CofC adds instrumental worships and deems it right???

[- DRA -]

I think musical instruments are fine, but some you can see them act as if they want to be seen which takes away from worship. But I also see many singers act the same way (usually i notice them more often). Many churches have the instruments in a place not easily seen, which i think is a way to handle it if there are some disputes.

The first question that comes to mind is why you think instruments are fine. Where exactly do you find them authorized in the New Testament under the gospel of Christ?

 

[SilentRunner]

The first question that comes to mind is why you think instruments are fine. Where exactly do you find them authorized in the New Testament under the gospel of Christ?

And, pray tell, where do you find in the New Testament where instruments are prohibited?

The debate on whether to use musical instruments during worship service is the silliest argument Christians have ever come up with. Be done with it!

Crawfish in post #2 of this forum thread spells out the definitive answer to the argument.

The last Christian congregation that I worshiped with was non-instrumental. There was an organ up front, but was turned to the wall and not used. But in the rear of the auditorium was a computer that controlled an opaque projector that flashed song lyrics on the front wall. And a microphone was used up front and was attached to an audio amplifier at the rear that fed two speakers mounted on the side walls.

I did some quick research and I found no mention of projectors, computers, microphones, amplifiers or speakers in the New Testament. When an organ or piano or other musical instrument is supposedly banned by the New Testament, why weren't these other instruments banned also?

Satan is always busy trying to divide us and lead us to damnation. The instrument vs. no instrument argument is another one of his methods.

My suggestion is to use musical instruments if you so wish or don't use them. I'm sure God doesn't care one way or the other.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

The first question that comes to mind is why you think instruments are fine. Where exactly do you find them authorized in the New Testament under the gospel of Christ?

And, pray tell, where do you find in the New Testament where instruments are prohibited?

Ephesians 5:19 and the principle taught in Hebrews 7:13-14 will suffice.

Ephesians 5:19 (NKJV) says, “Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.” This passage authorizes the singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs from the heart under the gospel of Christ.

And, Hebrews 7:13-14 says, “For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.” Jesus was a descendant of the tribe of Judah. The law of Moses authorized priests from the tribe of Levi. Moses’ law was silent about priests from the tribe of Judah. Therefore, we have to decide if silence authorized those from Judah to be priests. It didn’t. God specified priests would be from Levi. Therefore, those from Judah were not authorized to be priests. Conclusion? Jesus was a priest after the order of Melchizedek – not a Levitical priest (continue reading the text of Hebrews 7 through 8:4).

Now, let’s apply the principle to Eph. 5:19. God specified what He wants. True, He was silent about instrumental music. But, it was also true He was silent about priests from Levi, and they were not authorized. Therefore, why should we think we can deviate from what God specified and still please God?

The debate on whether to use musical instruments during worship service is the silliest argument Christians have ever come up with. Be done with it!

Really? Is it “silly” to debate over doing what God says versus using “strange fire” in Leviticus 10:1-2? According to Romans 15:4, we should learn from the O.T. writings. Perhaps there’s something we should learn so we don’t find ourselves following the footsteps of Nadab and Abihu.

Crawfish in post #2 of this forum thread spells out the definitive answer to the argument.

Really? The Psalms are poetic books frequently used as the basis for songs. However, I’m not convinced you and Crawfish sing and play to every thought in the Psalms. But, maybe you do … let’s see …

Psalm 20:3 “May He remember all your offerings, And accept your burnt sacrifice. Selah” Do you guys sing about your burnt offerings to the Lord?

Psalm 118:27 “God is the Lord, And He has given us light; Bind the sacrifice with cords to the horns of the altar.” Do you guys sing about binding your sacrifice to the horns of the altar?

Psalm 51:19 “Then You shall be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, With burnt offering and whole burnt offering; Then they shall offer bulls on Your altar.” Do you put these thoughts to song? On a similar note, how about Psalm 66:15? “I will offer You burnt sacrifices of fat animals, With the sweet aroma of rams; I will offer bulls with goats. Selah.”

The last Christian congregation that I worshiped with was non-instrumental. There was an organ up front, but was turned to the wall and not used. But in the rear of the auditorium was a computer that controlled an opaque projector that flashed song lyrics on the front wall. And a microphone was used up front and was attached to an audio amplifier at the rear that fed two speakers mounted on the side walls.

I did some quick research and I found no mention of projectors, computers, microphones, amplifiers or speakers in the New Testament. When an organ or piano or other musical instrument is supposedly banned by the New Testament, why weren't these other instruments banned also?

Singing under the gospel of Christ is authorized (e.g., Ephesians 5:19, James 5:13). Therefore, we have choices to make. We can memorize all the words to the songs. Or, we can write them down (as in a songbook) so we can refer to the words and/or musical notes if memory fails us or we don’t know the song. Some have chosen to project the songs on walls or a screen for reference. Whatever means is used, they are used to “aid” in our obedience to the command. In short, they aid our singing. As for computers, microphones, and other things that expedite teaching, they are aids to help us “preach the word” per 2 Timothy 4:2.

At the heart of the issue is the understanding – or lack of it – of generic versus specific authority. Take the story of Noah in Genesis 6. He was told to build an ark of gopherwood. He was specifically told what to do (build the ark of gopherwood), and he did it. Thus, he is noted as a man of faith in Hebrews 11. Thus, we have to decide if deviating from what God specified would have resulted in such a happy ending for Noah and his family. What if Noah had used both gopherwood and pine? Pine was not prohibited in the text. Therefore, it must have been acceptable, right? Think about it. God told Noah exactly what He wanted, and Noah obeyed God and is commended for his faith. Why shouldn’t we follow his example today? As for generic authority, an example is the command to assemble in Hebrews 10:25. No place is specified. Therefore, the church has options. It can meet in someone’s home (if the house is large enough and the church is small enough), or it can rent a facility, or it may choose to buy a building or build a place suitable to assemble, or the church may choose to meet outside under a tree. See the point? A particular type of meeting place isn’t specified. However, assembling is authorized. A place to assemble is an aid (or an expediency) to carry out the command.

Satan is always busy trying to divide us and lead us to damnation. The instrument vs. no instrument argument is another one of his methods.

Granted. We should be aware of Satan’s devices per 2 Corinthians 2:11. However, I fear that to reason we should deviate from God’s specific instructions is to play right into Satan’s hands.

My suggestion is to use musical instruments if you so wish or don't use them. I'm sure God doesn't care one way or the other.

Gotcha. And, we could also reason that God doesn’t care one way or the other if the priests used the fire God authorized versus “strange fire” in Leviticus 10:1-2. However, our reasoning seems to go up in smoke in light of what happened to those priests who made the wrong choice.

 

[SilentRunner]

I stand by my description of the instrumental vs. non-instrumental argument: SILLY.

And your arugment, whatever it is, about priests of Judah and Levi is vacuous and beyond understanding by us mortals. And I don't see the connection between it and using musical instruments during worship.

Accompanying my singing with a piano aids me in my worship of the Lord. If I must reject a piano in worship, then I must reject a computer and an audio amplifier in worship.

The scripture that Crawfish quoted tells us to sing psalms. Some of those psalms we are told to sing tell us to use musical instruments in our worship. If you don't accept that as a command to use musical instruments during worship then you are admitting there is one Hell (pun intended) of a big contradiction in the scriptures. (As a reminder, the subject here is musical instruments, not sacrifices.)

Like I said: the whole argument is silly and not pertinent to the saving of our souls. Let's discuss more important issues...like why does most of mankind reject baptism when the New Testament in more than one place tells us it is needed for salvation?

 

[- DRA -]

I stand by my description of the instrumental vs. non-instrumental argument: SILLY.

The Lord discusses those who build upon the rock versus the sand at the end of Matthew 7. The difference is the wise listen to the Lord and do what He says. The foolish listen ... but don't do what the Lord said. Sad ... not silly.

And your arugment, whatever it is, about priests of Judah and Levi is vacuous and beyond understanding by us mortals. And I don't see the connection between it and using musical instruments during worship.

The inspired writing first introduces the topic (Jesus being a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek) back in the latter part of chapter 5. The discussion is delayed because there is a problem. Enough time has gone by for the Hebrews to be teachers of God's word. Instead, they needed to be taught the first principles again. However, for those willing to apply themselves to God's word and take on "solid food," the discussion of Jesus' priesthood continues. God's silence about priests from Judah is a part of that discussion. Perhaps this will help: focus on Hebrews 7:14. Jesus arose from the tribe of Judah. The Lord said absolutely nothing about priests coming from Judah. Therefore, what is the point in the context? Either it authorized Jesus to be a Levitical priest, or it didn't. You explain to us which answer fits the context. You first have to understand the principle being taught before you can understand how to apply it.

Accompanying my singing with a piano aids me in my worship of the Lord. If I must reject a piano in worship, then I must reject a computer and an audio amplifier in worship.

Gotcha. The piano aids your singing. Really? Does it help you with the words like a songbook? Or, is it an addition to what God specified? Thinking back to Genesis 6, God specified gopherwood. Let's suppose Noah used gopherwood and oak. He said oak was an aid. Who would buy that story (borrowing from the thought of Proverbs 23:23)?

The scripture that Crawfish quoted tells us to sing psalms. Some of those psalms we are told to sing tell us to use musical instruments in our worship. If you don't accept that as a command to use musical instruments during worship then you are admitting there is one Hell (pun intended) of a big contradiction in the scriptures. (As a reminder, the subject here is musical instruments, not sacrifices.)

I don't think "hell" is to be taken lightly, or to be used flippantly. Gotcha. You sing all the Psalms, right? About burnt offerings, and animal sacrifices, right? Doesn't the thought occur that many of the thoughts of the Psalms are specific to things done under the law of Moses? I know you might not want to talk about animal sacrifices, but the Psalms do discuss them ... and you do sing the Psalms, right? Are you suggesting that you don't sing those Psalms that discuss animal sacrifices? Why not?

Like I said: the whole argument is silly and not pertinent to the saving of our souls. Let's discuss more important issues...like why does most of mankind reject baptism when the New Testament in more than one place tells us it is needed for salvation?

Leviticus 10:1-2. Nadab and Abihu lost their lives and souls by not following the specific instructions they were given by God. Nothing silly about that story. And, certainly nothing silly about learning from that incident per Romans 15:4.

More important issues. Okay. Ananias and Sapphira. Acts 5. They lied to the apostles (who were under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit). They had been baptized. Now, because of sin, they are struck dead. Silly story? I don't think so. Humbling story.

 

[SilentRunner]

Gotcha. The piano aids your singing. Really? Does it help you with the words like a songbook? Or, is it an addition to what God specified? Thinking back to Genesis 6, God specified gopherwood. Let's suppose Noah used gopherwood and oak. He said oak was an aid. Who would buy that story (borrowing from the thought of Proverbs 23:23)?

Now that is what I've been calling silly. Helps me with words? Helps me with the notes? Doesn't make any difference. Helps me with singing.

I don't think "hell" is to be taken lightly, or to be used flippantly. Gotcha. You sing all the Psalms, right? About burnt offerings, and animal sacrifices, right? Doesn't the thought occur that many of the thoughts of the Psalms are specific to things done under the law of Moses? I know you might not want to talk about animal sacrifices, but the Psalms do discuss them ... and you do sing the Psalms, right? Are you suggesting that you don't sing those Psalms that discuss animal sacrifices? Why not?

The death of Christ Jesus removed animal sacrifice from our to-do list. But his sacrifice had nothing to do with using musical instruments during worship.

Silly. I repeat, silly.

It is people like you...those who find sin where there is none...who mislead sinners seeking Christ.

We must do what God has told us to do and don't do what God has told us not to do. Can we agree upon that? If God has not told us to not do something and has not told us to do something, it isn't wrong or sinful to do it. There is no prohibition in the scriptures from using muscial instruments in worship. There is no prohibition in the scriptures from sitting on pews during worship. There is no prohibition in the scriptures from singing more than one verse of a hymn. I would go on with this list, but the list is infinite in length and I don't want to spend the rest of my life composing a partial list of what God has not prohibited us from doing.

That would be silly.

 

[- DRA -]

Now that is what I've been calling silly. Helps me with words? Helps me with the notes? Doesn't make any difference. Helps me with singing.

The death of Christ Jesus removed animal sacrifice from our to-do list. But his sacrifice had nothing to do with using musical instruments during worship.

Silly. I repeat, silly.

It is people like you...those who find sin where there is none...who mislead sinners seeking Christ.

We must do what God has told us to do and don't do what God has told us not to do. Can we agree upon that? If God has not told us to not do something and has not told us to do something, it isn't wrong or sinful to do it. There is no prohibition in the scriptures from using muscial instruments in worship. There is no prohibition in the scriptures from sitting on pews during worship. There is no prohibition in the scriptures from singing more than one verse of a hymn. I would go on with this list, but the list is infinite in length and I don't want to spend the rest of my life composing a partial list of what God has not prohibited us from doing.

That would be silly.

I understand red herrings and how they are used. They are personal attacks when someone can't deal with the reasoning before them. An example can be found in Matthew 12:22-24. The accusation was "silly," but it made sense to the Pharisees because it was the only defense they had.

Actually, the death of Christ didn't remove animal sacrifices from my to-do list. I'm of Gentile descent. My people were not under the law of Moses. My people could best be described by Ephesians chapter 2. Verses 12-13 sum up the chapter quite nicely ... "That at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ (NKJV)." See the point? My people were never under the law that commanded animal sacrifices or instrumental music. However, today, those of my people who choose to be a part of God's family (discussed in the latter part of Eph. 2) are expected to obey God's commands under the law of Christ (e.g., Eph. 5:19, James 5:13). Now, why would you have us go back to the O.T. for authority for what we do and practice today? Isn't that reasoning discussed in Galatians 5:1-4? Concisely stated, one can indeed appeal to the O.T. is one so chooses. However, it is a package deal. You just can't pick one aspect from the law of Moses that suits you, but are obligated the keep the whole of the old law. Silly reasoning? If so, then let it be attributed to the apostle Paul ... who said he taught what the Lord Himself told him to teach (Gal. 1:11-12). Personally, I don't think the Lord wasted time on silliness. Rather, I am given the distinct impression that He's very serious about doing His will (Matthew 7:21-23, Hebrews 5:8-9).

Okay ... you asked, "We must do what God has told us to do and don't do what God has told us not to do. Can we agree upon that?" My response is: the Lord told the Israelites who would be priests under the law of Moses, but was silent about priests descending from the tribe of Judah. Therefore, were those from Judah authorized to be priests per Hebrews 7:13-14)? Can we agree that they weren't? If so, we can agree that we should do what God specified, and in the way He specified. Can we agree on that?

Quote: "There is no prohibition in the scriptures from using muscial instruments in worship." And, there was no prohibition in the Scriptures from having priests from Judah. So, were they authorized per Heb. 7:13 - 8:4?

Quote: "There is no prohibition in the scriptures from sitting on pews during worship." Assembling is commanded. However no specifics are given related to standing versus sitting versus lying down. However, if God had specified that we stand during the worship service, then I suggest we should stand and not sit or lay down.

Quote: "There is no prohibition in the scriptures from singing more than one verse of a hymn." No problem here. Nothing is specified how about many verses or songs have to be sung. However, singing is specified. And, what we are to sing is specified, and where the melody is to come from is specified.

Quote: "I would go on with this list, but the list is infinite in length and I don't want to spend the rest of my life composing a partial list of what God has not prohibited us from doing." Well, let's see if we can't shorten the list. Previously, you wanted to abort this discussion and talk about baptism. So, let think about Acts 2:38. A command/direct statement is given to those desiring to have their sins taken away. Three thousand obeyed and received the blessings (Acts 2:41). The specific commands are given in verse 38 - repentance and baptism. Think of all the things not prohibited in that passage. The list could be quite extensive. So, which of the countless things not prohibited in that passage are authorized (because they are not prohibited) to be included among those things we must obey to have our sins taken away?

 

[AnthonyB]

I apologize for interrupting your discussion and possibly for my naivety but I can't help think that Rom 14-15:7 might be in some way applicable to this discussion.

If your convinced that worshipping with instruments is a sin, then for you it is a sin, follow your conscience. If your convinced its not, then you have liberty. Both sides of the debate have honed their positions now for a 100 odd years. If you believe that you have any hope of somehow reconciling the issue then by all means have at it, you would do the church no end of good. If sometime in your discussion you think that your not going to get anywhere and the other side just doesn't get what your conscience says is the truth then maybe an attempt at loving acceptance might be the only answer. Rom 14:9 "Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification."


DRA: Having had no contact with non-instrumental churches (there aren't many in Australia) do you mind if I ask the following questions?

Do I understand correctly that it is that your position that worship as described in the NT cannot have musical instruments, not that musical instruments are forbidden as such, just that if their used it isn't NT authorised worship? Do you accept that a church service can contain other things not directly mentioned in the NT as long as they edify the body? If a church held a instrument free worship time and then held a time of singing with music that others found edifying (even if for you it wouldn't be worship) would you have a problem? Could you feel free to attend (even if you wouldn't want to be a member)?

If an instrumental church decided to reach out to your church and decided to hold a non instruemental services and requested since they had little experience to request that your church led the worship would you assist them?

 

[JDIBe]

Now that is what I've been calling silly. Helps me with words? Helps me with the notes? Doesn't make any difference. Helps me with singing.



The death of Christ Jesus removed animal sacrifice from our to-do list. But his sacrifice had nothing to do with using musical instruments during worship.

Silly. I repeat, silly.

It is people like you...those who find sin where there is none...who mislead sinners seeking Christ.

We must do what God has told us to do and don't do what God has told us not to do. Can we agree upon that? If God has not told us to not do something and has not told us to do something, it isn't wrong or sinful to do it. There is no prohibition in the scriptures from using muscial instruments in worship. There is no prohibition in the scriptures from sitting on pews during worship. There is no prohibition in the scriptures from singing more than one verse of a hymn. I would go on with this list, but the list is infinite in length and I don't want to spend the rest of my life composing a partial list of what God has not prohibited us from doing.

That would be silly.

Pardon me, if I may jump in here. "All things are lawful, but all things are not expedient". I believe the gist of the point is that we are commanded to sing. We are told WHY we are to sing. We are told WHO is to sing. We are told THE PURPOSE of singing. We are to sing to God AND each other. One cannot edify in song while listening to a performance. One cannot sing while playing a trumpet. One can hardly hear the singing over the instruments, as the instruments have become at least half and in many cases more than half of the "worship". The instrument is a hindrance to the singing, which is what God wants in the first place!

There is nothing wrong with playing an instrument. There is nothing wrong with softball. It would be unwise to play softball during worship services as it detracts from worship. It would be unwise to babble incessently behind the preacher while he is trying to deliver his sermon. I contend the instrument is the same thing. This by the way, applies to everything. If you can show somehow the pews are interfering with true worship, then take them out! If one note on a pitch pipe before a song interferes with the congregation singing one to another, then it must go! What matters is what we are commanded to do.

I think this is the (silly?) argument DRA is alluding to. If something hinders (or replaces) that which we are to do, it is not appropiate. Therefore it must go.

Instruments....

1. Were not used by the earliest Christians.
2. The earliest Christians told you WHY they did not use them, complete with Scriptural reference.
3. It was not simply a matter of musical taste, lack of talent, or preference with them. It was doctrinal.
4. The view was the standard accepted view for over 800 years and the standard view in most Protestant churches up until the early 1800's. I think you have to ask yourself why that is.


BTW, why is it that every time someone comes in here and digs up an old thread on IM, they then contend that arguing over the matter is silly.

Doesn't that seem a bit ironic to you?

 

[SilentRunner]

Instruments....

1. Were not used by the earliest Christians.

What is your source for this statement? I find nothing in the New Testament that says the early church did not use musical instruments.

2. The earliest Christians told you WHY they did not use them, complete with Scriptural reference.

Again, what is your source? I find nothing in the New Testament about musical instruments used during worship.

3. It was not simply a matter of musical taste, lack of talent, or preference with them. It was doctrinal.

Prove it, please. What is your source? Or are you just making up all of this?

4. The view was the standard accepted view for over 800 years and the standard view in most Protestant churches up until the early 1800's. I think you have to ask yourself why that is.

I've read that in the early 1800s some American congregations purchased organs and pianos for use during worship. Those congregations that could not afford to do so over time came up with a rationale for not having an organ or piano. That rationale, of course, was the newly found prohibition in the New Testament against using musical instruments during worship.

I'm 64 years old and was baptized into Christ in 1957 and during all of the subsequent years I have not found any prohibition or any argument for the prohibition in the New Testament of the use of musical instruments during worship.

If you can make a logical argument for banning the use of musical instruments during worship, I'm sure you can probably come up with a logical argument for banning baptism and for banning the observance of the Lord's Supper each Sunday.

Why can't we keep things simple? Christian doctrine is not difficult to determine from what is written in the New Testament nor is it difficult to understand. Our problems arise when we try to make it complicated and the only way we can make it complicated is to ADD to the Word of God.

Silly argument.

 

[JDIBe]

What is your source for this statement? I find nothing in the New Testament that says the early church did not use musical instruments.

Again, what is your source? I find nothing in the New Testament about musical instruments used during worship.

Prove it, please. What is your source? Or are you just making up all of this?

I do not intentionally mislead anyone in our discussions here. You may disagree with me and I may on occasion be mistaken, but I do respect others enough not to lie to them. Please see the thread titled "A historical view of IM (for informational purposes only)" at the top of the page.

Although what is known about the 1st Century Church primarily comes from the Scriptures themselves, the 2nd Century writers speak of the practice of IM disapprovingly. This leads one of two possible conclusions:

1. the practice of non-IM was continuous throughout the first 2 (actually 7) centuries. Or.....
2. The earliest Christians did use instruments and then somehow everyone after forgot that their fathers used them. Then they roundly disapproved of an Apostle-led church practice, using Scripture, without mentioning their fathers felt differently.

I believe option 1 is the most reasonable. And in fact, practically ALL BIBLE HISTORIANS FEEL THE SAME WAY! (I say practically all because there may be someone out there, but I have never heard of them. And I seriously doubt they could produce a convincing historical arguement to prove their point. ) This includes those who do agree with the practice of IM.

In fact, this conclusion is so sure, the word "acapella" which we use to describe vocal music without instruments, literally means in English "as the church sings". In short, attempting to prove IM from a historical basis is futile, IMO. The early church didn't use them. They said why they didn't use them. They quoted Scripture and wrote commentaries on both OT and NT Scripture (including Ps. 150, btw) and gave reasons why they should not be used and what we should do today.

I've read that in the early 1800s some American congregations purchased organs and pianos for use during worship. Those congregations that could not afford to do so over time came up with a rationale for not having an organ or piano. That rationale, of course, was the newly found prohibition in the New Testament against using musical instruments during worship.

My friend, what you have read does not bear up under even a cursory historical examination. Non IM was the prevailing view up until the 7th Century in the Catholic church and until the 1800's in most Protestant churches. It was also the accepted view in the RM until the last half of the 1800's. A few random quotes to get you started....

"Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists therefore, have foolishly borrowed, this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostles is far more pleasing to him. Paul allows us to bless God in the public assembly of the saints, only in a known tongue (I Cor. 14:16) What shall we then say of chanting, which fills the ears with nothing but an empty sound?" (John Calvin, Commentary on Psalms 33)

"Although Josephus tells of the wonderful effects produced in the Temple by the use of instruments, the first Christians were of too spiritual a fibre to substitute lifeless instruments for or to use them to accompany the human voice. Clement of Alexandria severely condemns the use of instruments even at Christian banquets. St. Chrysostum sharply contrasts the customs of the Christians when they had full freedom with those of the Jews of the Old Testament." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, pg. 648-652.)

"I am an old man, and I here declare that I never knew them to be productive of any good in the worship of God, and have reason to believe that they are productive of much evil. Music as a science I esteem and admire, but instrumental music in the house of God I abominate and abhor. This is the abuse of music, and I here register my protest against all such corruption of the worship of the author of Christianity. The late and venerable and most eminent divine, the Rev. John Wesley, who was a lover of music, and an elegant poet, when asked his opinion of instruments of music being introduced into the chapels of the Methodists, said in his terse and powerful manner, 'I have no objections to instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither heard nor seen.' I say the same." (Adam Clark, Methodist)

"a kist (chest) of whistles." (John Knox, Presbyterian, in reference to the organ)

"The organ in the worship Is the insignia of Baal… The Roman Catholic borrowed it from the Jews." (Martin Luther, Mcclintock & Strong's Encyclopedia Volume VI, page 762)

"Question 6. Is there any authority for instrumental music in the worship of God under the present dispensation? Answer. Not the least, only the singing of psalms and hymns and spiritual songs was appointed by the apostles; not a syllable is said in the New Testament in favor of instrumental music nor was it ever introduced into the Church until after the eighth century, after the Catholics had corrupted the simplicity of the gospel by their carnal inventions. It was not allowed in the Synagogues, the parish churches of the Jews, but was confined to the Temple service and was abolished with the rites of that dispensation." (Questions on the Confession of Faith and Form of Government of The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, published by the Presbyterian Board of Publications, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1842, pg. 55.)

SPURGEON 'Praise the Lord with harp.' Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her to learn; but in these days when Jesus gives us spiritual food, one can make melody without strings and pipes... We do not need them. That would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument is like the human voice." (Charles Spurgeon (Baptist), Commentary on Psalm 42.)

The practice of non-IM predates the 1800's even in Protestant denominations. It was not an invention cooked up 300 years prior so that one could someday justify their jealousy of a piano player. If you wish, I could also provide you quotes of early RM leaders and their views as well.

A few years ago, I came upon something called a "Prayer Wheel". It is a Buddist instrument in which a Buddist prayer is wriiten ('OM MANI PADME HUM') and spun round and round. Every revolution was considered a "prayer" to nature (or whatever they pray to..) A Buddist priest would spin this wheel walking down the road, taking care of his prayers while traveling. Wouldn't be great to just be able to spin a wheel and take care of your prayers while you could concentrate on other things?

I say no. Prayer is a personal thing. A machine can never substitute for a personal relationship with God.

Charles Spurgeon, a noted Baptist preacher preached at the Metropolitan Baptist Tabernacle in London to 20,000 people every Sunday for 20 years (I think he could afford an organ). During that time, the church never used IM. When asked why he would respond,

"I would as soon pray to God with machinery as to sing to God with machinery."

I happen to agree with the old gentleman....

 

[JDIBe]

I'm 64 years old and was baptized into Christ in 1957 and during all of the subsequent years I have not found any prohibition or any argument for the prohibition in the New Testament of the use of musical instruments during worship.

I am only 40, but I have yet to find any NT scripture approving or disapproving of the practice of infant baptism. Are you in approval of the practice? Or does the purpose of baptism somehow exclude infants?

If you can make a logical argument for banning the use of musical instruments during worship, I'm sure you can probably come up with a logical argument for banning baptism and for banning the observance of the Lord's Supper each Sunday.

No, you really can't. The Bible is quite clear on the purpose and practice of baptism. This is further verified by historical sources as well. The Scriptures also speak partaking of the L.S. on the "first day of the week". This is also further verified historically.

Why can't we keep things simple? Christian doctrine is not difficult to determine from what is written in the New Testament nor is it difficult to understand. Our problems arise when we try to make it complicated and the only way we can make it complicated is to ADD to the Word of God.

Yes, why can't we keep things simple? Why must we add things that hinder what we are commanded to do?

Silly argument.

Then I ask again, why do you keep arguing? To some of us it is a matter of doing what we are to do in a proper manner. It is not silly to us. if it is silly to you, why do you persist in doing what you admit is silly? You are only making yourself look worse.

I humbly request that you please try to respect that some us have deep reservations with the practice just as we respect your viewpoint and try to talk to you in a civil manner.

If a man does silly things, but does not recognize them to be silly, but thinks they are serious, I suppose that somehow in your heart you could find a way to forgive him. But if a man does silly things and knows they are silly while doing them.......well.......What are we to think of that??

 

[crawfish]

I am only 40, but I have yet to find any NT scripture approving or disapproving of the practice of infant baptism. Are you in approval of the practice? Or does the purpose of baptism somehow exclude infants?

Off-topic, but the NT speaks of entire households being baptized into Christ. Historically, this would have included all family members (including infants) and their servants. So there is strong evidence of infant/young child baptism, and there is no evidence that such children were again baptized in their adulthood.

I don't support infant baptism (and I'm a bit disturbed by how young some children are baptized these days), but the above seems to indicate that at least some infants and children were.

Sorry for the off-topic post. I've said everything about IM that I want to, so I really don't have much to add to this thread.

 

[JDIBe]

Off-topic, but the NT speaks of entire households being baptized into Christ. Historically, this would have included all family members (including infants) and their servants. So there is strong evidence of infant/young child baptism, and there is no evidence that such children were again baptized in their adulthood.

I don't support infant baptism (and I'm a bit disturbed by how young some children are baptized these days), but the above seems to indicate that at least some infants and children were.

Sorry for the off-topic post. I've said everything about IM that I want to, so I really don't have much to add to this thread.

I have to disagree with this one. I don't think the instances above by necessity means infants were baptised. When viewed from my perspective of the purpose of baptism, children have no need of remission of sins so baptizing them is contrary to the purpose. I understand we disagree on this point.

What I think both of us agree on at a bare minimum, is that baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and our arising to walk in newness of life. This symbolism is lost on an infant and is not needed in the first place.

A closer examination of the passages involved show that in most passages, hearing and believing are also involved as well.

Acts 10:1 Now there was a man in Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort.
10:2 He was a devout, God-fearing man, as was all his household; he did many acts of charity for the people and prayed to God regularly.

Acts 16:29 Calling for lights, the jailer rushed in and fell down trembling at the feet of Paul and Silas.
16:30 Then he brought them outside and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
16:31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.”
16:32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him, along with all those who were in his house.
16:33 At that hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized right away.
16:34 The jailer brought them into his house and set food before them, and he rejoiced greatly that he had come to believe in God, together with his entire household.

Acts 18:8 Crispus, the president of the synagogue, believed in the Lord together with his entire household, and many of the Corinthians who heard about it believed and were baptized.

Can an infant believe? If his "entire household" believed does that include infants? Can the words "entire household" be used and logically exclude infants? Apparently so.

I really think this issue will be easier to tackle after your discussion with DRA on baptism. Let me encourage you to go back to that discusion on Acts 2 and sort that out (either agreeing with him or not). I kind of get the sense (rightly or wrongly) that you believe baptism is important, but simply because it was commanded. I'm not sure you know why, or have thought that much about it.

In any event, it kind of reinforces my arguement that not all things are appropiate in all situations. I guess the worst thing that could happen to a baby is that he could get wet. But if the purpose of baptism is what I think it is, that's all he is. Wet.

I do see a problem with doing something man-made and saying it is in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I suppose that could possibly be blasphemy.

 

[- DRA -]

I apologize for interrupting your discussion and possibly for my naivety but I can't help think that Rom 14-15:7 might be in some way applicable to this discussion.

No problem. You are welcome to join in the discussion.

Occasionally Romans 14 comes up for discussion. The chapter discusses matters that God is indifferent about. Take verse 2. For conscience sake, one eats only vegetables. However, another eats all things (including meat) with a clear conscience. Which is right in this matter - a matter which God does not address in His word? The answer is: both are right. God has not spoken about this matter, and will accept both. Now, let's decide if this principle is applicable to Ephesians 5:19. God specifies what He wants. He specifies singing from the heart that serves to purposes: it is offered to God and it admonished fellow Christians. And, what is to be sung is also specified: psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves if it matters whether or not we do what God commands. If it matters, then it is not a matter of choice or personal conscience as the matters discussed in Romans 14. What do you think? Are commands of God optional? If so, which commands? Think about it and let us know what you decide.

If your convinced that worshipping with instruments is a sin, then for you it is a sin, follow your conscience. If your convinced its not, then you have liberty. Both sides of the debate have honed their positions now for a 100 odd years. If you believe that you have any hope of somehow reconciling the issue then by all means have at it, you would do the church no end of good. If sometime in your discussion you think that your not going to get anywhere and the other side just doesn't get what your conscience says is the truth then maybe an attempt at loving acceptance might be the only answer. Rom 14:9 "Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification."

Preaching the word (per 2 Timothy 4:2) isn't always about reconciling differences per se. I believe the focus should first be upon God and His word. That's what matters per Romans 3:4. God speaks through His word, and without a love for truth, the door is wide open for strong delusion per 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12.

Let's think together. Some that profess to follow Christ believe in salvation by faith only. On the other hand, some beg to differ, advocating that faith must be coupled with repentance, confession of Jesus, and baptism into His death, burial, and resurrection. Therefore, how do you see Romans 14:9 applying to that scenario?

DRA: Having had no contact with non-instrumental churches (there aren't many in Australia) do you mind if I ask the following questions?

No problem. Sincerely hope I can be of help.

By the way, one of your Australian westerns is one of my favorite movies ... "The Man From Snowy River."

Do I understand correctly that it is that your position that worship as described in the NT cannot have musical instruments, not that musical instruments are forbidden as such, just that if their used it isn't NT authorised worship? Do you accept that a church service can contain other things not directly mentioned in the NT as long as they edify the body? If a church held a instrument free worship time and then held a time of singing with music that others found edifying (even if for you it wouldn't be worship) would you have a problem? Could you feel free to attend (even if you wouldn't want to be a member)?

My position is that we should do what Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16, James 5:13, etc. tell us. No doubt, there are a lot of things not prohibited (i.e., forbidden) in the those passages. Therefore, the issue isn't about instrumental music per se, but about all the things not specifically forbidden in the passage. Are they authorized, or not? Yes or no? I base my answer on the principle taught in Hebrews 7:13-14. God was silent about priests from the tribe of Judah being priests under the law of Moses. However, God was not silent about the priests. He said the priests would be from Levi. Therefore, as I understand the point in its context, Jesus was NOT authorized to be a Levitical priest. He was from the wrong tribe. Therefore, of necessity, He had to a priest after a different order. My point? God specified the priests would descend from Levi in the O.T. writings. No prohibitions were given about priests from Judah, or for that matter, from Reuben, Simeon, Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Joseph, or Benjamin. Therefore, we have to decide if they were authorized or not. Let us know what you decide.

As for what can edify the church, in order for a thing to be helpful it must fall under the realm of authority. If not authorized either by generic or specific authority, there can be NO edification of the church. Rather, what takes place is outside the realm of what Jesus authorized, which I understand to be in the realm of error.

Now, let me address your questions ... my responses are orange font.

Do I understand correctly that it is that your position that worship as described in the NT cannot have musical instruments, not that musical instruments are forbidden as such, just that if their used it isn't NT authorised worship? Yes, that is correct. Instrumental music is not authorized under the gospel of Christ, whether in or out of the worship service per the context of Ephesians 5. Do you accept that a church service can contain other things not directly mentioned in the NT as long as they edify the body? Per Col. 3:17, whatever we do in word or deed must be done in the name of the Lord (i.e., done by His authority). Therefore, authority must first be established for a practice before we can decide what's edifying. Going back to the previous example from Hebrews 7:13-14, would it have been edifying for the Israelites to have priests from the tribe of Judah? I believe the principle taught there is directly applicable to Eph. 5:19. Both passages deal with what God specified. Therefore, if deviating from what God specified in one place is edifying, then deviating in the other passage should be acceptable. And, likewise, if deviating from what God specified is unacceptable is one passage, when it is unacceptable in the other passage. Let us know what you decide. If a church held a instrument free worship time and then held a time of singing with music that others found edifying (even if for you it wouldn't be worship) would you have a problem? Could you feel free to attend (even if you wouldn't want to be a member)? Note 2 John 9-11. Would you fellowship those who advocate error as long as they don't teach it or practice it while you were there? I won't. If I do, per my understanding of what is taught there, then I would be jointly participating in (i.e., having fellowship with) error.

If an instrumental church decided to reach out to your church and decided to hold a non instruemental services and requested since they had little experience to request that your church led the worship would you assist them?

I sincerely don't understand what you are asking. What is meant by "little experience?" Do they not know how to sing without instruments? However, if they are reaching out to better understand the issue that separates brethren, then I suggest we sit down together and study the issue (2 Timothy 2:15). Whether this issue or another, the real difference is going to boil down to how we handle God's word. Take Romans 14. I have to wonder how broadly "we" are willing to apply the chapter. And, take Eph. 5:19. We know what it says. And, we know what's not prohibited. Therefore, is everything not prohibited, acceptable? If not, by what methodology do we use to decide what is? And, does that methodology apply to other passages, or is it limited to Eph. 5:19? Give it some thought.

 

[- DRA -]

I have to disagree with this one. I don't think the instances above by necessity means infants were baptised. When viewed from my perspective of the purpose of baptism, children have no need of remission of sins so baptizing them is contrary to the purpose. I understand we disagree on this point.

What I think both of us agree on at a bare minimum, is that baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and our arising to walk in newness of life. This symbolism is lost on an infant and is not needed in the first place.

A closer examination of the passages involved show that in most passages, hearing and believing are also involved as well.

Acts 10:1 Now there was a man in Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort.
10:2 He was a devout, God-fearing man, as was all his household; he did many acts of charity for the people and prayed to God regularly.

Acts 16:29 Calling for lights, the jailer rushed in and fell down trembling at the feet of Paul and Silas.
16:30 Then he brought them outside and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
16:31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.”
16:32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him, along with all those who were in his house.
16:33 At that hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized right away.
16:34 The jailer brought them into his house and set food before them, and he rejoiced greatly that he had come to believe in God, together with his entire household.

Acts 18:8 Crispus, the president of the synagogue, believed in the Lord together with his entire household, and many of the Corinthians who heard about it believed and were baptized.

Can an infant believe? If his "entire household" believed does that include infants? Can the words "entire household" be used and logically exclude infants? Apparently so.

I really think this issue will be easier to tackle after your discussion with DRA on baptism. Let me encourage you to go back to that discusion on Acts 2 and sort that out (either agreeing with him or not). I kind of get the sense (rightly or wrongly) that you believe baptism is important, but simply because it was commanded. I'm not sure you know why, or have thought that much about it.

In any event, it kind of reinforces my arguement that not all things are appropiate in all situations. I guess the worst thing that could happen to a baby is that he could get wet. But if the purpose of baptism is what I think it is, that's all he is. Wet.

I do see a problem with doing something man-made and saying it is in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I suppose that could possibly be blasphemy.

 

[SilentRunner]

Please see the thread titled "A historical view of IM (for informational purposes only)" at the top of the page.

I read all of the quotations and the only reason given (that I could find) for not using musical instruments was because the Roman pagans used musical instruments in their worship. Not one referred to your argument about priests or any similar argument.

However, I don't believe anything outside of the Bible is sacred and is the Word of God. From my readings the Word of God does not prohibit using musical instruments during worship. And there is nothing in the scriptures to indicate that the first century Christians used or did not use musical instruments while singing. You've quoted the scripture instructing us to sing, but I noted that that scripture did not prohibit using musical instruments while singing. The commandment to sing is satisfied whether instruments are used or not.

(Now, if Roman pagans are the reason we must not sing accompanied by musical instruments, we should rename Easter to something Christian and we should probably move our celebration of Jesus' birth to some other date to avoid collusion with the pagans.)

(I sincerely believe we should refer to the day that Jesus arose from the dead by another name, but I'm ambivalent about the Christmas date.)

Regarding infant baptism, Peter told the crowd to repent of their sins and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins. I personally don't believe an infant can repent of its sins and I don't believe an infant has any sins.

The danger in "baptizing" infants (other than getting wet) is they will be told they have been baptized and as adults may never be baptized as Peter instructed...for the forgiveness of their sins. They will meet Christ unbaptized. And we know how they will be received by Christ because of what Christ Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-23:

"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’
Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

By the way, I have yet to hear of an infant being property baptized, i.e. immersed.

 

[SilentRunner]

I humbly request that you please try to respect that some us have deep reservations with the practice just as we respect your viewpoint and try to talk to you in a civil manner.

If a man does silly things, but does not recognize them to be silly, but thinks they are serious, I suppose that somehow in your heart you could find a way to forgive him. But if a man does silly things and knows they are silly while doing them.......well.......What are we to think of that??

I believe I am talking to you in a civil manner. Calling this argument silly is giving my opinion, not attempting to show disrespect for your viewpoint. I'm just saying your viewpoint is silly.

Yes, you are making a big deal out of a frivolous point, but that would not bother me except for the fact that you apparently think it is part of church (Christ's church) doctrine (at the same level as baptism perchance?) that we MUST not use musical instruments during worship and that we will go to hell because we enjoy worshiping God to our utmost.

Many people think the overt non-use of musical instruments by some congregations is ridiculous. And it is a stumbling block that prevents them from finding Christ.

 

[JDIBe]

I read all of the quotations and the only reason given (that I could find) for not using musical instruments was because the Roman pagans used musical instruments in their worship. Not one referred to your argument about priests or any similar argument.

However, I don't believe anything outside of the Bible is sacred and is the Word of God. From my readings the Word of God does not prohibit using musical instruments during worship. And there is nothing in the scriptures to indicate that the first century Christians used or did not use musical instruments while singing. You've quoted the scripture instructing us to sing, but I noted that that scripture did not prohibit using musical instruments while singing. The commandment to sing is satisfied whether instruments are used or not.

Well then, I'm afraid you must have skimmed them a little too quickly. The ECF make the distinction between the physical OT and the spiritual NT (it went well beyond Romans here).

CHRYSOSTOM
"David formerly sang songs, ---> also today we sing hymns.
He had a lyre with lifeless strings, ---> the church has a lyre with living strings. Our tongues are the strings of the lyre with a different tone indeed but much more in accordance with piety.
Here there is no need for the cithara, or for stretched strings, or for the plectrum, or for art, or for any instrument; ---> but, if you like, you may yourself become a cithara, mortifying the members of the flesh and making a full harmony of mind and body. For when the flesh no longer lusts against the Spirit, but has submitted to its orders and has been led at length into the best and most admirable path, then will you create a spiritual melody." (Chrysostom, 347-407, Exposition of Psalms 41, (381-398 A.D.) Source Readings in Music History, ed. O. Strunk, W. W. Norton and Co.: New York, 1950, pg. 70.)

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)

(Note the quote and exposition on Ps 150, an often quoted Psalm here, above)

The ECF compared and contrasted earthly (OT) instruments with spiritual (NT) ones. The OT is but a shadow of the more perfect thing to come. WE are the instrument with which we praise God more perfectly. This is what Paul is trying to say in Eph. "sing and make medody" (with what??) "in your hearts". It is the "heart strings" we are to play through our voices. Anything else is simply less, in the way, and can "inflame the passions" (can actually have a negative effect, and don't tell me you have not seen music turn into performance art, and the main event itself, for I know you have. We all have.)

Now as I have stated here many times before, I do not consider the ECF anywhere on par with Scriptural authority. If an ECF disagrees with Scripture, he must be rejected. If you cannot handle them properly, I would prefer that you ignore them altogether. However, I am guessing you are mature enough to weigh them properly, so I leave them to you. If nothing else, what they do is provide an insight as to how the earliest Christians viewed the Scriptures, and this can be quite useful as secondary evidence in matters where there is disagreement. If we are truly going to call ourselves a "Restoration Movement" and go back to the 1st century practices, it might be useful to find out what those were. From the biblical and historical evidence, if you say it cannot be determined if the earliest Christians used instruments or not, you are simply seeing only what you want to see and not being honest with yourself. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear. The only question left is, "Why not?", and they even answer that question in their writings.

Regarding infant baptism, Peter told the crowd to repent of their sins and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins. I personally don't believe an infant can repent of its sins and I don't believe an infant has any sins.

The danger in "baptizing" infants (other than getting wet) is they will be told they have been baptized and as adults may never be baptized as Peter instructed...for the forgiveness of their sins. They will meet Christ unbaptized. And we know how they will be received by Christ because of what Christ Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-23:


By the way, I have yet to hear of an infant being property baptized, i.e. immersed.

On this we do agree.....

I believe the Orthodox Church may immerse infants, but to be sure, ask an Orthodox.

 

[JDIBe]

Calling this argument silly is giving my opinion, not attempting to show disrespect for your viewpoint. I'm just saying your viewpoint is silly.

????

Yes, you are making a big deal out of a frivolous point, but that would not bother me except for the fact that you apparently think it is part of church (Christ's church) doctrine (at the same level as baptism perchance?) that we MUST not use musical instruments during worship and that we will go to hell because we enjoy worshiping God to our utmost.

Many people think the overt non-use of musical instruments by some congregations is ridiculous. And it is a stumbling block that prevents them from finding Christ.

I do not attempt to rank the Lord's Commands, sir. I simply try to follow them and please Him in the best way I can. If something is proper and edifying to do, then it is proper and edifying. I try not to classify things as "bad, but not bad enough to lose salvation over". The Lord determines who He will save and who He will not. That is beyond the scope of my responsibility. If the lack of a guitar keeps you from coming to Jesus, then I would humbly suggest you might have come for the wrong reasons.

I know you may find this RIDICULOUS, but at our congregation we enjoy to the utmost praising God and edifying each other as well. You will not find stirring musical performances and hot guitar solos turned up to high decbel levels. What you will find is a group of people lifting their voices up in unison to God and each other in song without musical instruments. I honestly cannot fathom that being a stumbling block to anyone interested in being a Christian. And although you may think it FRIVOLOUS, we will continue to do so. We would be SILLY not to.

I hope you will take what I have said under further consideration. Thank you for your time and I'll see you around the forum.