Music instruments in the church?

[reba]

any one else reading the 1 on 1 debate

 

[reba]

1 on 1 debates are interesting for understanding why's of some what some folks believe.. ..
They are read only, Billy and Stove have laid out the format nicely...for any one who might like to do the same..

 

[Free]

any one else reading the 1 on 1 debate

I hadn't looked at it until you posted the link. The non-instrumentalist position really misses the mark and moves into a literalistic interpretation that ultimately isn't in line with the rest of Scripture.

 

[Corn Pop]

I dont know the context but...

Psalm 150:3
Psalm 150:4
Psalm 98:4-6
2 Samuel 6:5

 

[Free]

I dont know the context but...

Psalm 150:3
Psalm 150:4
Psalm 98:4-6
2 Samuel 6:5

Exactly. We see instruments being used in worshipping God prior to the NT church and also in heaven, so it would be exceedingly strange and inconsistent to suddenly not allow them now.

 

[reba]

where is the NT order command whatever the label for lights in a church building or for heat ,,, carpet.. the kitchen pews,

 

[Tessa]

Not even a piano or organ??? How would we know the tune ? ☺

 

[Tessa]

Just read most of thread Reba. I was greatly impressed with how they both interacted. Great attitude towards each other.

 

[Corn Pop]

where is the NT order command whatever the label for lights in a church building or for heat ,,, carpet.. the kitchen pews,

They didnt have that technology in the stone age. If they had electric guitars and big amps they would have been pumping that worship music to the Most High. 2

.

 

[stovebolts]

I hadn't looked at it until you posted the link. The non-instrumentalist position really misses the mark and moves into a literalistic interpretation that ultimately isn't in line with the rest of Scripture.

The way me understand it, yes. But not everyone understands scripture the same. I think a point to remember is this. It may seem odd for many that some of us worship without musical instruments. But that doesn't mean it's wrong or that God doesn't accept it. It just means it's not what some have come to expect what worship should look like.

Regardless if one has instruments in worship, God looks at the heart, and the only criteria is that one worship in both Spirit and Truth.

 

[Corn Pop]

The way me understand it, yes. But not everyone understands scripture the same. I think a point to remember is this. It may seem odd for many that some of us worship without musical instruments. But that doesn't mean it's wrong or that God doesn't accept it. It just means it's not what some have come to expect what worship should look like.

Regardless if one has instruments in worship, God looks at the heart, and the only criteria is that one worship in both Spirit and Truth.

Everyone to there own instrument or no instrument I don't think it matters at all. Worship in Spirit and Truth is all, so be it with or without instruments is the individuals choice.

 

[Free]

The way me understand it, yes. But not everyone understands scripture the same. I think a point to remember is this. It may seem odd for many that some of us worship without musical instruments. But that doesn't mean it's wrong or that God doesn't accept it. It just means it's not what some have come to expect what worship should look like.

Regardless if one has instruments in worship, God looks at the heart, and the only criteria is that one worship in both Spirit and Truth.

I think you completely misunderstood my point. While I do find it a bit odd that people worship without instruments, that was not at all my point, never mind even remotely implying that it is wrong or unacceptable.

My point was only in relation to Scripture. We see instruments used in worship in the OT and instruments in worship in heaven (Rev. 5:8). Therefore, it is exceedingly strange to suggest that because the NT doesn’t mention the early church using instruments, that we are not supposed to use instruments (fallacious argument from silence). To state that we are not to use instruments is an unbiblical position.

 

[stovebolts]

I think you completely misunderstood my point. While I do find it a bit odd that people worship without instruments, that was not at all my point, never mind even remotely implying that it is wrong or unacceptable.

My point was only in relation to Scripture. We see instruments used in worship in the OT and instruments in worship in heaven (Rev. 5:8). Therefore, it is exceedingly strange to suggest that because the NT doesn’t mention the early church using instruments, that we are not supposed to use instruments (fallacious argument from silence). To state that we are not to use instruments is an unbiblical position.

Yeah yeah, I know. I was just saying, nothing wrong with not having instruments. Odd to some, but not wrong.
I think this is where we give some grace.... kinda like those who won't eat meat offered to idols. Know what I mean? We are known for our love for one another, not who's right or who is wrong.

 

[Free]

Yeah yeah, I know. I was just saying, nothing wrong with not having instruments. Odd to some, but not wrong.
I think this is where we give some grace.... kinda like those who won't eat meat offered to idols. Know what I mean? We are known for our love for one another, not who's right or who is wrong.

Right but that still doesn’t address my point.

 

[stovebolts]

Right but that still doesn’t address my point.

Sure, I agree. My thrust in the d3bate isn't to prove my opponent wrong. It's to present both of our views, and remain united in our differences because we both love God. That, in my view is more important than winning an argument.

 

[Free]

Sure, I agree. My thrust in the d3bate isn't to prove my opponent wrong. It's to present both of our views, and remain united in our differences because we both love God. That, in my view is more important than winning an argument.

Those are not mutually exclusive. One can and should try to prove their position to be biblical, thereby showing the other is unbiblical, yet do so in a way that still maintains unity. The point of debate is to win the argument, is it not?

Both of the positions presented cannot be biblical; one might be biblical but not both. What is the point to merely present two different views and then pat each other on the back?

 

[Willie T]

where is the NT order command whatever the label for lights in a church building or for heat ,,, carpet.. the kitchen pews,

I believe the term we used in the CoC for an excuse to get around those things (and a hundred more) is "necessary inference." It's pretty much the same phoniness the Jews use to make whatever they want to be "OK."

 

[stovebolts]

Those are not mutually exclusive. One can and should try to prove their position to be biblical, thereby showing the other is unbiblical, yet do so in a way that still maintains unity. The point of debate is to win the argument, is it not?

Both of the positions presented cannot be biblical; one might be biblical but not both. What is the point to merely present two different views and then pat each other on the back?

I understand, and I think I've done a good job showing from scripture my position.
I guess what I'm trying to say is this. I never set out to win. I set out to give my uderstanding. It is up to the individual reader to make their own conclusions.

Billy has had the same opportunity and has done well. I guess my point is this...I can disagree on his point, but I can't say it's unbiblical to not use instruments.

I respect Billy, and value our brotherhood more than pride in winning an argument. He is a dear Brother to me.

 

[Corn Pop]

If people worshipped using Instruments in scripture and nothing was said against it, and people worshipped without instruments and nothing was said against it, then the conclusion is either way is acceptable to the Lord. I really don't think God cares, I think he just wants fellowship and for people to believe in the one he sent.

 

[WIP]

Those are not mutually exclusive. One can and should try to prove their position to be biblical, thereby showing the other is unbiblical, yet do so in a way that still maintains unity. The point of debate is to win the argument, is it not?

Both of the positions presented cannot be biblical; one might be biblical but not both. What is the point to merely present two different views and then pat each other on the back?

I'm reminded of Acts 25:13 - 26:32 when Paul went before King Agrippa to defend himself. Paul did not set out to win any argument. All he did was present the truth by telling about what happened to him and let the chips fall where they may.