posts in other forums here and enjoyed them greatly. I hope you will consider making this place your home base or at least a regular stop when you visit CF.

 

[cremi]

Why?

What if someone can't sing, but could play an instrument beautifully? I guess that according to the "no instruments during worship" idea, then that person is only allowed to crackle out some sounds, because that is all that is allowed. Why can't someone use an instrument to praise and worship God with their heart?

I've sat in worship and listened to a person behind me who couldn't carry a tune in a bucket, yet it was the most beautiful sound in the room, because they were truly singing from their heart. I've also sadly watched others refuse to sing, because they didn't like that part of the worship, yet I've yet to see an elder or any other leader tell them they were disobeying God by not singing with their heart. I've also seen those with talent sing louder than anyone else in the room, because they wanted their voice to be heard. Do you think that is the heart that God is looking for?

I'm sure you would say that it isn't, yet it happens quite frequently. No one tells these people to get their attitudes in the right place because on the outside, it appears as all "good".

There is a huge segment of the christian world (within the non-IM church of Christ)that is being told their instruments are sinful, even though they have God-given talent. I guess that God-given talent is only meant for the secular world? Why wouldn't it be meant for God's glory at anytime? Worship or otherwise.

I did lay my instruments down...for over 20 years. I'm not sure it benefitted anyone. I was good--I didn't gripe or complain. I sang only at funerals, weddings and congregational worship and let my singing talent also go down the drain. I couldn't ever reconcile the idea that my God-given talents were only to be used in a secular manner. I didn't even like secular music all that much, yet all of my training as a musician had no use in the church of Christ.

Am I looking for justification to use instruments now? No--not anymore. I don't see the need to justify anything to anyone, except the Lord. Since I have picked up my instruments again and vowed to only use them for the service of the Lord, I have also been able to use my abilities for a great many things. The inspiration to write songs, the joy and the celebration I now have only came to me when I gave up the rule of "no instruments". It is doing what I was meant to do all along, but had ignored because of what others thought. Shame on me for being so easily led astray!

I realize that for some of you worshipping with instruments is quite nearly a salvation issue. I'm sorry that one issue has so clouded the view that you can't see through it. Preferring to not have instruments is one thing---I can certainly understand that and find no fault in one who prefers a capella singing over instruments. However, for those who are tied so closely with the dogma that worshipping with instruments is sinful, I would ask you to look carefully one more time at the scriptures--if you can--without the preconceived notions that so many of you carry.

When you look at the Psalms and you see passages such as this one....
Psalm 150
1 Praise the LORD. [a]
Praise God in his sanctuary;
praise him in his mighty heavens.

2 Praise him for his acts of power;
praise him for his surpassing greatness.
3 Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet,
praise him with the harp and lyre,
4 praise him with tambourine and dancing,
praise him with the strings and flute,
5 praise him with the clash of cymbals,
praise him with resounding cymbals. 6 Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.
Praise the LORD.


...yet the passage is dismissed simply because it is in the OT. Do you not see this as contradictory? I often see many of you use parts of the OT to support a point about how things should be done properly or orderly, yet passages like this are dismissed or ignored entirely, often with the excuse that it is only in the OT.

Even if, for arguments sake, you are correct about dismissing the entire OT, then let me ask another question. Why would God say through the Psalmist, that he was to be praised with instruments in the OT, but it suddenly becomes sinful and shameful in the NT? Why would God desire this in the OT, but not the NT?

God would not give his blessings to a practice in one part of the bible, but then condemn it in another part of the bible without specifically saying so. He isn't that kind of God. There seems to be freedom to use the 10 Commandments to make a point, but let's not talk about the use of instruments. God even used instruments to bring down the walls of Jericho, (Joshua 6) yet NO WHERE in the NT did God ever condemn the use of instruments in worship.
No...he didn't command it either. There were many things he did not command regarding public worship and there were things that "seem" to be commands that are entirely ignored also.

What about women wearing head coverings?
What about women having their head covered while prophesying or praying? When was the last time you saw any woman in a church of Christ be allowed to speak publicly, much less prophesy or pray? And did they have a head covering?


I know...I know..."there goes Cremi again... "

Lest any of you think I'm being contentious or trying to be divisive, that is not my intent. I've just seen this type of reasoning hold people back from seeing what God wants for them and it breaks my heart that so many are so tied down to man-made ideologies and rules, trying to read into scripture ideas that don't exist. Truly, my heart is with each of you. If you can't receive my words in any other way, at least know that.














</IMG></IMG>

 

[JDIBe]

What if someone can't sing, but could play an instrument beautifully? I guess that according to the "no instruments during worship" idea, then that person is only allowed to crackle out some sounds, because that is all that is allowed.

Cremi, I think you answered your own question below...

I've sat in worship and listened to a person behind me who couldn't carry a tune in a bucket, yet it was the most beautiful sound in the room, because they were truly singing from their heart.

Cremi, there are a lot of people with different talents. My friend is a great basketball player, but I don't think he needs to showcase that during worship services. There are other places to use that gift that God gave him. I guess my point is, not every talent is APPROPIATE to display at every time. Corporate worship is not about you. It's not about me. It's about us, singing "one to another" and edifying each other. It is not about "showcasing talent". There are other venues for that.

Why?
I did lay my instruments down...for over 20 years. I'm not sure it benefitted anyone. I was good--I didn't gripe or complain. I sang only at funerals, weddings and congregational worship and let my singing talent also go down the drain. I couldn't ever reconcile the idea that my God-given talents were only to be used in a secular manner. I didn't even like secular music all that much, yet all of my training as a musician had no use in the church of Christ.

Am I looking for justification to use instruments now? No--not anymore. I don't see the need to justify anything to anyone, except the Lord. Since I have picked up my instruments again and vowed to only use them for the service of the Lord, I have also been able to use my abilities for a great many things. The inspiration to write songs, the joy and the celebration I now have only came to me when I gave up the rule of "no instruments". It is doing what I was meant to do all along, but had ignored because of what others thought. Shame on me for being so easily led astray!

I wonder if my friend is sad because his athletic skills are "wasted" because he can't demonstrate them during worship? I wonder if Annie1speed lies awake at night because she can't use her Chemistry skills "to the glory of God"? I do understand your love of music. I too, play the guitar and have written a couple of things (nothing good). My father and best friend are songwriters. (My best friend is good and prolific enough to go to Nashville if he could get the courage up to go.) But none of us would ever DREAM of using a guitar in services. Why? Because it's not the appropiate time!

Please don't allow yourself to think that just because you can't get up in front of an audience on Sunday morning, your talent is wasted. There is a dirth of well written hymns and songs out there right now. I beg of you, apply your talents there. Help teach others to sing. Help lead a girls choir at events like LTC. If you look around for appropiate, (IMO ) creative ways to use your talents you might find they are not "wasted" after all, but useful in the service of God. (I'll bet one might even find a use for Chemistry somehow as well....)

Why?
I realize that for some of you worshipping with instruments is quite nearly a salvation issue. I'm sorry that one issue has so clouded the view that you can't see through it. Preferring to not have instruments is one thing---I can certainly understand that and find no fault in one who prefers a capella singing over instruments. However, for those who are tied so closely with the dogma that worshipping with instruments is sinful, I would ask you to look carefully one more time at the scriptures--if you can--without the preconceived notions that so many of you carry.

I really generally prefer not to use the term "salvation issue". To me it implies....

1. There are things in life that are "wrong", but not "that wrong" so therefore ok.
2. That I am qualified to decide for God where the line of Salvation is drawn.

I prefer to think of it as what is right for me to do and what is wrong. "Little sins" are not ok. I think we just try to do what's right and let God do the ranking.
I understand your meaning, though. There are "weightier matters" than others. (You might notice that none of us are standing outside the door of your church with picket signs.)

Still for many of us it's not a "preference", it's a question of at least wisdom and at most right and wrong, even if it isn't for you. I hope you can look into your heart and understand that.

Why?
When you look at the Psalms and you see passages such as this one....
Psalm 150
1 Praise the LORD. [a]
Praise God in his sanctuary;
praise him in his mighty heavens.

2 Praise him for his acts of power;
praise him for his surpassing greatness.
3 Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet,
praise him with the harp and lyre,
4 praise him with tambourine and dancing,
praise him with the strings and flute,
5 praise him with the clash of cymbals,
praise him with resounding cymbals. 6 Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.
Praise the LORD.

CLEMENT "Leave the pipe to the shepherd, the flute to the men who are in fear of gods and intent on their idol worshipping. Such musical instruments must be excluded from our wingless feasts, for they arc more suited for beasts and for the class of men that is least capable of reason than for men. The Spirit, to purify the divine liturgy from any such unrestrained revelry chants: 'Praise Him with sound of trumpet," for, in fact, at the sound of the trumpet the dead will rise again; praise Him with harp,' for the tongue is a harp of the Lord; 'and with the lute. praise Him.' understanding the mouth as a lute moved by the Spirit as the lute is by the plectrum; 'praise Him with timbal and choir,' that is, the Church awaiting the resurrection of the body in the flesh which is its echo; 'praise Him with strings and organ,' calling our bodies an organ and its sinews strings, for front them the body derives its Coordinated movement, and when touched by the Spirit, gives forth human sounds; 'praise Him on high-sounding cymbals,' which mean the tongue of the mouth which with the movement of the lips, produces words. Then to all mankind He calls out, 'Let every spirit praise the Lord,' because He rules over every spirit He has made. In reality, man is an instrument arc for peace, but these other things, if anyone concerns himself overmuch with them, become instruments of conflict, for inflame the passions. The Etruscans, for example, use the trumpet for war; the Arcadians, the horn; the Sicels, the flute; the Cretans, the lyre; the Lacedemonians, the pipe; the Thracians, the bugle; the Egyptians, the drum; and the Arabs, the cymbal. But as for us, we make use of one instrument alone: only the Word of peace by whom we a homage to God, no longer with ancient harp or trumpet or drum or flute which those trained for war employ." (Clement of Alexandria, 190AD The instructor, Fathers of the church, p. 130)

Truly, my heart is with each of you. If you can't receive my words in any other way, at least know that.

I know it is, dear sister. And I hope you take my words in the same manner.

 

[jmacvols]

When you look at the Psalms and you see passages such as this one....
Psalm 150
1 Praise the LORD. [a]
Praise God in his sanctuary;
praise him in his mighty heavens.

2 Praise him for his acts of power;
praise him for his surpassing greatness.
3 Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet,
praise him with the harp and lyre,
4 praise him with tambourine and dancing,
praise him with the strings and flute,
5 praise him with the clash of cymbals,
praise him with resounding cymbals. 6 Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.
Praise the LORD.


...yet the passage is dismissed simply because it is in the OT. Do you not see this as contradictory? I often see many of you use parts of the OT to support a point about how things should be done properly or orderly, yet passages like this are dismissed or ignored entirely, often with the excuse that it is only in the OT.

Even if, for arguments sake, you are correct about dismissing the entire OT, then let me ask another question. Why would God say through the Psalmist, that he was to be praised with instruments in the OT, but it suddenly becomes sinful and shameful in the NT? Why would God desire this in the OT, but not the NT?

What about Psalm 66:13-15? If David is our pattern for NT worship, will you be consistant and offer animal sacrifices as David? Are animal sacrifices part of the NT system? The Hebrew writer tells us in Heb 9:10 that worship under the old law was carnal in nature, this would include both animal sacrifices and the use of musical instruments.