Why acappella only?

[Frisbee]

I really like the focus of the Restoration Movement, but I have one question regarding music and worship...

Why no musical instruments?

I read what the "official" response is, but there are a lot of things that could likewise be treated as such. For example bibles. They didn't have bibles in the early church, but they did have portions of the Old Testament and perhaps copies of letters passed from church to church. A complete 66 book bible was unheard of then. Of course having a bible is in addition to what they had then, so isn't having a guitar in addition to what they had then too?

 

[JDIBe]

I really like the focus of the Restoration Movement, but I have one question regarding music and worship...

Why no musical instruments?

I read what the "official" response is, but there are a lot of things that could likewise be treated as such. For example bibles. They didn't have bibles in the early church, but they did have portions of the Old Testament and perhaps copies of letters passed from church to church. A complete 66 book bible was unheard of then. Of course having a bible is in addition to what they had then, so isn't having a guitar in addition to what they had then too?

Hi. Welcome.

The analogy is not completely accurate. There are no earliest church writings decrying the use of Bibles or Holy Scripture (in fact, the earliest church fathers had a great respect for the Scriptures...). That is NOT the case with IM. They didn't use it. They told us WHY they didn't use it. It wasn't introduced until 700 years later (and then with great dissention) and actually not even common among Protestant churches until the 1800's.

Since you've already read the "official position", I don't want to turn this thread into a "why we don't use IM" one, but I'm sure someone will be along shortly to disagree with me.

But quite a few of us prefer to pass on instruments in worship.

 

[Frisbee]

You said that they told you why they didn't use them, and I am interested in where I can read abou that.

No need ot be defensive with me, I'm asking an honest question. I love the emphasis that you all put on earnestly seeking to restore the church to what the Apostles has originally intended. I am reading a book right now called "Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership" and am totally on board with the concepts and practices of the early church.

I would add and caution though that they did learn some leassons as they progressed (such as the Great Commission), so it isn't an entirely static world we're looking at. On the other hand I am not usually very well received when I point out what I feel are obvious deviations from scriptual worship, so if that's any indicator of the kind of treatment you're getting, I can and do understand the defensive posture.

 

[DerSchweik]

I really like the focus of the Restoration Movement, but I have one question regarding music and worship...

Why no musical instruments?

I read what the "official" response is, but there are a lot of things that could likewise be treated as such. For example bibles. They didn't have bibles in the early church, but they did have portions of the Old Testament and perhaps copies of letters passed from church to church. A complete 66 book bible was unheard of then. Of course having a bible is in addition to what they had then, so isn't having a guitar in addition to what they had then too?

I'll take a stab at this.

There're other thread(s) dealing with the "doctrinal basis" for / against IM in worship - I won't tread there in this post.

My position is purely personal - with some very (I think) practical reasons why I think acapella is "better." This is of course a value judgment but I hope my reasons go beyond mere values.

I became a Christian in a church wholly devoted to acapella music. As a congregation, we "knew" how to sing, meaning it was something we were taught - sopranos knew how to sing their staffs, altos, tenors, and bass' theirs as well. So we had true 4-part harmony in our singing. We didn't all necessarily know how to read music (I for example read music about as well as I read Russian), but we could follow the other voices that could.

We had a repertoire of songs and hymns we sung regularly - it was extensive, but limited too to those songs we loved to sing, whether because of their song quality, their inspiration, or both. All our songs were meant for congregations to sing - none were written for specific artists or musicians peculiar talents. Iow, they were in fact - singable!

Then we had a great church with good leadership all the way through the congregation. We were a vibrant, fruit-filled, growing congregation. There was a lot of Spirit-filled excitement and energy when we gathered. We were taught to encourage one another and love one another in all we did - which we did.

All that to say that when we sang, especially certain songs, we could literally "bring the house down." We felt, as a group, we were singing to the Lord and to one another. It was truly an experience and one unmatched in any church we've been part of some 20 years since.

In our current church, instruments are the norm. We worship in a chapel service rather than the main auditorium because the emphasis is less on instruments and amplification. But last Sunday was just plain discouraging - try as I might to have a proper attitude for worship, I just couldn't.

The "worship" started with 2 saxophones playing a duet for us. Then another song started that included bongo drums and tambourines. After that, the bongos continued with a Moog synthesizer accompanying a video on the overhead screen. And the "choir" for our little group of 40 people stood with microphones. As if all that weren't enough - the sound technician had the volume turned up so loud I had flashbacks to a Stones concert I once attended. Understand, we're in a little chapel room where one person could, without microphone, speak to the entire audience without raising his voice. My ears are still ringing and sore, it was, without exaggerating - physically painful.

It is argued by those who are pro-instruments that major musical stage productions are necessary today to "reach" today's generation. In my humble opinion, that is the purpose and power of the Gospel, and the gospel alone. Jesus employed a hill to preach to His audience, only because of their size. For some unknown reason, we feel artifice and man-made stage productions of massive proportions and over-powering cacaphonous volume is necessary today. For without them, people would not want to hear the gospel. I disagree.

I look out over the "audience" (for that is what we've become) being entertained by the modern stage productions and I see few people singing, mostly just weak lip movements mimicking the verses. As a church, we've lost our ability to sing. Goodness, we don't even display the music anymore, just the words! Words to songs, pretty songs I grant - but songs created by popular artists for THEIR voices and THEIR singing talents. I can't explain how many songs are truly "unsingable" by a congregation of unskilled singers. It's pathetic, really; and sad.

What bothers me with IM is that it is taking worship in song from the pews and putting it on stage. I don't like it, I think it's wrong and detrimental - but I can't give you "book, chapter, and verse" why.

All I know is this generation of Christians is going to heaven not having a clue how to sing, or possessing any genuine love for singing, who'll be expecting someone on stage to direct their worship to God. I just pray our "heavenly lips" are more capable than our earthly ones are to mouth the words.

But, that's just my opinion - I could be wrong - and usually am.

 

[Frisbee]

I don't think you're wrong. I agree with much of what you said!

I teach a men's group bible study on Saturday mornings and I play the guitar for worship prior to the bible study. I'm not very good, and the guitar acts more as a way for us to stay in the same sport, let alone the same ballpark. One of the guys has Down Syndrome and sings pretty loud, so anyone next to him has a difficult time even with the guitar to help keep it in key. To the one, we all aren't very talented muscially, so with us it definetely isn't about "stage production". But like I said, I agree with your point in principle, but that part just doesn't apply to us. we stink to put it mildly


One day about a year or so ago we were singing before bible study got started and it was the worst we ever sounded. It was like a herd of tom cats meowing at the full moon. Absolutley the worst thing you've ever heard. It was acappella, but that wasn't why we sounded so bad. We sounded so bad beause we were singing off key, off time and off beat (if that is possoble while you're already off time). Anyhow...

After we opened in prayer I asked the guys a simple question. I asked if God heard our hearts, or that horrible sound we just made? Everyone laughed, but we all agreed that God was deaf to the music we made and could care less what we sounded like, but likewise that He did indeed hear us trying with all of our hearts despite how bad we knew we sounded, and that that would have sounded sweet to His ears.

The Mormon tabernacle Choir sounds fantastic, but it's not the music that God hears. I'm convinced of that already. I don't even think He is impressed when we pick good sounds that have great words, like Amaing Grace for example. I think that God only wants to hear us worship Him. And worship comes from the heart, not the mouth.

 

[JDIBe]

You said that they told you why they didn't use them, and I am interested in where I can read abou that.

No need ot be defensive with me, I'm asking an honest question. I love the emphasis that you all put on earnestly seeking to restore the church to what the Apostles has originally intended. I am reading a book right now called "Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership" and am totally on board with the concepts and practices of the early church.

I would add and caution though that they did learn some leassons as they progressed (such as the Great Commission), so it isn't an entirely static world we're looking at. On the other hand I am not usually very well received when I point out what I feel are obvious deviations from scriptual worship, so if that's any indicator of the kind of treatment you're getting, I can and do understand the defensive posture.

My apologies if it came off that way. I have no issue with you. It's just this is the way it always seems to start. Someone asks. Someone tells. Someone else feels the need to rebut, point out that not all feel that way, and quote Ps. 150. Someone else counters with Ps. 118:27 and off we go.....

Also, my quotation marks were not sarcastic ones (which I admittedly use too often...) but simply there because there is really no "official position" as we have no creed, but rather a "general consensus" among many of us on the subject. I must admit there is a certain weariness on my part arguing this subject which seems to show through in that post, coupled with a really bad week....

Here is a link to an earlier post regarding historical sources on IM. My advice would be to consider them only in regard as to how they shed light on what the Scriptures say. Since the Scriptures are apparently not explicitly clear on the subject (hence the arguing) I feel they carry some weight in determining what the earliest Christians thought.

http://christianforums.com/t4616176-a-historical-view-of-im-for-informational-purposes-only.html

If you need more information, PM me and I'll try to find you some other info. Good luck in your search, and may you go where God and His Word lead you.

 

[DerSchweik]

I don't think you're wrong. I agree with much of what you said!

I teach a men's group bible study on Saturday mornings and I play the guitar for worship prior to the bible study. I'm not very good, and the guitar acts more as a way for us to stay in the same sport, let alone the same ballpark. One of the guys has Down Syndrome and sings pretty loud, so anyone next to him has a difficult time even with the guitar to help keep it in key. To the one, we all aren't very talented muscially, so with us it definetely isn't about "stage production". But like I said, I agree with your point in principle, but that part just doesn't apply to us. we stink to put it mildly


One day about a year or so ago we were singing before bible study got started and it was the worst we ever sounded. It was like a herd of tom cats meowing at the full moon. Absolutley the worst thing you've ever heard. It was acappella, but that wasn't why we sounded so bad. We sounded so bad beause we were singing off key, off time and off beat (if that is possoble while you're already off time). Anyhow...

After we opened in prayer I asked the guys a simple question. I asked if God heard our hearts, or that horrible sound we just made? Everyone laughed, but we all agreed that God was deaf to the music we made and could care less what we sounded like, but likewise that He did indeed hear us trying with all of our hearts despite how bad we knew we sounded, and that that would have sounded sweet to His ears.

The Mormon tabernacle Choir sounds fantastic, but it's not the music that God hears. I'm convinced of that already. I don't even think He is impressed when we pick good sounds that have great words, like Amaing Grace for example. I think that God only wants to hear us worship Him. And worship comes from the heart, not the mouth.

LOL - I agree. Our church ministered to the mentally handicapped - Down's and other mental handicaps. There were usually about 15 or 20 in attendance and they'd typically cluster in the pews in groups of 4 or 5. It was pure joy to be around them during singing. Like you said, they had voices like cowbells - and they would sing louder than anyone - they loved to sing to the Lord! At first, the temptation is to be offended - but you just couldn't when you saw how pure their hearts were for Him!

Our "voices" ran the gamut from cowbells to sirens, booming drums to soft breezes, fair tones to angelic. We loved that together we "made a joyful noise" to the Lord. The incredible thing was, when you put all those voices together, the individual cacaphony became an angelic symphony of song!

Our singing, not because we were good mind you, but our singing inspired our visitors. They loved to come and attend, not only to hear us, but to be around us. It was great Christian example - they saw Christ in our lives and in our singing and praise of God. I NEVER heard one visitor EVER describe our worship services as "entertainment." Most would hang around with us after services for fellowship and many would end up studying the bible with us and become Christians as a result.

But sadly, today we seem to feel the need to entertain our visitors in hopes they will hear the gospel. When the entertainment is over, they - along with most members, will "hit the gate at 98." And the auditorium will be emptied in a matter of minutes...

The "Entertainment Gospel" is no gospel at all. Instruments might be used to enhance singing, but there is NEVER a substitute for singing.

God bless!

 

[Frisbee]

Hey, no worries friend! And Amen!!!

 

[cremi]

Hey, no worries friend! And Amen!!!

I also wanted to point out too, without ruffling anyone's feathers too much here, that acapella is mostly a church of Christ tradition, as opposed to a Restoration Movement tradition. If you attend a Christian church or a Disciples of Christ church (both considered to be RM churches) you will most likely find instrumental music.

 

[DerSchweik]

I also wanted to point out too, without ruffling anyone's feathers too much here, that acapella is mostly a church of Christ tradition, as opposed to a Restoration Movement tradition. If you attend a Christian church or a Disciples of Christ church (both considered to be RM churches) you will most likely find instrumental music.

Yes, and please forgive my "rant." Touched a chord I suppose, ha! (No pun intended).

 

[cremi]

Yes, and please forgive my "rant." Touched a chord I suppose, ha! (No pun intended).

You were ranting? I didn't see that at all...only sharing your view.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

I really like the focus of the Restoration Movement, but I have one question regarding music and worship...

Why no musical instruments?

I read what the "official" response is, but there are a lot of things that could likewise be treated as such. For example bibles. They didn't have bibles in the early church, but they did have portions of the Old Testament and perhaps copies of letters passed from church to church. A complete 66 book bible was unheard of then. Of course having a bible is in addition to what they had then, so isn't having a guitar in addition to what they had then too?

The bottom line is that the New Testament says absolutely NOTHING about the use - or non-use - of instruments in worship. Verses that are used to force the anti-instrumental position (such as Ephesians 5:19) are mis-interpreted and force-fitted to fit a predisposed mindset (actually, Ephesians 5:19 speaks of "psalms" which, by definition, are songs accompanied by stringed instruments...).

Considering that we "claim" to be people who live and walk by faith in the grace of God, expressed through the sacrifice of Jesus, I find it mind-boggling that people claim God is going to send people to Hell for doing something He never said we shouldn't do (use instrumental accompaniment in worship).

 

[ParsonJefferson]

I'll take a stab at this.

There're other thread(s) dealing with the "doctrinal basis" for / against IM in worship - I won't tread there in this post.

My position is purely personal - with some very (I think) practical reasons why I think acapella is "better." This is of course a value judgment but I hope my reasons go beyond mere values.

I became a Christian in a church wholly devoted to acapella music. As a congregation, we "knew" how to sing, meaning it was something we were taught - sopranos knew how to sing their staffs, altos, tenors, and bass' theirs as well. So we had true 4-part harmony in our singing. We didn't all necessarily know how to read music (I for example read music about as well as I read Russian), but we could follow the other voices that could.

We had a repertoire of songs and hymns we sung regularly - it was extensive, but limited too to those songs we loved to sing, whether because of their song quality, their inspiration, or both. All our songs were meant for congregations to sing - none were written for specific artists or musicians peculiar talents. Iow, they were in fact - singable!

Then we had a great church with good leadership all the way through the congregation. We were a vibrant, fruit-filled, growing congregation. There was a lot of Spirit-filled excitement and energy when we gathered. We were taught to encourage one another and love one another in all we did - which we did.

All that to say that when we sang, especially certain songs, we could literally "bring the house down." We felt, as a group, we were singing to the Lord and to one another. It was truly an experience and one unmatched in any church we've been part of some 20 years since.

In our current church, instruments are the norm. We worship in a chapel service rather than the main auditorium because the emphasis is less on instruments and amplification. But last Sunday was just plain discouraging - try as I might to have a proper attitude for worship, I just couldn't.

The "worship" started with 2 saxophones playing a duet for us. Then another song started that included bongo drums and tambourines. After that, the bongos continued with a Moog synthesizer accompanying a video on the overhead screen. And the "choir" for our little group of 40 people stood with microphones. As if all that weren't enough - the sound technician had the volume turned up so loud I had flashbacks to a Stones concert I once attended. Understand, we're in a little chapel room where one person could, without microphone, speak to the entire audience without raising his voice. My ears are still ringing and sore, it was, without exaggerating - physically painful.

It is argued by those who are pro-instruments that major musical stage productions are necessary today to "reach" today's generation. In my humble opinion, that is the purpose and power of the Gospel, and the gospel alone. Jesus employed a hill to preach to His audience, only because of their size. For some unknown reason, we feel artifice and man-made stage productions of massive proportions and over-powering cacaphonous volume is necessary today. For without them, people would not want to hear the gospel. I disagree.

I look out over the "audience" (for that is what we've become) being entertained by the modern stage productions and I see few people singing, mostly just weak lip movements mimicking the verses. As a church, we've lost our ability to sing. Goodness, we don't even display the music anymore, just the words! Words to songs, pretty songs I grant - but songs created by popular artists for THEIR voices and THEIR singing talents. I can't explain how many songs are truly "unsingable" by a congregation of unskilled singers. It's pathetic, really; and sad.

What bothers me with IM is that it is taking worship in song from the pews and putting it on stage. I don't like it, I think it's wrong and detrimental - but I can't give you "book, chapter, and verse" why.

All I know is this generation of Christians is going to heaven not having a clue how to sing, or possessing any genuine love for singing, who'll be expecting someone on stage to direct their worship to God. I just pray our "heavenly lips" are more capable than our earthly ones are to mouth the words.

But, that's just my opinion - I could be wrong - and usually am.

You make some great points! I personally despise the "rock concert you can sing along with, if you can" style of worship. But be careful of over-stating and over-generalizing.

The congregation I pastor uses instruments in worship, and usually background singers to help the congregation hear and sing their parts. It's an "acoustic-driven" style of music (if that makes any sense) and our worship leader is EXTREMELY careful with volumes and the mix of instruments. It is not showy at all.

Sometimes the singing is so loud you can barely hear the instruments. Sometimes I simply close my eyes and listen - and am almost always brought near to, or to, tears.

There are other Sundays when we have an all-accappella worship service where we sing only old hymns. We love that too!


Unfortunately, people on both sides of the "instrumental aisle" tend to make far too much of the debate about instruments. They are neither commanded or condemned in the New Testament (though clearly they were used in the Old Testament, and Revelation speaks of them being used in Heaven).

Our focus should be on worshiping God, not on our man-made traditions concerning exactly how we do it.

 

[DerSchweik]

You make some great points! I personally despise the "rock concert you can sing along with, if you can" style of worship. But be careful of over-stating and over-generalizing.

The congregation I pastor uses instruments in worship, and usually background singers to help the congregation hear and sing their parts. It's an "acoustic-driven" style of music (if that makes any sense) and our worship leader is EXTREMELY careful with volumes and the mix of instruments. It is not showy at all.

Sometimes the singing is so loud you can barely hear the instruments. Sometimes I simply close my eyes and listen - and am almost always brought near to, or to, tears.

There are other Sundays when we have an all-accappella worship service where we sing only old hymns. We love that too!

Unfortunately, people on both sides of the "instrumental aisle" tend to make far too much of the debate about instruments. They are neither commanded or condemned in the New Testament (though clearly they were used in the Old Testament, and Revelation speaks of them being used in Heaven).

Our focus should be on worshiping God, not on our man-made traditions concerning exactly how we do it.

LOL - overstatement and generalization are a "burden" I must bear, ha! I think both are side-"blessings" of having recently graduated from OFU - "Old Fart U" - at least that's what my wife is always saying to me - 'you old fart you!"

True, I do tend to overstatement and generalization when it comes to my personal preferences - and that is all IM / Non-IM is for me. I agree, I think it severely straining to extract firm doctrinal positions about either from the NT. Still, I stick by my response to the OP - while personal preference, my experience with IM has thus far been negative, on the whole.

I tend to make a distinction between worship and praise. I view worship as bowing down before Him in reverence and awe, solemnly prostrating ourselves (figuratively or otherwise) before His majesty and might. I view praise as exalting him in thankfulness and joy for the salvation He has brought us.

Some churches seem to offer exclusively worship services; some seem to offer exclusively praise services; and some do both. IMO, the latter is perhaps most appropriate, some combination of the two. But both (praise and worship) must come from the heart. When the Psalms enjoin us to praise Him, often they do so inclusive of instruments - and that makes sense to me - it's PRAISE - it's exciting, fun, and joyful! Get in the mood! Sing, dance, play!! But there are times too when man encounters God and when worship is then the order of the moment - reverential, awesome, humbling... The mood, I'm sure most would acknowledge is entirely different than praise.

I guess this is my whole point on the issue of IM in church... there is a time and a place for both. I am saddened when, in our church, we feel a need to play amplified instruments for everything - song, tithe, prayer, Lord's Supper - everything - except of course announcements . There are some moments, like during the Lord's Supper, I am intent on worshipping Him and don't want bongo drums and tambourines banging and clanging in the background. And there are some songs / hymns that I don't want that either. But some songs are enhanced by IM too! Battle Hymn of the Republic might be a good example - "get with it folks! belt this one out!!!"

Old farts never die... they just linger on...

 

[ParsonJefferson]

LOL - overstatement and generalization are a "burden" I must bear, ha! I think both are side-"blessings" of having recently graduated from OFU - "Old Fart U" - at least that's what my wife is always saying to me - 'you old fart you!"

True, I do tend to overstatement and generalization when it comes to my personal preferences - and that is all IM / Non-IM is for me. I agree, I think it severely straining to extract firm doctrinal positions about either from the NT. Still, I stick by my response to the OP - while personal preference, my experience with IM has thus far been negative, on the whole.

I tend to make a distinction between worship and praise. I view worship as bowing down before Him in reverence and awe, solemnly prostrating ourselves (figuratively or otherwise) before His majesty and might. I view praise as exalting him in thankfulness and joy for the salvation He has brought us.

Some churches seem to offer exclusively worship services; some seem to offer exclusively praise services; and some do both. IMO, the latter is perhaps most appropriate, some combination of the two. But both (praise and worship) must come from the heart. When the Psalms enjoin us to praise Him, often they do so inclusive of instruments - and that makes sense to me - it's PRAISE - it's exciting, fun, and joyful! Get in the mood! Sing, dance, play!! But there are times too when man encounters God and when worship is then the order of the moment - reverential, awesome, humbling... The mood, I'm sure most would acknowledge is entirely different than praise.

I guess this is my whole point on the issue of IM in church... there is a time and a place for both. I am saddened when, in our church, we feel a need to play amplified instruments for everything - song, tithe, prayer, Lord's Supper - everything - except of course announcements . There are some moments, like during the Lord's Supper, I am intent on worshipping Him and don't want bongo drums and tambourines banging and clanging in the background. And there are some songs / hymns that I don't want that either. But some songs are enhanced by IM too! Battle Hymn of the Republic might be a good example - "get with it folks! belt this one out!!!"

Old farts never die... they just linger on...

Again, good points - especially for an old fart!

 

[- DRA -]

I also wanted to point out too, without ruffling anyone's feathers too much here, that acapella is mostly a church of Christ tradition, as opposed to a Restoration Movement tradition. If you attend a Christian church or a Disciples of Christ church (both considered to be RM churches) you will most likely find instrumental music.

Never heard passages such as Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16, or James 5:13 referred to as a " church of Christ tradition." They are the basis for singing, what Christians are to sing, and how Christians are to sing.

As best as I can discern, Acts 2:47 doesn't exactly say the Lord adds the saved to a RM church - which gives Christians three options on which church to attend. Rather, He adds the saved to the church (i.e., His church). What needs to be determined is what His people should be doing in light of His word (i.e., doing that which He authorized per Colossians 3:17). Unless my history is bad, some folks involved in denominationalism many years ago realized they needed to return to the N.T. pattern. However, disagreement arose over instrumental music ... which was just starting to gain some acceptance among the denominations. Division arose within those trying to restore the church to what the N.T. teaches, and they separated themselves from the church of Christ. Like error has a tendency to do, over time folks fell farther and farther away from God's word. The mindset that separates the church of Christ (a cappella) from the church of Christ (instrumental), Christian Church, and the Disciples of Christ is really a matter of authority - how it is determined, how it is applied, etc. Once God's people abandon His word and His authority in one respect, the door is wide open for other unscriptural practices to follow. It may take time, but it will happen.

I read an interesting thought not long ago that left an impression on me. A writer stated that over time every faithful church will fall away and become unfaithful. However, it doesn't have to happen during our lifetime. I have made it my goal as a Christian and an elder to keep that very thought in mind continually and look for ways to strengthen myself and other Christians.

May we never give up the fight to resist evil and do what is right according to God's standards.

 

[- DRA -]

The bottom line is that the New Testament says absolutely NOTHING about the use - or non-use - of instruments in worship. Verses that are used to force the anti-instrumental position (such as Ephesians 5:19) are mis-interpreted and force-fitted to fit a predisposed mindset (actually, Ephesians 5:19 speaks of "psalms" which, by definition, are songs accompanied by stringed instruments...).

Considering that we "claim" to be people who live and walk by faith in the grace of God, expressed through the sacrifice of Jesus, I find it mind-boggling that people claim God is going to send people to Hell for doing something He never said we shouldn't do (use instrumental accompaniment in worship).

Okay, this is not the first time we've discussed this issue before.

Previously, you have declared that Eph. 5:19 has no application to the assembly. I begged to differ with you then, as I still do. Ephesians 5 is not dealing with the assembly per se, but it does apply. To illustrate, consider Eph. 5:18 - "Do not be drunk with wine." Per your reasoning (i.e., this has no application to the assembly), it would be unacceptable to be drunk with wine outside the assembly, but since the passage cannot be applied to the assembly, drunkenness in the assembly would be acceptable. Like it or not, this example shows your reasoning leaves much to be desired.

Granted ... the N.T. says nothing about the use or non-use of instruments in worship. However, unless I’m badly mistaken, God’s word DOES tell us that singing pleases Him. The types of songs are specified, as is how the songs are to be sung. Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16, and James 5:13 are examples of such teaching. I deny these verses are being “used to force the anti-instrumental position.” These verses plainly tell us what God commands and what pleases Him. If any “forcing” is being done, it is being done by those who try to force something into those passages that simply isn’t there.

As for the word “psalms” (the Koine Greek word psalmos) in Ephesians 5:19, we have also previously discussed this point.
“Psalmos” in the New Testament:
* Luke 20:42 - Now David himself said in the Book of Psalms: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand.
* Luke 24:44 - Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”
* Acts 1:20 – “For it is written in the book of Psalms: ‘Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it’; and, ‘Let another take his office.’
* Acts 13:33 - God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’
* 1 Corinthians 14:26 - How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.
* Ephesians 5:19 - speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord,
* Colossians 3:16 - Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

What I have asked you to do previously (several times), is to take the definition for “psalms” you offer, insert it into the passages where the word “psalms” appears, and see if the proposed definition makes sense. For some strange reason, you have balked every single time and have been unwilling to do what you ask others to do. I believe it is clear and evident that “psalms” as used in the New Testament simply refers to the book of Psalms, or an excerpt from that book.

Those who “claim” to walk by faith should be willing to examine themselves per 2 Corinthians 13:5. Putting things in perspective, judgment belongs to the Lord. Simply stated, none of us determine who goes to hell, or who goes to heaven. Rather, our role as Christians is to “preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:2) and to “speak as the oracles of God (1 Peter 4:11a). Therefore, we should preach/speak what passages such as Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16, and James 5:13 say.

Previously, I have asked you about the silence of the Scriptures as it relates to Hebrews 7:13-14. Concisely stated in that context, Jesus is being presented as a priest after the order of Melchizedek versus the Levitical system. Under the law of Moses, God specified that the priests would be from the tribe of Levi. Jesus descended from the tribe of Judah. God was silent about the tribe of Judah concerning the priesthood (the point of Heb. 7:14). The point the Hebrew writer is making is that this silence did NOT authorize priests from Judah. Rather, it prohibited them – because God specifically said from whom the priests would descend. Therefore, of necessity, Jesus had to be a priest after a different order than the Levites. Note the conclusion of the point in Hebrews 7:21 and 8:4. With this principle in mind, let’s consider the basics of Ephesians 5:19: God tells Christians what action pleases Him – singing; what is to be sung – psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; and how we are to sing – from the heart. Applying the principle of Hebrews 7:13-14, we have to decide if silence authorizes or doesn’t authorize things not specified. It is clear in Hebrews 7 that silence prohibits where God has spoken. Why is it that “we” struggle so to apply this principle to Ephesians 5:19?

 

[cremi]

Never heard passages such as Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16, or James 5:13 referred to as a " church of Christ tradition." They are the basis for singing, what Christians are to sing, and how Christians are to sing.

As best as I can discern, Acts 2:47 doesn't exactly say the Lord adds the saved to a RM church - which gives Christians three options on which church to attend. Rather, He adds the saved to the church (i.e., His church). What needs to be determined is what His people should be doing in light of His word (i.e., doing that which He authorized per Colossians 3:17). Unless my history is bad, some folks involved in denominationalism many years ago realized they needed to return to the N.T. pattern. However, disagreement arose over instrumental music ... which was just starting to gain some acceptance among the denominations. Division arose within those trying to restore the church to what the N.T. teaches, and they separated themselves from the church of Christ. Like error has a tendency to do, over time folks fell farther and farther away from God's word. The mindset that separates the church of Christ (a cappella) from the church of Christ (instrumental), Christian Church, and the Disciples of Christ is really a matter of authority - how it is determined, how it is applied, etc. Once God's people abandon His word and His authority in one respect, the door is wide open for other unscriptural practices to follow. It may take time, but it will happen.

I read an interesting thought not long ago that left an impression on me. A writer stated that over time every faithful church will fall away and become unfaithful. However, it doesn't have to happen during our lifetime. I have made it my goal as a Christian and an elder to keep that very thought in mind continually and look for ways to strengthen myself and other Christians.

May we never give up the fight to resist evil and do what is right according to God's standards.

Ah DRA! How I have missed disagreeing with you!

Not much else to say...we'll only end up in circles and I don't really want to do that. I'm so far from RM doctrine now that I really have nothing to add to the disagreement already put forth here. Be blessed and as always continually seek His Face!

 

[- DRA -]

Ah DRA! How I have missed disagreeing with you!

Not much else to say...we'll only end up in circles and I don't really want to do that. I'm so far from RM doctrine now that I really have nothing to add to the disagreement already put forth here. Be blessed and as always continually seek His Face!

Not sure if it's intentional (but strongly suspect it is as many times as I've seen it happen), but you have a unique way of letting folks know that you have separated yourself from "RM doctrines and traditions" (borrowed from one of your previous posts) and find it hard to disguise your contempt for those who try to follow the N.T. pattern. Of course, you know that those practicing the truth have no doctrines or traditions other than those taught in God's word. Unless, of course, you've also dismissed the need for authority for all we say and do (Colossians 3:17), and that God's word completely equips us for all we need to please and do His will (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and that we should speak as the oracles of God (1 Peter 4:11a). If that's the case, I'm sure it's most comforting to undermine God's word and dismiss selected passages as the traditions of men.

Once upon a time, the Saul found himself kicking against the goads (borrowing from the language of Acts 9:5 in the KJV & NKJV). He finally realized he needed to stop fighting the Lord and His people. In 1 Corinthians 11:1 he admonishes the Corinthians (and us today) to follow his example.

Just a thought.

Have a nice day.

 

[cremi]

Contempt? No. Sadness more than anything.

I DO apologize, however, if offense has been taken by anything I've posted. I've not meant to offend or give the impression of contempt.

I suppose it comes across that way because the arguements are the same and I don't really see the purpose in continuing on in the arguements. They always end up in the same place. I will make an attempt to not be so snarky in my posts from here on.

I will say that the pattern of condescending to those who don't believe as you do is also quite old.

...and find it hard to disguise your contempt for those who try to follow the N.T. pattern. Of course, you know that those practicing the truth have no doctrines or traditions other than those taught in God's word. Unless, of course, you've also dismissed the need for authority for all we say and do (Colossians 3:17), and that God's word completely equips us for all we need to please and do His will (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and that we should speak as the oracles of God (1 Peter 4:11a). If that's the case, I'm sure it's most comforting to undermine God's word and dismiss selected passages as the traditions of men.

If I were as lost as you seem to indicate here, do you think your words here would really cause me to want to turn back?

What I have to say is that I haven't left Christ, that I'm a true believer and that I'm growing more spiritually right now than I've grown in years. I've not undermined God's word, but rather have begun to really understand what his grace is really about. It's as if the scales have really fallen off of my eyes and I am beginning to see clearly for the first time. That has allowed me to be Free in Christ in a way I did not know freedom before. I am awed at what Christ has done for me---a meager and undeservng sinner, who has been saved! I am spurred on to do what HE wants me to do and to share with others about HIS great and awesome power. I am excited and revitilized, but at the same time, see how foolish I was before, for pursuing foolish arguements that meant nothing to Him.

No...no contmept. More than anything, I wish you could see and know I what I do now. That's all. The simple gospel of God's unfailing love, his undeserved grace and righteous judgement.