Music in Church?

[ISeeYou]

Die stupid thread die!!!

ROFL!!!

(That made me laugh)

 

[Ukorin]

Evidently you did not read what I posted. Where did I post David would not be saved?

What I did post was to show what David did has nothing to do with how the NT Christian worships and that everything David did was not as God wanted it. As I see it God did not want IM used in worship to Him, God did not want men having multiple wives/concubines yet David did these things anyway but that does not make them right. Under the OT, God was longsuffering, tolerating some of the wrong things they did but God does not do this anymore, Acts 17:30.

David worshiped God in Spirit and in Truth. He satisfied the spirit of the Law, which is the Law of Christ.
Did David ever sin? Yes, and was rebuked for it.
Was anyone ever rebuked for praising God through using instruments? Nope, quite the opposite.

More wrongly dividing the Word of Truth will not help your cause.

 

[notuptome]

Die stupid thread die!!!

But....and the band played on.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Sirk]

But....and the band played on.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

They need to learn another song!! Please learn another song.....please. If you're gonna keep playing the same song at least add another instrument. The annoying sound of a 4 on the floor cowbell oughta redirect the pain.

 

[posthuman]

Die stupid thread die!!!

but only one more page 'till Jubilee!

 

[SeaBass]

If one person sings a solo, then another sings a solo, and everyone sings a solo, then 'you' sings, and it's reciprocal. You are assuming the singing is all going on at one time, rather than in turn. Like I posted earlier, at least one Greek expert has written that it allows for the possibility for turn-taking solos. Your quotes don't support that congregational was the only way it could be done.

"Every one of you hath a psalm" describes turn taking solos, since each one has a psalm, and it is to be done unto edifying. This is still 'one another.' I'm not saying congregational singing isn't. But you don't have a specific case of it in post-Pentecost church experience or a specific command that should be interpreted only as congregational singing.

You may have heard that Luther added congregational singing during the Reformation. Apparently, there was an ancient practice of antiphonal singing, but we are looking at what the New Testament actually says and your rigid method of only allowing things for which you have a specific example.

Btw, where does it say that an evangelist is allowed to preach in church? What verse would you point to?



I get the impression that you think they were to sing the psalm. I'd admit you have a valid point. A psalm could be presented in the sense of reading the Psalms, a reference to a passage of scripture. But why would Paul only mention individuals having psalms as opposed to sections from the prophets or the Torah? That would seem odd. Several verses before, he said, "I will sing with the spirit, and with the understanding." (Which also sounds like a solo, doesn't it.) So singing, and singing a solo at that, is already mentioned in the passage. The idea that that psalm is a song that is sung seems more reasonable.

Presupposing that if one had a psalm, he'd suggest it for congregational singing or antiphonal singing is a supposition on your part. You are starting from the assumption that singing together as a group is the norm, something you also read into the Colossians and Ephesians passages.

I'm not against turn-taking solos or congregational singing. I believe there were choirs in the Old Testament. Jewish practice is to sing certain psalms after Passover 'congregationally', and Jesus sang a hymn after the Passover meal. But I'm going back pre-ascension before Pentecost for some background, and I don't mind doing that. I don't mind looking at groups singing in Revelation either (along with the harps, and the sound of harps, which doesn't bother me.)

If a verse does not explicitly state a truth, or at least necessarily imply it, no speculation should be made by which to justify some coveted practice. Imagination is a poor base upon which to construct an argument.

Do you mean imagination like imagining that 'speaking to one another' must refer to congregational singing as opposed to taking turns?

Btw, why do you allow singing at all? If he melody is to be made in the heart, why don't you just speak psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs and FORBID singing? That would seem to be the logical end of your approach.

I'm calling your approach the regulative principle. You may not call it that. But where is your New Testament justification for the idea that if something isn't specifically prescribed in church, it is forbidden. The 'go to' text for this belief is about Nadab and Abihu in the context of temple liturgy.

Why would one be allowed to go to Old Testament temple liturgy and apply a principle from it to New Testament church meetings but not allow for instrumental music, which we also see in the temple and tabernacle.



You haven't established the fact that speaking in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs refers exclusively to congregational singing. Your quotes did not support that view. Turn taking is also 'one another.' When we admonish 'one another' we take turns. If we all do it at the same time, then no one could hear what other people are saying. We are to 'exhort one another' but if we do it all at the same time, no one could make out what anyone else is saying.

Peter called David a prophet while expounding on one of his Psalms, a song no doubt sung by David and others. I Corinthians those who call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to prophesy. It's possible a prophet could have sung a prophecy, as David did when he prophesied.



This isn't really my cup of tea, but I've been in meetings in the south where everyone prays at the same time, and I've heard that verse used to support the idea.



Are you quoting someone called Macknight or addressing a poster with that name? Your punctuation isn't clear if you are quoting. I'm not following this line of reasoning. Are you applying the commandments on speaking in tongues or the instructions on prophesying. Why would those instructions apply to prayer?


Since we have the Bible, I don't really care too much what this guy Hodge's opinion is on the matter. There is no Biblical reason to think that these gifts aren't still active or that the Spirit is not giving revelation to believers in the meetings. Paul prayed for believers to have the Spirit of revelation. We are commanded to covet to prophesy. Hebrews 10 commands believers not to forsake assembling, but to 'exhort.' As you noted with the command to speak to yourselves in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, the command there is not to listen to others exhort, but to exhort. (That doesn't mean we aren't to listen as well, but that there is a command to exhort.)

Romans 12 commands the one gifted to prophesy to prophesy, the one gifted to teach to teach, and the one gifted to exhort to exhort. Why wouldn't teaching and exhortation be used in a 'mutual' way like prophesying? There isn't a command to follow the same order, but why should we have a Protestant type service with one speaker at the front, only, and no one else gifted to teach doing the teaching? Paul taught all night once. The word for teach is the word from which we get 'dialogue' and it could have been interactive. But he didn't command any church to have just one elder speak in a meeting or just one member of the body. The early churches didn't have New Testament scripture, and it made sense if an apostle taught all night long before he left.



Since the Lord allows every one to have a psalm as long as it is done unto edifying, then it's pretty silly to argue that individuals can't do so just because the Corinthians could be seen as being selfishly individualistic.

(Btw, I don't think individualism is the issue. They could have been collectivists, some of whom considered the poor in the body to be part of the out-group rather than in-group.)

Let's face it. Don't you think that your type of church has everything right? They sing congregationally, so you think that must be right. That's what you are used to. That's what you've been taught. From the quotes you selected, it seems like you are against solos and choir music in church.

But let's really consider if your perspective is Biblical. First of all, the actual commands on what to do in church have to do with allowing people to speak in tongues and interpret and to prophesy in an orderly manner. But doesn't the religious tradition you are a part of and yourself personally have a problem with these things?

Your church has congregational singing, and you are against solos in church, right? But 'speaking to yourselves' can be done in turn or collectively. Normally, if it's a conversation, it would be done 'in turn.' You insist that the 'making melody in your hearts to the Lord' means the only musical instrument that can be allowed is the heart. But since Paul says to 'speak' the psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, and the melody is in the heart, why don't you apply the same logic and forbid singing, and only allow the speaking of psalms?

And the idea that you can't do anything in church unless it is specifically commanded comes from Old Testament passages about temple liturgy. (I get the impression that the Presbyterians from whence your movement got the regulative principle were less strict against using the Old Testament.) So why can't we look at what the Old Testament says about musical instruments and use that as a justification for musical instruments in church?

The condition Eph 5 is that everyone must sing to obey the command to be filled with the spirit. If one person (or group) sings and I do nothing, then not only am I not obeying the command to be filled with the spirit, I am not reciprocating the action. It's impossible to have just one person singing while everyone else does not and fulfill Eph 5:18,19.
The participle 'singing' is plural meaning all are to sing.

"speaking to yourselves" is reflexive where the subject does the action to himself, he sings to himself. It is reciprocal meaning the action of singing is exchanged among people. So one not only sings to himself but also to others within the time frame of the song being sung. The language makes ALL participants, NONE are observers. Again, the command is to sing NOT to sit and listen.

"Yourselves" is heautou not allelon.

Lk 2:15 " as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another (allelon)."

Allelon can give the idea one was speaking then another responded, each person speaking is a separate event.

Lk 23:28 "... but weep for yourselves (heautou)..."
Mt 3:9 "...And think not to say within yourselves (heautou).."

Heautou carries the idea of a collective action...not one weeps now and another weeps later and another weeps at some other time. Heautou in Eph 5:19 is collective in action...all sing collectively together, not one singing now, one singing later and another singing at some other time.
(Gene Frost)




1 Cor 14:26 you did not prove that this requires singing, it can be reading. You're making an assumption here so that argument fails for it is based upon an assumption. It is also assumed that the psalms were being sung/read solo. As stated before 1 Cor 14:26 would not contradict Eph 5:18,19 that requires each person to sing in order to obey the command to be filled with the spirit.


Silence does forbid. In instituting the Lord's Supper, Christ was silent about milk and peanuts, so does His silence in forbidding such actually include them? Hardly. The law of inclusion and exclusion is used throughout the bible. The logic behind this means God did not have to make long list of things HE did not want, that is, God did not have to specifically forbid everything He did not want, He could just include what He did want and that excludes everything else. Example God told Noah to use gopher wood. The inclusion of that specific wood also excluded all other types woods that was not gopher. God did not have to make a long lists of all the wood He did not want, but just name the one He did want and that automatically excludes all other types of wood. The idea that if God did not specifically forbid it means it is allowable is a horribly bad argument.

 

[SeaBass]

Your blind and the quote highlighted above DENIES and REJECTS the INSPIRATION of the PSALMS and calls GOD A LIAR as he STATES that ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED.......WOW...........!

I gave verses that provided some proof that God did not want IM used in worship in the OT and that IM was an aditon made by David that the prophet Amos condemns.

 

[SeaBass]

Die stupid thread die!!!

This thread, as far as I am concerned, is not really about singing or using IM, it is about if the bible is the sole and final authority one how one worships or is one humanistic in rejecting the bible's authority and devising his own way of worshipping God.

 

[SeaBass]

David worshiped God in Spirit and in Truth. He satisfied the spirit of the Law, which is the Law of Christ.
Did David ever sin? Yes, and was rebuked for it.
Was anyone ever rebuked for praising God through using instruments? Nope, quite the opposite.

More wrongly dividing the Word of Truth will not help your cause.

David did not worship God according to Christ's NT. Christians worship according to how the NT says to worship and not the OT. (And there is no certainty that David had authorization from God to use IM, Amos 6:1,5)
Christ took all the OT out of the way, Col 2:14; Eph 2:15 making it all inactive, ineffective. So one cannot find justification from the OT to use IM and Paul said it is sinful for a Christian to try and keep both Christ's NT and Moses law at the same time, Rom 7:1-6. Those that go back to the OT to find justification to use IM have an obligation to keep all of it, Gal 5:3.

 

[Sirk]

This thread, as far as I am concerned, is not really about singing or using IM, it is about if the bible is the sole and final authority one how one worships or is one humanistic in rejecting the bible's authority and devising his own way of worshipping God.

yup.....and I am not getting sucked back in to this conversation..... as I imagine it as a conversation among mental hospital patients at a table in the cafeteria as Jeopardy plays on the tv in the background.

 

[posthuman]

the passage from Amos is taken completely out of context.
if anything, it presents an argument against secular music and in favor of sacred music, because the Lord was wroth with these people for putting their trust in Samaria, rather than Him, and established by the counterexample of David, making music and instruments for themselves rather than for the Lord, as His anointed did, and the scriptures themselves.


mr. Bass, you're being deceived with heresy, and the next step you will take, as you are already about to, is to call David a blasphemer and reject the Psalms, the records of God's approval of worship in Chronicles, Kings and Samuel.

pray to God for His mercy, that He might open your eyes, so you would be turned, before you blaspheme Him as well!

 

[Jabberjaw]

yup.....and I am not getting sucked back in to this conversation..... as I imagine it as a conversation among mental hospital patients at a table in the cafeteria as Jeopardy plays on the tv in the background.

The thread will never go away, but you can....

 

[Sirk]

The thread will never go away, but you can....

Or....... I can derail the nonsense with nonsense that is at least humorous. I do have that option. I have at least one fan and that is all I need.

 

[notuptome]

The thread will never go away, but you can....

How do you hope to glorify God bickering over a non essential doctrine like this?

Music does not save. Only by grace can a man be saved and that apart from works so that the glory is of God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Jabberjaw]

How do you hope to glorify God bickering over a non essential doctrine like this?

Music does not save. Only by grace can a man be saved and that apart from works so that the glory is of God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

As Seabass said in post 968, this thread should be more about the question, is IM a form of worship pleasing to God or man.

Because someone thinks their own doctrine is correct therefore the thread can die now, should rather spend their time in another thread.

 

[posthuman]

As Seabass said in post 968, this thread should be more about the question, is IM a form of worship pleasing to God or man.

Because someone thinks their own doctrine is correct therefore the thread can die now, should rather spend their time in another thread.

if you two didn't keep insisting that the old testament isn't part of the Bible, the thread would have died a long time ago.
because as far as the scripture - the whole scripture - is concerned, instrumental music is blessed and approved by God, and in no place condemned when it is used for worship of Him.
guess we know which part is "teachings of men" eh?

 

[dcontroversal]

I gave verses that provided some proof that God did not want IM used in worship in the OT and that IM was an aditon made by David that the prophet Amos condemns.

Any scriptures you may have posted were out of context as God does not contradict himself....HE INSPIRED THE PSALMS and they INCLUDED INSTRUMENTS......so...your view is FLAWED!

 

[dcontroversal]

the passage from Amos is taken completely out of context.
if anything, it presents an argument against secular music and in favor of sacred music, because the Lord was wroth with these people for putting their trust in Samaria, rather than Him, and established by the counterexample of David, making music and instruments for themselves rather than for the Lord, as His anointed did, and the scriptures themselves.


mr. Bass, you're being deceived with heresy, and the next step you will take, as you are already about to, is to call David a blasphemer and reject the Psalms, the records of God's approval of worship in Chronicles, Kings and Samuel.

pray to God for His mercy, that He might open your eyes, so you would be turned, before you blaspheme Him as well!

He has already done this............He denies the inspiration of the Psalms and hence calls God a liar in doing so.....tells who he is from for sure!

 

[JesusLives]

Is a kazoo allowed? How about a washboard for a little rhythm?

 

[Sirk]

Is a kazoo allowed?

Blasphemy!